Quantum Physics

Dan Hooper
Fermilab
Saturday Morning Physics
 Physics in 1900
The ideas of Isaac Newton continued to provide the
foundations of physics
Our understanding of electricity,
magnetism, heat had grown steadily
over the past 100-150 years

From the perspective of 1900, it

looked like physicists had managed
to understand all of the phenomena
in our world (almost…)
 Problems with Physics in 1900
•Gravitational mass and inertial mass
•Orbit of the planet Mercury
•Speed of light
•Power source of the Sun
•Spectrum of light
•Stability of atoms
 Problems with Physics in 1900
•Gravitational mass and inertial mass
Solved by Einstein’s
•Orbit of the planet Mercury Theory of Relativity
•Speed of light
•Power source of the Sun
•Spectrum of light Solved by Quantum Mechanics
•Stability of atoms
 Problems with Physics in 1900
Where does the Sun get its energy?
 Problems with Physics in 1900
Why does light have the spectrum we observe?
 Problems with Physics in 1900
Why don’t atoms collapse?
 Our Understanding of Light in 1900
Circa 1900, physicists thought of light as waves of
electromagnetic radiation
Very successful theory - electromagnetism was the greatest
accomplishment in physics since Isaac Newton
 Our Understanding of Light in 1900
By this time, physicists had measured the spectra of light that is
emitted by objects at a given temperature and in equilibrium –
the blackbody spectrum
The problem was that when physicists calculated what this
spectrum should look like, their results did not agree with the
measurements
Our Understanding of Light in 1900
Based on the data, the German
physicist Max Planck reverse
engineered a formula that matched
the observed spectrum
To explain why this formula
worked, Planck had to conjecture
that for some unknown reason,
light-waves were only radiated by
quantities of energy that are
proportional to their frequency,
E=h𝜈
Planck (and others at the time)
thought this had to do with the
matter that was radiating the light
(as opposed to the light itself)
The Photoelectric Effect
 Einstein’s Explanation of the
Photoelectric Effect (1905)
Einstein postulated that light waves were made up
of individual pieces - called “quanta” of light
(now called photons) - each with an amount of
energy proportional to their frequency E=h𝜈
Low frequency light was thus, according to
Einstein, made up of low energy photons that could
not free electrons from the metal plate, and thus
couldn’t generate electric current
High frequency light, in contrast,
was made up of photons with more
energy, which could free
electrons, creating
current
 Einstein’s Explanation of the
Photoelectric Effect (1905)
Einstein proposal was radical

Meant that light was both a wave,

and was made up of particles

The quantum revolution had

been born
 Into The Atom
In the early 20th century, as the nature of
the atom was beginning to become understood,
questions about the stability of atoms and the
spectrum of light from atoms persisted
Louie De Broglie Niels Bohr
Electrons As Waves
Standing waves (those with an integer
number of wavelengths around the atom)
are the configurations that can exist
This is just like standing wave patterns on
a vibrating string
“Quantized” Energy Levels!
 Solutions To Atoms’ Problems
1) Light from atoms would be emitted when an electron moved from
an energetic standing wave pattern to a lower energy pattern 
discrete patterns of spectral lines for each type of atom!
 Solutions To Atoms’ Problems
1) Light from atoms would be emitted when an electron moved from
an energetic standing wave pattern to a lower energy pattern 
discrete patterns of spectral lines for each type of atom!

2) For each type of atom, there is a minimum energy standing wave;

electrons cannot lose any more energy from this state  the atom
was stable!
Lowest energy state
(nowhere to go from here)
 Particles and Waves
Bohr’s model of the atom requires that
electrons we not only particles, but also act
like waves

Louie De Broglie extended this further, and

postulated that all matter has a wave-like
nature
p=momentum
In particular, De Broglie said:  = -34h/p
h=6.626x10 Joule-seconds

In other words, De Broglie was just proposing

that electrons (and other forms of matter) act
What Does it Mean to be a Wave?
What Does it Mean to be a Wave?
 Are You A Wave?
According to De Broglie, yes. But only barely.

•A 100 kg person walking at 1 m/s

has a wavelength of ~6x10-36 m
not remotely measurable
 Are You A Wave?
The wave-like behavior of matter becomes notable
only in the sub-atomic world:

•An electron (m=9x10-31 kg) moving at

10,000 km/s has a wavelength of ~10-10 m
about the size of a typical atom!

Electrons are waves as big as the atoms they are part of!
Our Newtonian picture of electrons orbiting a nucleus like planets
orbiting the Sun is not really correct
 Are You A Wave?
Instead of electrons being in planet-like orbits, they are unchanging
standing waves, “smeared out” over the volume of the atom
 But What is “Waving”?
• Water waves are made up of water molecules;
peaks of the waves are where there is the most
water

• Sound waves are made up of atoms/molecules in

high pressure and low pressure patterns

• Waves on a string are the motion of

atoms/molecules

Question: If photons and electrons (and other

quantum particles) are waves, what is waving?
 Waves of… Probability?
At first, no one really knew what to make of
the wave-like nature of matter. Then, in
1925, Max Born made the bold claim that to
make sense of quantum waves, we had no choice
but to interpret them in terms of probabilty

The shape of a quantum wave (called the

wavefunction) tells us in what state it is
likely that we will find the system to be in
if we were to measure it
 Quantum Waves And Probability
Consider the simple example of a particle-wave confined in a box

Just like musical notes

Increasing energy in a flute or trombone
corresponds to higher
frequency

Very similar to Bohr levels in atoms

 Quantum Waves And Probability
Consider the simple example of a particle-wave confined in a box

Each of these configurations describes how likely it is for the

particle to be found at different locations within the box

Highest probability at most positive and negative points; lowest

probabilty at zero - this is called the particle’s “wavefunction”

Most Likely

Least Likely
 Quantum Waves And Probability
Many quantities have probabilities that are described by the
wavefunction - location, velocity, energy, time

Particles are not, generally speaking, at one place at one time, nor
are they moving with a singular velocity, or possess a singular
quantity of energy

Events do not even happen at precisely one time

All of these quantities are described probabilistically according to

the laws of quantum mechanics
 The Double Slit Experiment
If we shoot (non-wavelike) particles through two
slits in a barrier, and watch how they
accumulate on a far surface. . .
 The Double Slit Experiment
If we shoot (non-wavelike) particles through two
slits in a barrier, and watch how they
accumulate on a far surface, we get the same
pattern that we would have gotten if we shot
particles through one slit at a time and added
them up

+ =
 The Double Slit Experiment
If we shoot (non-wavelike) particles through two
slits in a barrier, and watch how they
accumulate on a far surface, we get the same
pattern that we would have gotten if we shot
particles through one slit at a time and added
them up
The same is not true for waves passing through
the double slit; the two waves interfere with
each other
 The Double Slit Experiment
Which way do electrons and photons behave?
Like particles?
Like waves?
Like something else?
 The Double Slit Experiment
Which way do electrons and photons behave?
Like particles?
Like waves?
Like something else?
 Moral of the Experiment:
Even An Individual Particle-Wave
Interferes With Itself!
Unlike waves made of sound, water, sound, or on
a string, quantum particle-waves cannot be
described as patterns with more or fewer
molecules

Instead, we have no choice but to think of

quantum particle-waves are patterns of
probability
 The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle
In 1927, Werner Heisenberg generalized this quantum fuzziness
into what is now known as the uncertainty principle:
x p > h/4

The more precisely the location of an object is

known, the more uncertainty must be present in
its momentum, and vice versa

A similar relationship holds for time and energy:

E t > h/4
 Implications Of The Uncertainty
Principle
Things that were absolutely impossible in classical (pre-quantum)
physics, are possible according to quantum mechanics

For example, consider dropping a ball into a hole in the ground;

According to classical physics, the ball will bounce around within
the hole, but will never bounce out of the hole unless something
pushes it
 Implications Of The Uncertainty
Principle
Things that were absolutely impossible in classical (pre-quantum)
physics, are possible according to quantum mechanics
For example, consider dropping a ball into a hole in the ground;
According to classical physics, the ball will bounce around within
the hole, but will never bounce out of the hole unless something
pushes it E
But according to Heisenberg, the energy of
the ball is not precisely fixed, which means
that the ball might have enough energy to get
out of the hole; but only for a short period of time, t > h/(4 E)
You can also think of it this way: since the momentum of the ball
is not perfectly well known, the ball has a finite probability of
escaping, although not very far out of the hole, x > h/(4 p)
 Implications Of The Uncertainty
Principle
Impossible-to-cross barriers in classical physics and breached all
of the time in quantum physics

This effect, known as tunneling, can be thought of as exceeding

the barrier’s minimum energy E for a short period of time t, or
as exceeding the minimum momentum needed to exceed the
barrier p, for a short distance x
Part II
 Part II

Quantum Weirdness
 A Thought Experiment
Lets imagine that we have an unstable atom. We know it will decay,
but do not know exactly when. In fact there is no way to predict
when it will happen. We only know the probability of it happening
at different times in the future:
Probability of Decay

Time

The moment at which the decay takes place is smeared out over time.
 A Thought Experiment
If we watch the atom carefully, we can quickly learn when it decays

But if instead, we were to place the atom in an impenetrable box, then

we won’t know until we open the box whether the atom had decayed or
not yet
 A Thought Experiment
If we watch the atom carefully, we can quickly learn when it decays

But if instead, we were to place the atom in an impenetrable box, then

we won’t know until we open the box whether the atom had decayed or
not yet

Until then, the atom is described by a wavefunction, part of which has

already decayed, and part of which has not. In other words, until we
open the box to check, the atom is
Probability of Decay
a superposition of both intact and
decayed states

Time
 A Thought Experiment
Now lets imagine that our decayed/not yet decayed atom had been
placed next to a device that releases poison whenever the decay
takes place. Until we open the box, the poison is a superposition
of both released and unreleased states
 A (Strange) Thought Experiment
Now lets imagine that our decayed/not yet decayed atom had been
placed next to a device that releases poison whenever the decay
takes place. Until we open the box, the poison is a superposition of
both released and unreleased states
And, lets imagine that a cat is locked inside the box with the atom
and the poison.
Until we open the box, the
cat is in a superposition of
dead and alive states

Just like a quantum particle

is not generally at one place
at one time, events in our universe have not uniquely occurred or
not occurred; until we check -- the cat is both dead and alive!
 OK, Seriously, What The F**k?
Right now, you probably find yourself asking questions like:
•So, you are telling me that individual things are in multiples
places at one time? And that individual events take place at
multiple times? You can’t really mean that.
 OK, Seriously, What The F**k?
Right now, you probably find yourself asking questions like:
•So, you are telling me that individual things are in multiples
places at one time? And that individual events take place at
multiple times? You can’t really mean that.

Or…

•So, before you open the box, the cat is both alive and dead, but
after you open it, it is only one or the other. What makes this
change from smeared out wavefunction to well-defined state take
place? What is so special about the act of observation?
 OK, Seriously, What The F**k?
Right now, you probably find yourself asking questions like:
•So, you are telling me that individual things are in multiples
places at one time? And that individual events take place at
multiple times? You can’t really mean that.

Or…

•So, before you open the box, the cat is both alive and dead, but
after you open it, it is only one or the other. What makes this
change from smeared out wavefunction to well-defined state take
place? What is so special about the act of observation?

If so, you are asking the same kinds of questions that were
being asked by the physicists who invented quantum mechanics
in the 1920s and 1930s
 Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics
(What does this all mean?)
Physicists debated hotly what these discoveries in quantum physics
really meant… in fact, they still argue about it today

One of the most common and most popular way to think about
quantum physics is called the “Copenhagen Interpretation”
(advocated by Niels Bohr among others)
 Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics
(What does this all mean?)
According to the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum
Mechanics, whenever an observation is made, the wavefunction of
particle collapses, and the particle takes on a single value of the
quantity being measured (position, time, energy, momentum, etc.)
 Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics
(What does this all mean?)
According to the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum
Mechanics, whenever an observation is made, the wavefunction of
particle collapses, and the particle takes on a single value of the
quantity being measured (position, time, energy, momentum, etc.)
Common objection: What is so special about observation? Why
does observation remove the quantum uncertainty that Heisenberg
showed in present in everything?
 Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics
(What does this all mean?)
Another interpretation of quantum mechanics that is popular
among physicists is based upon Everett’s Principle: a wavefunction
never collapses, but continue to evolve regardless of observation
 Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics
(What does this all mean?)
Another interpretation of quantum mechanics that is popular
among physicists is based upon Everett’s Principle: a wavefunction
never collapses, but continue to evolve regardless of observation
What does this imply? Well, before you open the box with
Schrodinger’s Cat inside, the cat is in a superposition of dead and
alive states:

+
 Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics
(What does this all mean?)
Another interpretation of quantum mechanics that is popular
among physicists is based upon Everett’s Principle: a wavefunction
never collapses, but continue to evolve regardless of observation
What does this imply? Well, before you open the box with
Schrodinger’s Cat inside, the cat is in a superposition of dead and
alive states.
After you open the box, you are
in a superposition of states in
which you are observing an alive
cat, and are observing a dead cat +
The wavefunction does not collapse,
but all quantum possibilities do occur
(although you perceive only one)
 Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics
(What does this all mean?)
Philosophically speaking, the Copenhagen and Many Worlds
interpretations of quantum mechanics are very different.

For example,
Copenhagen is indeterministic
Many Worlds is deterministic (all quantum possibilities happen)

In Copenhagen, the observer is of central importance

In Many Worlds, the observer is just like anything else
 Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics
(What does this all mean?)
Interestingly, the Copenhagen and Many Worlds interpretations of
quantum mechanics make exactly the same predictions for all
possible experiments
From the perspective of the scientific method, empirical tests are the
only way to determine the relative truth of competing theories
With no different predictions to be tested, there is no way to tell
which interpretation is correct*

*If you really want to give yourself a headache, ask yourself this: If two theories always
make the same predictions, what does it mean for one to be the “correct” theory. Could
two very different descriptions of nature both be correct? Might more than one version of
reality be “true”?