Schrodinger equation and a half wave?

[Butch]

16 hours ago, studiot said:

 

No I did not say they interfere, which is a wave phenomenon.

The slope of a river bed affects the running of the river, it does not interfere with it.

 

Asking questions is good, but please take notice of the answers.

Wouldn't the charged electrons in the double slit experiment interfer simply because they are moving charged particles?

[Strange]

10 minutes ago, Butch said:

Wouldn't the charged electrons in the double slit experiment interfer simply because they are moving charged particles?

Why would charge be relevant?

And we get the same behaviour with uncharged particles.

[Butch]

What are some of the ways that velocity of an electron violate quantum mechanics?

[swansont]

The salient point is the wave function, which has nothing to do with the particles being charged.

Just now, Butch said:

What are some of the ways that velocity of an electron violate quantum mechanics?

It's not the velocity, per se, it's having a trajectory in a bound system. If it has a trajectory, thus an actual orbit, then it must accelerate. Accelerating charges radiate and thus lose energy. But electrons in atoms do not radiate.

You would also have angular momentum from the orbit, and the ground state of Hydrogen has no orbital angular momentum.

[Butch]

6 minutes ago, swansont said:

The salient point is the wave function, which has nothing to do with the particles being charged.

It's not the velocity, per se, it's having a trajectory in a bound system. If it has a trajectory, thus an actual orbit, then it must accelerate. Accelerating charges radiate and thus lose energy. But electrons in atoms do not radiate.

Thank you!

7 minutes ago, Strange said:

Why would charge be relevant?

And we get the same behaviour with uncharged particles.

Because charged particles produce an electromagnetic wave.

Can you provide an example?

Is it possible that an electron with trajectory could exchange energy with another entity in the system?

13 minutes ago, swansont said:

You would also have angular momentum from the orbit, and the ground state of Hydrogen has no orbital angular momentum.

I guess we cross posted, I will need to give this point some thought...

Edited February 21, 2018 by Butch

[Strange]

11 minutes ago, Butch said:

Because charged particles produce an electromagnetic wave.

Only if accelerated. And the waves they create would interfere, not the particles.

12 minutes ago, Butch said:

Can you provide an example?

Photons.

Buckyballs (http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/1999/oct/15/wave-particle-duality-seen-in-carbon-60-molecules)

[Butch]

15 minutes ago, Strange said:

Only if accelerated. And the waves they create would interfere, not the particles.

Photons.

Buckyballs (http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/1999/oct/15/wave-particle-duality-seen-in-carbon-60-molecules)

Yes, I am familiar with the photon experiment... I think that light having a particle nature is more remarkable than charged particles having a wave nature.

I thought perhaps an example of uncharged particles in the double slit experiment, does such an example exist?

Ionized molecules are charged.

A very interesting article! It will be very interesting to find a threshold.

Edited February 21, 2018 by Butch

[studiot]

24 minutes ago, Butch said:

I will need to give this point some thought...

 

While you are thinking please re read very very carefully what swansont told you.

 

The point to note is that he was including the environment in the quantum answer about the electron.

 

29 minutes ago, swansont said:

it's having a trajectory in a bound system

 

 

 

[swansont]

6 minutes ago, Butch said:

Yes, I am familiar with the photon experiment... I think that light having a particle nature is more remarkable than charged particles having a wave nature.

I thought perhaps an example of uncharged particles in the double slit experiment, does such an example exist?

Neutrons and neutral atoms have shown interference.  

neutrons:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_interferometer

 

Atom interferometers are so varied and established that you can get commercial products

https://phys.org/news/2016-11-image-commercially-atom-interferometer.html

 

[Butch]

3 minutes ago, studiot said:

 

While you are thinking please re read very very carefully what swansont told you.

 

The point to note is that he was including the environment in the quantum answer about the electron.

 

 

 

 

Yes, I get that, still energies could be traded and conserved.

2 minutes ago, swansont said:

Neutrons and neutral atoms have shown interference.  

neutrons:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_interferometer

 

Atom interferometers are so varied and established that you can get commercial products

https://phys.org/news/2016-11-image-commercially-atom-interferometer.html

 

Thank you.

[Strange]

48 minutes ago, Butch said:

I think that light having a particle nature is more remarkable than charged particles having a wave nature.

It is the same thing.

 

[swansont]

2 hours ago, Butch said:

Yes, I get that, still energies could be traded and conserved.

Conserved, yes. Traded? Between what systems? You have an atom. The ground state energy is fixed, and can't go any lower. There nothing to trade and nothing to trade it with. The atom can be excited if an outside perturbation adds energy.

[Butch]

3 hours ago, Strange said:

Only if accelerated. And the waves they create would interfere, not the particles.

I am not the expert here, however I believe an electron in motion relative to another body would influence that body via a magnetic field... 

2 hours ago, Strange said:

It is the same thing.

 

Except that classical science once thought of the photon as a wave and the electron as a particle... Perhaps the Buddhists were the first to get it right, "Everything is connected".

1 hour ago, swansont said:

Conserved, yes. Traded? Between what systems? You have an atom. The ground state energy is fixed, and can't go any lower. There nothing to trade and nothing to trade it with. The atom can be excited if an outside perturbation adds energy.

Not traded between systems (although that certainly occurs), rather traded between entities within a system such as an atom. I don't have an answer yet( significantly so for 1H... And not complete for 2H) but such a phenomena could explain some of the "magic"* of quanta.

*1 "Any sufficiently advanced technology is completely indistinguishable from magic."

You all have helped me a great deal with my understanding of QM and Schroedinger. Thank you so much... I really could not have done it alone.

[Strange]

14 minutes ago, Butch said:

Except that classical science once thought of the photon as a wave and the electron as a particle...

But we are not talking about classical physics

[Butch]

24 minutes ago, Strange said:

But we are not talking about classical physics

I am simply saying that light having a particle nature was a surprising discovery, while a charged particle having a wave nature should not be so surprising.

^{https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron#Structure_and_geometry_of_charge_distribution}

^{This is something I unwittingly stated as being the case in another topic, just fishing for some commentary.}

The following is a excert from the link.

An article published in 2007 featuring a model-independent analysis concluded that the neutron has a negatively charged exterior, a positively charged middle, and a negative core.^[66] In a simplified classical view, the negative "skin" of the neutron assists it to be attracted to the protons with which it interacts in the nucleus. (However, the main attraction between neutrons and protons is via the nuclear force, which does not involve charge.)

The simplified classical view of the neutron's charge distribution also "explains" the fact that the neutron magnetic dipole points in the opposite direction from its spin angular momentum vector (as compared to the proton). This gives the neutron, in effect, a magnetic moment which resembles a negatively charged particle. This can be reconciled classically with a neutral neutron composed of a charge distribution in which the negative sub-parts of the neutron have a larger average radius of distribution, and therefore contribute more to the particle's magnetic dipole moment, than do the positive parts that are, on average, nearer the core. 

Edited February 21, 2018 by Butch

[swansont]

2 hours ago, Butch said:

I am not the expert here, however I believe an electron in motion relative to another body would influence that body via a magnetic field... 

That's not EM radiation.

2 hours ago, Butch said:

 

Not traded between systems (although that certainly occurs), rather traded between entities within a system such as an atom. I don't have an answer yet( significantly so for 1H... And not complete for 2H) but such a phenomena could explain some of the "magic"* of quanta.

You have an electron and a proton. That's your system. What is it trading energy with?

1 hour ago, Butch said:

I am simply saying that light having a particle nature was a surprising discovery, while a charged particle having a wave nature should not be so surprising.

^{https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron#Structure_and_geometry_of_charge_distribution}

^{This is something I unwittingly stated as being the case in another topic, just fishing for some commentary.}

The following is a excert from the link.

An article published in 2007 featuring a model-independent analysis concluded that the neutron has a negatively charged exterior, a positively charged middle, and a negative core.^[66] In a simplified classical view, the negative "skin" of the neutron assists it to be attracted to the protons with which it interacts in the nucleus. (However, the main attraction between neutrons and protons is via the nuclear force, which does not involve charge.)

The simplified classical view of the neutron's charge distribution also "explains" the fact that the neutron magnetic dipole points in the opposite direction from its spin angular momentum vector (as compared to the proton). This gives the neutron, in effect, a magnetic moment which resembles a negatively charged particle. This can be reconciled classically with a neutral neutron composed of a charge distribution in which the negative sub-parts of the neutron have a larger average radius of distribution, and therefore contribute more to the particle's magnetic dipole moment, than do the positive parts that are, on average, nearer the core. 

What does that have to do with the wave nature of particles?

[Butch]

17 hours ago, swansont said:

You have an electron and a proton. That's your system. What is it trading energy with?

In the case of 1H, I have no idea, as far as 2H, I have an idea that is incomplete. 

Why do I even mention it? Mentioning things like this has brought me a great deal of understanding through your responses.

17 hours ago, swansont said:

That's not EM radiation.

Perhaps not, but it is for another topic I suppose... Thanks again.

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Butch said:

In the case of 1H, I have no idea, as far as 2H, I have an idea that is incomplete. 

Doesn't matter. The steady-state solutions will be eigenstates, with a fixed energy.