Statistical form of Heisenberg Uncertainty

Confused2
Messages
7
Reaction score
0
I don't like to assume things without checking..

Is the distribution really a 'normal distribution' aka Gaussian? Is this an experimental result or a 'good enough' assumption?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You must be talking about something specific... but left us guessing what.
Could you elaborate ?
 
Elaborate, yes of course, sorry.. I knew what I meant, at least I thought I did..

In the background is an LC network resonant at f primed with N photons of energy E ( = h f ) . We 'know' from the classical result that that radiation from any point in this network will 'look' sinusoidal. In fairness to the people who are kind enough to give time to this forum the question has to be simple.. the whole population is my problem..

Basically .. when I have detected a single photon at (say) x then I hoped to be able to say that the momentum (indirectly the energy) lies within the range given by a distribution of the form Xbold where Xbold is the answer to the question.

By superposing a lot of Xbolds .. hopefully I'd get my sinewave back. A vain hope? Xbold remains the answer to the intended question.. anything extra is a bonus.
 
We often see discussions about what QM and QFT mean, but hardly anything on just how fundamental they are to much of physics. To rectify that, see the following; https://www.cambridge.org/engage/api-gateway/coe/assets/orp/resource/item/66a6a6005101a2ffa86cdd48/original/a-derivation-of-maxwell-s-equations-from-first-principles.pdf 'Somewhat magically, if one then applies local gauge invariance to the Dirac Lagrangian, a field appears, and from this field it is possible to derive Maxwell’s...
I read Hanbury Brown and Twiss's experiment is using one beam but split into two to test their correlation. It said the traditional correlation test were using two beams........ This confused me, sorry. All the correlation tests I learnt such as Stern-Gerlash are using one beam? (Sorry if I am wrong) I was also told traditional interferometers are concerning about amplitude but Hanbury Brown and Twiss were concerning about intensity? Isn't the square of amplitude is the intensity? Please...
I am not sure if this belongs in the biology section, but it appears more of a quantum physics question. Mike Wiest, Associate Professor of Neuroscience at Wellesley College in the US. In 2024 he published the results of an experiment on anaesthesia which purported to point to a role of quantum processes in consciousness; here is a popular exposition: https://neurosciencenews.com/quantum-process-consciousness-27624/ As my expertise in neuroscience doesn't reach up to an ant's ear...
Back
Top