Thread: Wavefunction and quanta

Ok, I generally have a grasp of some of the experiments that led to quantum theory. What I am stuck on is the wavefuntion PSI(p)=Aexp(-ipx/h) and where it came from. I understand the following:

1. Euler's formula
2. That (PSI)^2 is the probability of finding a particle at x when PSI is normalized

Why is it that we must have an imaginary portion of the wavefunction?

Psi is found by solving the schrodinger equation, a partial differential equation. Do you have any experience dealing with those?

Originally Posted by rknetsch

Why is it that we must have an imaginary portion of the wavefunction?

That's because the wavefunction is a solution of a complex-valued differential equation. While the function itself is complex-valued, the associated observables ( i.e. physically observable properties like energy, probability, momentum etc etc ) are not.

It comes from the movement back and forth, often in time and gives a solution to the Annihilation

Why do you write this senseless babble??

From the knowledge that the movement occurs, I see it manifested in many ways

You can even see her little here

Ramesh Raskar: Imaging at a trillion frames per second - YouTube

Originally Posted by Water Nosfim

From the knowledge that the movement occurs, I see it manifested in many ways

You can see things going backwards and forwards in time? Maybe you need to get your eyes tested...

Originally Posted by Water Nosfim

You can even see her little here

Ramesh Raskar: Imaging at a trillion frames per second - YouTube

This has nothing to do with anything you said. It is just very fast (amazingly fast) photography.

In the end you see it come back from the target , well?

Originally Posted by Water Nosfim

In the end you see it come back from the target , well?

You will have to try and express you ideas in something more than cryptic phrases if you want anyone to have any idea what you are talking about.

90% of what you write is incomprehensible. The other 10% is nonsense.

Please try and explain what you are talking about using several sentences that set out, step by step, your idea. Or just stop posting completely as it is just a waste of everyone's time.

If something moves at a constant speed relative to you it is to know your speed before it hits you so there traffic of information and also movement back in time

Originally Posted by Water Nosfim

If something moves at a constant speed relative to you it is to know your speed before it hits you so there traffic of information and also movement back in time

What makes you think that something else needs to know your speed? There is no "traffic of information" and no movement back in time.

Have you ever thought of learning a tiny amount of science? You should. It is fascinating stuff. Personally, I think it is more rewarding than making up nonsense.

How did my initial question generate this discussion? :-) It is an amazing YouTube video though.

I have a fairly basic understanding of the Schroedinger wave equation, but I am not sure if the wavefunction that I stated actually emerges from it. Rather, it is postulated that PSI is Aexp(-ipx/h) based on other observable phenomenon.

Originally Posted by rknetsch

How did my initial question generate this discussion? :-)

It is impressive how far off track people like Water can take things with a few random comments. I have never been able to work out what his motivation is.

It is an amazing YouTube video though.

Isn't it.

Originally Posted by rknetsch

How did my initial question generate this discussion? :-) It is an amazing YouTube video though.

I have a fairly basic understanding of the Schroedinger wave equation, but I am not sure if the wavefunction that I stated actually emerges from it. Rather, it is postulated that PSI is Aexp(-ipx/h) based on other observable phenomenon.

The wave function depends on the system it describes, it does not have a fixed mathematical form - it's specific form follows as a solution to a differential equation like the Schroeding equation.