Skip to main content

Collapsing the Wave

  • Chapter
The Roots of Things
  • 375 Accesses

Abstract

Schrödinger’s equation took the world of physics by storm. There was nothing exotic about it. It was easy to manipulate: every mathematician and physicist had cut her teeth in college on differential equations. Physicists, young and old, classical and quantum mechanical, could squeeze the S-equation and make it disgorge wave functions. It was applied in its various forms to a multitude of experimental problems; the results were astonishingly good. True, most problems were so intricate that the equation could not be solved in closed form.’ Typically, a problem permitted only numerical solutions of differing degrees of approxima­tion; however, this is a common situation in numerical analysis. As aids to compu­tation became more sophisticated, these approximations improved. But the S-equation worked.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Endnotes

  1. [Ulam 1976:165]. The quotation is repeated in Am. J. Phys. 62(5) (1994) 469.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Heisenberg (1901–1976), Nobel laureate, 1932. A towering figure in the development of quantum mechanics, Heisenberg played an equivocal role in the politics of his native Germany. See the appendix on him.

    Google Scholar 

  3. [Heisenberg 1958:177].

    Google Scholar 

  4. This pertains to the subject of Fourier analysis. You might review the appendix on this subject.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Width is an imprecise term. It could be made precise: for example, we might use the standard deviation of the packet (whether of a Gaussian shape or not), or perhaps the spread of the packet as measured between points halfway down from the peak amplitude. We will avoid a precise definition and so finesse the intricacies of the algebra. In practice, any reasonable definition of the spread of a wave packet will do. The numbers you arrive at will differ somewhat, depending on the precise definition, but the qualitative conclusions are not affected.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Physicists who want to think of a matter wave as an EM wave come a cropper on this point. EM waves in a vacuum are nondispersive; their speed is the constant c independent of wavelength. There is no medium in which matter waves do not disperse.

    Google Scholar 

  7. We have noted that the definition of width is not precise. Depending on the definition, the r.h.s. of Eq. 1 might read, instead of fi, say 1.811, or 11/2, or, generally, CA where C is some positive number. No reasonable definition of width will give a value of C very different from 1. The precise value of C is rarely important.

    Google Scholar 

  8. See, for example, [Penrose 1994:Part II]. I believe Penrose chose the symbols U and R because the first phase hinges on the mathematical property of being unitary (an esoteric feature which we will not stop to explain), while the second phase has a random element.

    Google Scholar 

  9. John von Neumann showed that no inconsistency arises if the crucial event—the event which causes the collapse—is taken as any one of the long chain of causative events. Far from it being the case that no event causes the collapse, any of a large set of events seems able to. Unfortunately, we cannot identify a single event which is common to all cases of collapse. There is a troublesome liberality of choice here.

    Google Scholar 

Endnotes

  1. Essays, Of Marriage and Single Life.

    Google Scholar 

  2. [Matthew 27:42].

    Google Scholar 

  3. Goudsmit, after the war, commented freely and often on the matter of Heisenberg’s role in the German atomic energy program. So did Heisenberg. The testimony of neither can be accepted uncritically. Thomas Powers, who wrote [1993] an excellent history of the whole matter, inclines to accept Heisenberg’s explanation.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Herman Melville, Moby Dick.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1999 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Grometstein, A.A. (1999). Collapsing the Wave. In: The Roots of Things. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-4877-5_15

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-4877-5_15

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Boston, MA

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4613-7213-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4615-4877-5

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics