The operations of many detection devices are usually explained in terms of the ionization tracks produced by classical charged particles. A wave-mechanical analysis does not seem to be available. Mott [Proc. R. Soc. London Ser. A 126, 79 (1929)] has shown that an incident \ensuremath{\alpha} wave emitted by a radioactive nucleus would be scattered by atoms primarily in directions almost forward. However, these scattered waves would appear over the entire sensitive region of the detector. The mechanism that produces a collapse of the wave function to a single track is analyzed here. The incident \ensuremath{\alpha} wave is written as a superposition of minimum-sized packets. Since it is linear, the Schr\"odinger equation for the system including an observer can be solved for each packet individually. After the minimum packets interact with the electrons in the detector, they cannot be recombined to form a plane wave. However, they can be combined in groups to form larger coherent packets interacting with the detector to form tracks. The size and shape of each coherent packet is determined by the properties of the medium that is ionized to produce its track. The track from each packet is seen by the observer and is associated with a state of his memory, recording only one track. Each such packet replaces the particle in the usual explanation. These are the packets required to predict the quantum jumps seen in the scattering of laser light from an isolated atom as I have discussed [Phys. Rev. A 45, 4925 (1992)]. The relation of the probability distribution of these tracks to the wave function is explained.
The operations of many detection devices are usually explained in terms of the ionization tracks produced by classical charged particles. A wave-mechanical analysis does not seem to be available. Mott [Proc. R. Soc. London Ser. A 126, 79 (1929)] has shown that an incident \ensuremath{\alpha} wave emitted by a radioactive nucleus would be scattered by atoms primarily in directions almost forward. However, these scattered waves would appear over the entire sensitive region of the detector. The mechanism that produces a collapse of the wave function to a single track is analyzed here. The incident \ensuremath{\alpha} wave is written as a superposition of minimum-sized packets. Since it is linear, the Schr"odinger equation for the system including an observer can be solved for each packet individually. After the minimum packets interact with the electrons in the detector, they cannot be recombined to form a plane wave. However, they can be combined in groups to form larger coherent packets interacting with the detector to form tracks. The size and shape of each coherent packet is determined by the properties of the medium that is ionized to produce its track. The track from each packet is seen by the observer and is associated with a state of his memory, recording only one track. Each such packet replaces the particle in the usual explanation. These are the packets required to predict the quantum jumps seen in the scattering of laser light from an isolated atom as I have discussed [Phys. Rev. A 45, 4925 (1992)]. The relation of the probability distribution of these tracks to the wave function is explained.
Abstract The present note is suggested by a recent paper by Prof. Darwin,* and is intended to show how one of the most typically particle-like properties of matter can be derived from the wave mechanics. In the theory of radioactive disintegration, as presented by Gamow, the ∝-particle is represented by a spherical wave which slowly leaks out of the nucleus. On the other hand, the ∝-particle, once emerged, has particle-like properties, the most striking being the ray tracks that it forms in a Wilson cloud chamber. It is a little difficult to picture how it is that an outgoing spherical wave can produce a straight track ; we think intuitively that it should ionise atoms at random throughout space. We could consider that Gamow’s outgoing spherical wave should give the probability of disintegration, but that, when the particle is outside the nucleus, it should be represented by a wave packet moving in a definite direction, so as to produce a straight track. But it ought not to be necessary to do this. The wave mechanics unaided ought to be able to predict the possible results of any observation that we could make on a system, without invoking, until the moment at which the observation is made, the classical particle-like properties of the electrons or α-particles forming that system. If we consider the ∝-ray alone as the system under consideration, then the gas of the Wilson chamber must be considered as the means by which we observe the particle ; so in this case we must consider the ∝-ray as α-particle as soon as it is outside the nucleus, because that is the moment at which the observation is made. If, however, we consider the α-particle and the gas together as one system, then it is ionised atoms that we observe ; interpreting the wave function should give us simply the probability that such and such an atom is ionised. Until this final interpretation is made, no mention should be made of the ∝-ray being a particle at all. The difficulty that we have in picturing how it is that a spherical wave can produce a straight track arises from our tendency to picture the wave as existing in ordinary three dimensional space, whereas we are really dealing with wave functions in the multispace formed by the co-ordinates both of the α-particle and of every atom in the Wilson chamber.
It has already been noted (section 2.8) that high frequency electromagnetic radiation can exhibit particle-like behaviour. For example, in the sensitive type of detector known as a photomultiplier tube (described in Wehr and Richards, Physics of the Atom , 2nd edn, Addison-Wesley, section 10.5), a beam of low-intensity X-rays is detected as a sequence of isolated sharp pulses, such as would be produced by a stream of particles arriving at the detector. As was pointed out, it is not surprising that it is usually high-frequency radiation which travels in particle form; as shown in figure 2.39, a wave group of high-frequency radiation can be compressed into a very short time span. However, when we speak of a particle, we mean something more than an entity which arrives in a short time span. A particle has a definite size, or more exactly it has a well-defined energy and momentum. It was discovered around about 1900 that the same is true of an X-ray wave packet: all packets of a given frequency radiation carry the same energy and momentum. This revolutionary discovery means that we must treat the wave packets as particles on exactly the same footing as more familiar particles such as electrons. The electromagnetic particle is called a photon . There is a wealth of experimental evidence which may be used to define the properties of a photon. We shall be highly selective, however, and simply present two particularly clear-cut experiments, the photoelectric effect and Compton scattering, which enable one to define the energy and momentum of the photon in terms of the frequency and wave number of the corresponding wave. These experiments will be described in detail in section 4.1.
The interaction of a quantum particle with a gaseous detector is studied in the quantum-mechanical state space of the particle-detector system by means of a simple stationary scattering 3D model. The particle is assumed to interact with [Formula: see text] two-level point-like scatterers depicting the atoms of the detector. Due to the contact interaction, the particle scatters off the atoms in isotropic spherical waves. Remarkably, the Lippmann–Schwinger equation of this multiple scattering problem can be exactly solved in a nonperturbative way. The aim is to analyze the influence of the initial microstate of the detector on the observed outcome, and to understand the mechanism of track formation in gaseous detectors. It is shown that the differential cross-section of excitation must be large enough in the forward direction to get the formation of tracks. In addition, the relatively small influence of atomic positions is highlighted. These results are explained through a perturbative calculation.
Quantum mechanics is a theory to explain and predict the behavior of particles such as electrons, protons, neutrons, atomic nuclei, atoms, and molecules, as well as the photon–the particle associated with electromagnetic radiation or light. From quantum theory we obtain the laws of chemistry as well as explanations for the properties of materials, such as crystals, semiconductors, superconductors, and superfluids. Applications of quantum behavior give us transistors, computer chips, lasers, and masers. The relatively new field of molecular biology, which leads to our better understanding of biological structures and life processes, derives from quantum considerations. Thus, quantum behavior encompasses a large fraction of modern science and technology. Quantum theory was developed during the first half of the twentieth century through the efforts of many scientists. In 1926, E. Schrödinger interjected wave mechanics into the array of ideas, equations, explanations, and theories that were prevalent at the time to explain the growing accumulation of observations of quantum phenomena. His theory introduced the wave function and the differential wave equation that it obeys. Schrödinger's wave mechanics is now the backbone of our current conceptional understanding and our mathematical procedures for the study of quantum phenomena. Our presentation of the basic principles of quantum mechanics is contained in the first three chapters. Chapter 1 begins with a treatment of plane waves and wave packets, which serves as background material for the subsequent discussion of the wave function for a free particle.
Born's statistical interpretation of quantum mechanics transformed the wave function from a dynamical object into a quantity whose squared modulus determines the probability distribution of measurement outcomes. Since the formulation of the Born rule in 1926, the relation between a continuously evolving quantum state and discrete detection events has remained one of the central conceptual questions of quantum theory. This paper proposes a physical reconsideration of that relation. Rather than treating the appearance of a localized detection event as an immediate consequence of wave-function collapse, we distinguish two physically different stages: continuous wave-packet propagation and discrete detector readout. In the first stage, a localized wave packet evolves through an interaction potential and undergoes phase reconstruction, deflection, focusing, or redistribution. In the second stage, the continuously distributed wave amplitude interacts locally with microscopic detector degrees of freedom, producing discrete detection events. The central hypothesis explored here is that the experimentally observed distribution of individual events may arise from a local detector-response functional acting on the incident wave amplitude. In an appropriate regime, a detector response of the form R(x)∝∣ψ(x)∣2could emerge from the microscopic interaction between the wave packet and the detector, rather than being imposed as a primitive probabilistic postulate. The paper does not claim a completed derivation of Born's rule. Instead, it identifies the physical assumptions that such a derivation would require, relates them to historical electron-scattering experiments, and formulates a concrete research program for deriving the observed quadratic detection law from wave amplitude, energy transfer, phase structure, and microscopic detector dynamics.
The measurement problem of quantum mechanics concerns the question as to under which circumstances coherent wave evolution becomes disrupted to produce eigenstates of observables, instead of evolving superpositions of eigenstates. The problem already needs to be addressed within wave mechanics, before second quantization, because low-energy interactions can be dominated by particle-preserving potential interactions. We discuss a scattering array of harmonic oscillators, which can detect particles penetrating the array through interaction with a short-range potential. Evolution of the wave function of scattered particles, combined with Heisenberg’s assertion that quantum jumps persist in wave mechanics, indicates that the wave function will collapse around single oscillator sites if the scattering is inelastic, while it will not collapse around single sites for elastic scattering. The Born rule for position observation is then equivalent to the statement that the wave function for inelastic scattering amounts to an epistemic superposition of possible scattering states, in the sense that it describes a sum of probability amplitudes for inelastic scattering off different scattering centers, whereas, at most, one inelastic scattering event can happen at any moment in time. Within this epistemic interpretation of the wave function, the actual underlying inelastic scattering event corresponds to a quantum jump, whereas the continuously evolving wave function only describes the continuous evolution of probability amplitudes for scattering off different sites. Quantum jumps then yield definite position observations, as defined by the spatial resolution of the oscillator array.