Can clocks explain the probability of finding a particle in motion?

[Derek M]

New to physics and attempting to get my feet wet reading "The Quantum Universe: Everything That Can Happen Does Happen" by Brian Cox and Jeff Forshaw. Looking to get some clarification on what I hope is a simple concept regarding a particle in motion.

The author introduces the use of "clocks" to represent the magnitude and phase of a particles wave function. Shown below is a figure from the book showing a cluster of clocks corresponding to a particle that is initially located within the clusters vicinity. The author states that as each clock in the cluster makes its way to X, it is wound forward. Due to the way each clock has been wound backwards relative to its position in the original cluster, every clock that reaches X has its clock hand pointing in exactly the same direction. They all add together constructively which represents a high probability of finding the particle at X.

This part I understand. My confusion is when the author suggests that the clocks only add together constructively at all points left of X for a distance equal to the length of the original cluster. Outside of that region the clocks largely cancel out. When I picture in my head the clocks winding forward as they move to a point anywhere between the original cluster and X it seems to me that they add together constructively no matter where that point my be.

I hope I have explained my problem well enough and appreciate any insight into where I might be failing to grasp the concept.

Thanks!

 

[sandy stone]

Sorry, I don't have that book, but when the author talks about the clocks only adding constructively inside a certain region, it sounds like he is considering many waves of differing frequencies (wavelengths). Could that be the case?

 

[Orodruin]

New to physics and attempting to get my feet wet reading "The Quantum Universe: Everything That Can Happen Does Happen" by Brian Cox and Jeff Forshaw.

Are you aiming to learn physics or to learn about physics? Popular scientific books will give you a general flavour and a story of what is going on, but you should not expect to obtain any sort of working knowledge from them. If you want to learn physics, you should instead pick up real textbooks that actually aim at teaching the subject. Also, it is a much more tedious and demanding process than learning about physics is.

 

[Derek M]

Are you aiming to learn physics or to learn about physics?

I guess ultimately I'm trying to understand some of the key concepts. It's quite possible I'm getting a head of myself. I do own a textbook, so I will look through it and determine if its contents are more aligned with my desired knowledge. Thank you for the insight.

 

[Derek M]

Sorry, I don't have that book, but when the author talks about the clocks only adding constructively inside a certain region, it sounds like he is considering many waves of differing frequencies (wavelengths). Could that be the case?

From what I can tell I don't think this is the case. Thank you for the suggestion though.