13
$\begingroup$

How do matter waves not transport mass? I know that matter waves are associated with moving sub-atomic particles(which is insignificant for macroscopic particles). If a wave is associated with a moving particle, then how can this kind of wave not involve transport of mass? As detailed in this paragraph written by Glenn Elert in his Physics Hypertextbook:

"The nature of the waves associated with elementary entities are probability waves — unitless numbers, numerical ratios. They tell you the probability of finding a particular particle at a particular place and time and nothing else. They do not measure the value of any physical quantity. The waves themselves carry no mass, no charge, no energy, no momentum, no angular momentum, no information of any sort other than the likelihood of existence. In essence, they carry information only. Nothing else."

I am really confused, any help is greatly appreciated.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Matter wave will transport matter along with it. All the entire matter of what wave is made of will be transported. And Matter is mass. So, who said it cannot transfer mass? $\endgroup$ – Anubhav Goel Apr 23 '16 at 3:17
  • $\begingroup$ @AnubhavGoel physics.info/debroglie . This in parapgraph "The nature of the waves associated with elementary entities are probability waves — unitless numbers, numerical ratios. They tell you the probability of finding a particular particle at a particular place and time and nothing else. They do not measure the value of any physical quantity. The waves themselves carry no mass, no charge, no energy, no momentum, no angular momentum, no information of any sort other than the likelihood of existence. In essence, they carry information only. Nothing else." $\endgroup$ – JM97 Apr 23 '16 at 3:21
  • $\begingroup$ Related: quora.com/… $\endgroup$ – Anubhav Goel Apr 23 '16 at 4:33
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Standing waves also carry no net energy. $\endgroup$ – Anubhav Goel Apr 23 '16 at 4:57
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ There are no such things as matter waves. That's the dead and buried terminology of WW I era physics. Today we are talking about quantum fields, which are perfectly smooth objects that interact trough quanta, which, as the name implies, are not particles. Of course even classical waves can transport mass. The sun loses approx. 1.5 million tons of mass every second trough ordinary light waves. $\endgroup$ – CuriousOne Apr 23 '16 at 5:51
8
$\begingroup$

One must distinguish the underlying quantum mechanical framework from the emergent classical mechanics and electrodynamics framework when discussing waves.

In classical mechanics wave equations are solutions of differential equations which depend on the $(x,y,z,t)$ variables of massive ideal particles which are derivable from differential equations . These equations are called wave equations from the everyday terminology which first arose from water waves, and water waves can be described by a differential equation, called a wave equation. The solutions are sinusoidal functions which fit the waves in $(x,y,z,t)$ . Energy is transported by these waves, but there is not much mass motion. Classical electromagnetic waves also transport energy.

The confusion comes from the de Broglie interpretation which is applicable to the quantum mechanical level of elementary particles, atoms , molecules ... The de Broglie wavelength:

$$\lambda = \frac{h}{p}$$

This labeling as "matter waves" is what causes the confusion and should not really be used. The diffraction experiments with electrons show an associated wave interference pattern with the deposition of electrons on screens ( and measuring instruments) , and the de Broglie wavelength which depends on the momentum is verified by experiment. BUT the wave differential equation which describes accurately the behavior of the electrons is a second order differential equations which only predicts probabilities, according to the postulates of quantum mechanics.

So it is not that the electron is spread out all over the available phase-space space. It is the probability of the electron to be found at $(x,y,z,t)$ that controls the diffraction patterns of the experiment.

doubleslitelec

Electron buildup over time

One always measures a whole electron, in any experiment, not fractions of it. Each dot is one whole electron in this single electron double slit experiment. It is the probability of finding it that is "waving" and generating the interference pattern. The end result looks like a matter wave, but it is a bad terminology, because no matter is waving.

Edit incorporating part of comments:

From matter transport the question in comments became of whether a quantum mechanical particle has a specific reality, trajectory.

Obviously classical trajectories exist otherwise bullets would not be sure to find the target. Mathematical functions of classical mechanics describe classical trajectories with great accuracy, macroscopically , i.e at dimension where the Heisenberg uncertainty principle is automatically fulfilled because of the large numbers involved. The HUP is in a way a mnemonic of quantum mechanical behavior, because it is the direct result of the existence of non zero commutator relations which are at the basis of quantum mechanical theory. The HUP gives an envelope in the two non commuting variables, for example momentum and position, which are relevant for trajectories, where the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics dominates and any particular boundary problem solutions will have to be bounded by.

To understand the difference between basic uncertainty and experimental error, take this example: the line drawn by a compass and a lead pencil, which with mathematics we idealize as a perfect circular trajectory. This is not true "experimentally" as a microscope would show all the little bits of lead dispersed by the pencil . This is due to the experimental construct of the pencil and has an experimental error sigma(x). Since we are talking of a mathematical function we are free to imagine the in reality the circle is perfect on as small errors as one can make. This holds true for the mathematical functions of classical mechanics.

What happens at the quantum mechanical level, when $\hbar$ becomes commensurable with the variables measured, the uncertainty is inherent to the way that nature behaves,

electron in bubblechamber

The bubble chamber picture of an electron is a good example. It is curving in a helix in a magnetic field, and the little dots that make up the track are small interactions with the hydrogen atoms, tiny dots of kicked off electrons ionizing even more atoms and making up the dots. The continuous energy loss reduces the radius of the theoretical spiral to the effect seen. This is the macroscopic picture and we call it the trajectory of the electron. We have found out that one cannot go to a microscopic detection that will give a specific trajectory within the HUP volume, the electron is within a fuzzy circle, which is the probability of finding the electron within the circle, the non-zero-probability-of-interaction circle. Thus there are no trajectories in the quantum mechanical frame, just loci of probability for an interaction of the particle under examination.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat. $\endgroup$ – David Z Apr 24 '16 at 15:21
3
$\begingroup$

The waves, the particles are associated with, are purely of mathematical construct.

The wave or more formally the wavefunction assigns probability amplitude at each spatial coordinate at a specific time; the square of which gives the probability of finding the particle at that coordinate at that specific time.

These waves don't transport energy, charge or mass.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat. $\endgroup$ – David Z Apr 23 '16 at 17:55
1
$\begingroup$

A wave has the property of periodical energy transfer without matter transportation.

For clarification. A falling into water stone makes the water oscillating up and down. Due to dissipative processes a pure up and down oscillation instantaneous over goes to a moving away from the impact point in all direction up and down oscillation. On the boundary between water and air we can see such oscillations. And again, from the movement of the maxima of the oscillations away from the impact point one can't conclude, that matter transfer takes place. A piece of wood will follow the oscillation up and down, but it will not move away from the impact point.

How about electromagnetic waves? EM waves are EM radiation from an emitter, such as an antenna rod. The most of EM radiation ist from thermal sources and does not show any periodicity. EM radiation from thermal sources are not EM waves. In both cases - chaotic EM radiation and oscillation radio waves - there is a transportation of energy from the emitter to the receiver.

Since physics is calibrated on the massless of photons in vacuum, you can't say that there is a mass transfer. You can say only, that there is a momentum transfer. In the case, you expose a body with photons, the body gains energy and due to Einstein its mass increases. Radiating itself, the body loses mass. But the radiation is massless, isn't it?

$\endgroup$

protected by Qmechanic Apr 23 '16 at 8:19

Thank you for your interest in this question. Because it has attracted low-quality or spam answers that had to be removed, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site (the association bonus does not count).

Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.