4 ms·
> the probability should be proportional to the square of the area, shoudn't it? No.
by titanomachy 10y ago
> the probability should be proportional to the square of the area, shoudn't it?
No.
- grondilu 10y agoWhat's wrong with the reasoning, then? Isn't the probability amplitude proportional to the area?
- analognoise 10y agoIt's proportional to the area, which is already a term encompassing length^2.
- grondilu 10y agoIf the probability amplitude is proportional to the area, it doesn't matter if that term already encompasses a length² term. QM tells you then that the probability should be proportional to the square of that amplitude, even if that means it would encompass a length^4 term.
- candiodari 10y agoAnd if we change to "proportional to the area of the lens, not the sensor" ?