4 ms·
My understanding is that quantization does come from the Schrodinger equation. Specifically, it comes from solving the wave equation given the boundary conditi
by aeternum 6y ago
My understanding is that quantization does come from the Schrodinger equation.
Specifically, it comes from solving the wave equation given the boundary conditions, and those boundary conditions are fixed by the constraint that the square of the wave function (the probability of finding a particle somewhere = 1.
- jiggawatts 6y agoYes, that's the "particles in a box" model, such as the famous black-body experiment that involved light bouncing around inside a container with a tiny hole in the side for taking measurements of the glow inside. Similarly, atoms can be thought of as a "spherical box", the boundary in this case is a full revolution around the potential well. The thing is: Not everything is a box, hence the abstract model that uses photons as a shorthand for the behaviour of the EM field in a box isn't fully general, and simply doesn't apply outside of those scenarios. That doesn't stop the vast majority of people talking about photons (and bosonic particles in general) as if they're individually countable things zipping around in free space. Neutrons can be counted like this. Photons can't.
- aeternum 6y agoInteresting, thanks for explaining
- pdonis 6y ago> Neutrons can be counted like this. Photons can't. Yes, they can. There are detectors that detect individual, free photons, just as there are detectors that detect individual, free neutrons. There are many, many experiments that have been done using them.
- jiggawatts 6y agoThe detectors themselves introduce the quantisation. If you think you can disentangle the QM properties of the detector from the QM properties of the thing being detected, please write a paper explaining how and collect your well-deserved Nobel prize.
- EmreCe 6y agoSo neutrons aren't countable ? one detects them (for counting purposes) with the combination of nuclear forces and EM anyway. Don't get me wrong I am probably missing the point of the discussion.
- pdonis 6y ago> The detectors themselves introduce the quantisation. Which, if you are going to take this position, applies just as much to neutrons as to photons. The only evidence we have for either of those being "particles" is such detections. So either you should withdraw your claim that neutrons are particles, or you should admit that photons are. You can't pick and choose.
- c1ccccc1 6y agoWhat's the relevant difference, that neutrons have mass? If one can make squeezed light, why aren't squeezed neutrons possible in too, at least in principle?
- millstone 6y agoNeutrons are fermions, and are subject to the Pauli Exclusion Principle. Photons are bosons, and so are not. Composite fermion systems may act as bosons and be "squeezed." Bose-Einstein condensates are an example of this.
- c1ccccc1 6y agoOkay, that makes sense. (I really should have remembered that.) Thank you!