2

Suppose one has a flux of electrons with speed up to 10 m/sec (remark: the speed is not known exactly). The flux which can be modeled as a plane wave (or a semispherical) falls on a net of small openings of the order of 100 nm. The uncertainty of momentum according to Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle HUP is about 70 km/sec. So many of these electrons will have speed above 10 km/sec. What happens here? One can even gain Energy?

Qmechanic
  • 201,751
Mercury
  • 601

3 Answers3

1

What does the HUP mean? It means that in all our experiments in the microcosm of particles, whether creating a beam or sending a beam through definite slits, there is the HUP uncertainty of position versus momentum.

So your beam of electrons already has a HUP uncertainty. They gained this extra momentum to your intended beam momentum while being created into a beam of electrons, the energy provided by the accelerating system.

the order of 100 nm. The uncertainty of momentum according to Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle HUP is about 70 km/sec.

The uncertainty of momentum that can pass the slit system is a filter to the momenta provided by the beam. If the HUP of the beam contains these momenta then some electrons will go through, otherwise no double slit pattern will appear.

anna v
  • 233,453
  • Ah this makes a lot of sense! Do you think my answer is wrong then? – Andrea Sep 25 '21 at 15:02
  • @Andrea I think this is wrong "This energy is obtained by kicking the wall." .Momentum can be exchanged with the sides but energy can only be carried by the electron itself, as the slits are passive, – anna v Sep 25 '21 at 15:24
  • HUP says that when an electron goes through the slit (100 nm) independent of its initial momentum after leaving the slit it can have speed bet. 0 and 70 m/s. So when it has big speed it may loose it and if the speed is low it will probably get a greater speed. I don't see where is said that an electron has to have speed 70 km/s to get out with 70 km/s. If so there is no uncertainty at all but mere certainty-What comes in same goes out. I wonder why it was not discussed by the fathers of QM? Why is not in textbooks. I study QM long ago but I didn't read about. I didn't notice it so far too! – Mercury Sep 25 '21 at 20:59
  • I explained Andrea why electrons can not get E from the walls. They will get all the E of the walls and than there would be no HUP. HUP means whatever p the incoming electron has in must leave the slit with 0-70 km/s at least independent of the T of the slit. – Mercury Sep 25 '21 at 21:22
  • @no, the HUP is a probability envelope that correlates space and momentum, and is in the theory tied up with the commutators https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle#Matrix_mechanics_interpretation . The beam of electrons has an inherent spread in the momenta, if the momenta of the beam are within HUP for the geometry of the slits (wavelengths are crucial ) some will have a probability to pass, if not , none will pass. – anna v Sep 26 '21 at 03:59
  • Let be concrete. According to your vision if an electron has say 69 km/s and its wavelength is too long for a slit of 100 nm it will not pass at all? Because if it pass it has to have according HUP a spread of 0-70km/s at least and it can not have as 69 would be its maximum. In the Hyugence principle which holds also for the wavefunction each point in the opening is a source and obviously there is WF behind the slit independently of its wavelength. So I can not agree that a particle with v< 70 km/s will not make after the slit and that it has to have p [0-69] because this brakes HUP. – Mercury Sep 26 '21 at 16:30
  • According to to the statement that sources have a inherent spread of p: 1. One can take a source of great length and has very narrow dp. 2. all atoms are very small but they do not emanate photons and electrons of great spread of p in a particular direction. – Mercury Sep 26 '21 at 16:40
  • @Mercury when thinking of momentum and x dimension do not forget that energy conservation is also a law, and limits the possible momentum values both at high and low tails for the wavepacket of electron – anna v Sep 26 '21 at 17:19
  • @annav I hope HUP and E Conservation apply and am very surprised I can not figure out how this works. I thought the electron takes/gives E from the walls in order HUP to apply, but I can not figure out what follows when the slit reaches abs.0. By the way the wave explanation of HUP also implies high absolute values for momentum. If one applies Fourier for a wave in a slit one gets high absolute values for p independent of the wavelength of the incoming wave, right? RogerVadim suggests that the mean E is conserved. E.g. in 10 000 e 99% loose E and one gets but I also can not accept it. – Mercury Sep 27 '21 at 07:26
  • sorry, I do not know what you are talking about. the conservation of energy law holds for each indivitual interaction vertex in QFT, so it holds collectively too, no matter handwaving discussions. – anna v Sep 27 '21 at 07:31
  • Just read his answer. He refered to the Eherenfest theorem. I am more inclined to accept my2cts answer that p is not conserved but only E. – Mercury Sep 27 '21 at 09:52
  • 1
    No energy is exchanged between the slit system and the electron. Diffraction is an elastic process that conserves absolute value of the electron momentum. – my2cts Sep 27 '21 at 19:26
  • Well but HUP says that the momentum after the slit can be huge (e.g.70km/s) no matter what the initial momentum is (10 m/s)? Is that so or not? That is the question! If this happens how about elastic scattering? – Mercury Sep 28 '21 at 14:53
0

Single slit experiment
Most of quantum mechanics in a double slut experiment actually happens at the level of a single slit - the two of them serving only to get a pretty interference picture. Let us therefore consider what happens when a beam or a stream of electrons are directed at a single slit.

A beam of classical electrons
We could consider a classical problem when many electrons fall on a slit simultaneously, with the initial distribution of velocities $p_i(\mathbf{v})$. Most of the electrons are trapped by a screen, but those directed exactly at the slit will pass through, without changing their velocity or energy. Some of them may get scattered elastically by the edges of the slit, that is their energy is conserved. Note that here every electron has a definite velocity and definite energy - the uncertainty is only in their distribution among the electrons. We can then calculate the distribution of velocities on the other side of the screen, $p_f(\mathbf{v})$.

A stream of quantum electrons
Now let us consider a quantum problem, where electrons are incident on the screen one by one, each electron having the same momentum. The essential here is not that they come one by one, but that their initial velocities/momenta are exactly the same, without uncertainty. If the width of a slit is comparable with the de Broglie wave length, the electrons behave like waves. Water in a stream, passing through an opening in a barrage us a good analogy here: we gave plane wave before the slut, but on the other side the wave diverges radially.

The radial divergence is the expression of what @Andrea pointed in their answer: since the slit localizes the electrons in one direction, their momentum in this direction will be uncertain - we can put a detector at any angle in respect to the screen and capture some electrons. Thus, the measured momenta will have some distribution, even though initially all the electrons had the same momentum.

Does it mean breaking of the energy conservation? No. In our classical experiment we implicitly assumed that every electron had a well defined trajectory, a well defined momentum at any point on this trajectory, and a well defined energy related to this momentum by $$K=\frac{\mathbf{p}^2}{2}.$$ The only momeywhen the energy could have deviated from this value was dueing the collision with the edges of the screen.

In the quantum case, the momentum of an electron is defined only when it is measured, but unknown in between. Moreover, the enegy of the electron is now given by $$H=\frac{\mathbf{p}^2}{2}+V(\mathbf{x}),$$ where $V(\mathbf{x})$ is the potential of the screen, which electron, due to its wave-like nature, feels all the time. That is, the energy does not commute with the momentum, and measuring one does not tell us the value of the other - the two variables are also governed by the HUP. The average magnitude of momentum however still has the same value as that of the initial mimentum. And, if we were to measure the energy, which can be viewed as conservation of the kinetic energy.

Remark
Mathematically in the classical example above we would be solving the Fokker-Planck equation for the probability, whereas in the quantum case we solve the Schrödinger equation for the probability amplitude (wave function), and calculate the probability only afterwards as $$p(\mathbf{x})=|\psi(\mathbf{x})|^2.$$


Energy conservation
Classical mechanics
In classical mechanics energy is the first integral of motion of the equations of motion. If we have only conservative forces, the Newton equations take form: $$ m\ddot{\mathbf{x}}(t)=-\nabla U[\mathbf{x}(t)] $$ multiplying this equation by integration factor $\dot{\mathbf{x}}(t)$ we obtain $$ m\ddot{\mathbf{x}}(t)\dot{\mathbf{x}}(t)+ \nabla U[\mathbf{x}(t)]\dot{\mathbf{x}}(t)= \frac{d}{dt}\left\{\frac{m\dot{\mathbf{x}}^2(t)}{2}+U[\mathbf{x}(t)]\right\}=0, $$ from where it follows that quantity $$ E(t)=\frac{m\dot{\mathbf{x}}^2(t)}{2}+U[\mathbf{x}(t)] $$ does not change with time, which we refer to as mechanical energy conservation. It is important that this quantity is associated with tracing the change of position $\mathbf{x}(t)$ and velocity $\dot{\mathbf{x}}(t)$ in time, i.e., knowing the trajectory of the particle.

Quantum mechanics
Since in quantum mechanics velocity/momentum and position cannot be exactly measured simultaneously, the above notion of energy conservation in time does not directly apply there.

Ehrenfest theorem The classical equations of motion do apply to the average quantities - the fact that is known as the Ehrenfest theorem. Thus, if we discuss the double slit experiment in terms of electrons incident on a screen one by one, the energy conservation should be understood in terms of such average quantities, as discussed previously. Note however, that the picture of the electrons incident one by one implies that the electrons are wave packets, rather than the momentum eigenstates - that is they have energy and momentum uncertainty even before they reach the slit.

In particular, the average value of energy is given by $$E(t)=\langle \Psi(t)|\hat{H}|\Psi(t)\rangle,$$ where $\hat{H}=\frac{\mathbf{p}^2}{2m}+U(\mathbf{x})$ is the Hamiltonian, whereas $|\Psi(t)\rangle$ is the full wave function obtained by solving the time-dependent Schrödinger equation.

Energy eigenstates The only case where the energy does not have uncertainty is when we are dealing with an energy eigenstate of the Hamiltonian, i.e., the solution of the time-independent Schrödinger equation. However, in this case we have to adopt reasoning in terms of electron waves, which is nearly identical here with the diffraction of electromagnetic waves on a slit.

Let us consider a screen located at $x=0$ perpendicularly to the $x$-axis, with a hole at $y=0$. The electron wave is incident from the left ($x<0$). Following the Huygens principle the solution to the right of the screen can be considered as a radial wave outgoing from the point-like source.

The general Schrödinger equation is (neglecting the direction along the slits for simplicity): $$ -\frac{\hbar^2}{2m}(\partial_x^2+\partial_y^2)\psi(x,y) + U(x,y)\psi(x,y)=E\psi(x,y), $$ where $U(x,y)$ is the potential of the screen and the slit, and $E=\frac{\hbar^2k^2}{2m}$ is the "electron energy" corresponding to a plane wave with momentum $k$ incident from the left of the screen.

For the region $x>0$ we have simply $$ -\frac{\hbar^2}{2m}(\partial_x^2+\partial_y^2)\psi(x,y) =E\psi(x,y), $$ and we look for a solution as a wave diverging from the point $x=0,y=0$ which takes zero value for $x=0$, since the screen is not transparent. It is convenient to pass to the momentum space for the $y$ direction, since this is the momentum which is of interest here: $$ \psi(x,y)=\int\frac{dq}{2\pi}e^{iqy}\phi(x,q). $$ We now end up with the Following Helmholtz equation: $$\partial_x^2\phi(x,q)+(k^2-q^2)\psi(x,q)=0.$$ Its solutions that vanish at $x=0$ are $$ \phi(x,q)=A\sin(x\sqrt{k^2-q^2}), \text{ if } q< k,\\ \phi(x,q)=A\sinh(x\sqrt{q^2-k^2}), \text{ if } q>k $$ The second solution diverges for $x\rightarrow+\infty$ and therefore non-normalizable. We thus arrive at the important result that the transversal momentum is less than the momentum of the original waves incident on the screen: $$q < k.$$ This can be interpreted in terms of energy conservation: a classical particle with momentum $\mathbf{p}=(\hbar k,0)$ when scattered by the slit will have after scattering momentum $\mathbf{p}'=(\hbar\sqrt{k^2-q^2}, \hbar q)$.

If we consider interference picture at the screen located at distance $x$ behind the screen, the distribution of the transversal momenta will be $$ w(q|k, x)\propto \sin^2(x\sqrt{k^2-q^2}). $$ This distribution has zero mean and one can calculate the standard deviation for this distribution as $$ \sigma_q = \sqrt{\frac{\int_{-q}^q dq q^2\sin^2(x\sqrt{k^2-q^2})}{\int_{-q}^qdq \sin^2(x\sqrt{k^2-q^2})}} $$ This is the standard deviation to be used with HUP. However, this distribution has higher moments, and, as we have seen, is bounded to $-k<q<k$. Thus the seeming paradox of the lack of energy conservation when using HUP arises from the assumption that HUP describes a Gaussian distribution of momenta, which is not the case. HUP is too limited to describe more complex distributions (since the mean and the standard deviation form sufficient statistic only for this distribution).

The figure below illustrates the distribution that we obtained: enter image description here

Roger V.
  • 58,522
  • I wonder why are you talking about classical particles. I have only quantum particles with their de Broglie wave attached. I can not see a prove of your idea that the mean E is conserved. The only thing I see is just a sentence "The average magnitude of momentum however still has the same value as that of the initial momentum". But this is just a statement. IMO you say that 10 thousand electrons will loose their p or speed from 10m/s and one can get 70 km/s? So the mean value of E is constant after 10001 electrons? – Mercury Sep 27 '21 at 19:01
  • (Below AnaV wrote in remark to her answer that E is conserved in any individual act.) For me the problem is that when I stop at 5000 events and this 70 km/s electron has come out, then the mean E is not conserved. – Mercury Sep 27 '21 at 19:11
  • What is $E$ for you? It has mathematical meaning in classical and quantum mechanics. Without a clear definition this discussion is meaningless. – Roger V. Sep 28 '21 at 06:14
  • E=Energy. Is your idea about the mean value of p (momentum) and E meaning that "about say 10 thousand electrons will loose their p or speed from 10m/s and one or few can get 70 km/s?" I grasp it that way. Is it right or is something else? Please make an explicit example (like I do) in order not be necessary to interpret the meaning in a wrong way. – Mercury Sep 28 '21 at 16:35
  • What you comment about commutation of p and E (H hamiltonian) is ok but V(x) is not equal to 0 only in the slit itself and 0 everywhere else, so the usual connection of p and E is established outside IMO. – Mercury Sep 28 '21 at 16:41
  • @Mercury The usual connection between $p$ and $E$ does not work, because it implies that we can measure these quantities at any point, i.e., it implies a trajectory, whereas the wave function is global. I however thought of something else, which may be the answer - I will try to expand it tomorrow. – Roger V. Sep 28 '21 at 16:54
  • I hope so. I will repeat my concern very transparently: If a particle of momentum p1 passes a slit HUP says it can (not necessary though) have p2>p1 because dp.dx>h/2 and dx can be as thin as few atoms. That means inelastic scattering. The particle must take energy off the walls. If I use for my slit many particles to pass tru I will cool it under absolute zero to - infinity. – Mercury Sep 28 '21 at 17:25
  • @Mercury I have expanded the answer. – Roger V. Sep 29 '21 at 09:30
  • Thank you for your interest and the extensive responsibility. But there some things I can not grasp and are very puzzling. 1: from Shroedinger eq. you get q<k (where k is the initial momentum of the electron and q is the final momentum). That means that HUP does not hold. You have the width of the slit set at 0 and HUP would insist that one can have q next to infinity (not q<k). 2. Nevertheless in the picture you apply for the distribution there are q/k =1 to 1000 (you have proven that q/k<1?) – Mercury Sep 30 '21 at 14:57
  • I can not agree that one can not build a beam of electrons with energy below a desired value. If necessary one can apply voltage to de-accelerate them. Also the source can be much bigger that the slit and then the uncertainty in momentum k negligible. There is no necessity in OP question for the e- to come one at a time.
  • – Mercury Sep 30 '21 at 15:40
  • I don't understand what happens about mean energy. Please let me know what concrete happens to energy when b.e. 100 e- of 10m/s pass. And one is of v=70 km/s after the slit. Thank you in advance. I am in complete ignorance.
  • – Mercury Sep 30 '21 at 16:04
  • @Mercury Is this a homework question? You keep repeating the same numbers over and over. – Roger V. Sep 30 '21 at 16:06
  • I don't make homeworks for a long time. As a matter of fact I am PhD in Physics (not exactly QM) and am Assistent Professor. I have studied QM and much of QFT and I am very well acquainted with their math. I also know that there are many problems with the physical meaning of QM. I prefer to talk with concrete numbers not to get into foggy entanglements. What is wrong with concretness? If you can answer than make 1-4 that's what I am interested in. If you can not you are free to regard them as homework. For me there is something wrong with HUP and answers to my question here don't satisfy me. – Mercury Sep 30 '21 at 17:44
  • It would be excellent just to show me what is wrong with one of these 4 remarks if you can. (I admit that I did not quite understand the physics of QM (not the math). But who does?) – Mercury Sep 30 '21 at 17:54
  • @Mercury I think I have done morr than enough for answering your question. Take it from here and do your own calculations. – Roger V. Sep 30 '21 at 19:49
  • That's exactly what I thought. Thank you for the efforts. I try to ask other scientists. By the way there is also N5. A Fourier transformation for a any wave passing a narrow slit would give q from 0 to infinity not q<k as you derive. – Mercury Sep 30 '21 at 22:07