16.

Duality of Matter
When Louis-Victor-Pierre-Raymond de Broglie
(1892-1987) wrote his doctoral thesis in 1923, he pro-
posed a radical new idea with implications he, himself, De Broglie
did not fully appreciate. De Broglie, a graduate student Wave
of noble French background, was guided by personal
intuition and mathematical analogies rather than by any Nucleus
experimental evidence when he posed what turned out
to be a very crucial question: Is it possible that parti- Allowed
cles, such as electrons, exhibit wave characteristics? Bohr Orbit
De Broglie’s arguments led to the conclusion that
electrons had a wavelength given by

wavelength ! Planck’s constant .

(mass of an electron)(speed of an electron)

Indeed, Planck’s constant is a very small number and, De Broglie

for reasonable speeds of an electron, the equation Wave
always results in a very short wavelength (of the order
of atomic dimensions). In order for a wave to exhibit
the characteristic behavior of interference and diffrac- Nucleus
tion, it must pass through openings of about the same
dimension as the wavelength, i.e., in the case of elec- Disallowed
trons, through openings about as wide as an atom or the Bohr Orbit
spacing between atoms.
If one were to calculate from de Broglie’s relation-
ship the wavelength associated with a baseball, one
would find a prediction of the order of 10–34 meters. 16.1)
This small number follows from de Broglie’s relation-
Figure 16.1. De Broglie’s matter waves “explain” why
ship because it has the mass of the object in the denom-
only certain orbits are possible in Bohr’s atom. The
inator (very large for a baseball) and Planck’s constant
waves must just fit the orbit.
in the numerator (a very small number). Waves so short
would exhibit diffraction and interference only if they
This idea was a great success. It predicted just the
went through very narrow openings (about 10–34meters).
right orbits and just the right energy levels to explain the
Since the present limit of measurability is about 10–15
light spectrum for hydrogen (though it was less suc-
meters, we can conclude that for macroscopic objects
cessful for helium, lithium, etc.). Certainly it was
like baseballs, the waves might just as well not exist.
mathematically equivalent to the idea that Bohr had
The next step was to somehow bring together Bohr’s
originally used (which did not use waves), but it was
atom (with its success at predicting the atomic spectra) and
also radically different because it introduced a powerful
de Broglie’s matter waves. The success of Bohr’s atom
new idea: the electrons surrounding the nucleus of the
hinged on the idea that there were certain discrete orbits
atom are some kind of wave whose wavelength depends
with associated discrete energies. But what determines
on the mass and speed of the electron.
which orbits are allowed and which are not? Perhaps,
But waves of what? When we think of the waves
someone thought, it is de Broglie’s wave. Perhaps the only
of our everyday experience, we think of disturbances
orbits allowed are those that an integral number of de
propagating in a medium as, for example, waves on the
Broglie electron wavelengths would fit into! (See Fig.

143
ocean moving through the water. We have introduced Positioned behind the slits is a bucket of sand to catch
waves, wavelengths, and frequencies without ever the bullets. It is placed first in one position and the
addressing the fundamental question: waves of what? number of bullets arriving in a given amount of time is
counted. The bucket is then moved to an adjacent posi-
The Two-Slit Experiment tion, and the process is repeated until all the possible
arrival positions behind the slits have been covered.
There is probably no stronger evidence for the Then a piece of paper is used to make a graph of the
wave nature of light and electrons than the so-called number of bullets which arrive as a function of the posi-
two-slit experiment in which electrons (or photons) pass tion of the bucket. The result is a double-peaked curve
through a double slit arrangement to produce an “inter- that reflects the probability of catching bullets at vari-
ference” pattern on the screen behind. The experiment ous positions behind the slits.
is simple and straightforward and, if we can understand The two peaks correspond to the two regions of
that, then we ought to be able to understand wave-parti- high probability that lie directly behind the open slits.
cle duality (if it can be understood at all). When the experiment is repeated with one of the slits
One of the most enlightening explanations of closed, the curve has only one peak. We will refer to the
“quantum mechanics” (the name given to the general plotted curves as “probability” curves.
area of atomic modeling that we are discussing) was Now imagine an analogous experiment performed
given in a series of lectures by Nobel laureate Richard with waves (Fig. 16.3). Visualize long straight waves
Feynman and reproduced in his book, The Character of moving along the length of a pan of water. Into the path
Physical Law. He discusses the two-slit experiment by of the waves we will place an obstacle with two slits. In
contrasting the experiment using indisputable particles, doing so we set up the classical demonstration of wave
then using indisputable waves, and finally using elec- interference. Behind the slits and along a straight line
trons. paralleling the barrier but some distance behind, we will
To better understand the two-slit experiment, imag- observe the waves. Yet waves are not particles; it does-
ine a shaky machine gun that fires bullets at a two-slit n’t make any sense to measure the probability of arrival
arrangement fashioned out of battleship steel (Fig. of a wave at some particular point. In fact, the wave
16.2). Bullets are clearly “particles.” They are small, arrives spread out over many points along the backdrop.
localized structures that can be modeled as tiny points. So rather than even trying to measure a probability
In our experiment we shall assume that the bullets do curve, we will observe the amplitude of the wave at var-
not break up. The machine gun is a little shaky, so the ious positions along the backdrop by placing a cork in
bullets sometimes go through one slit, sometimes the the water and observing the extent of the vertical motion
other. They can ricochet from the edges of the slits, so of the cork. Squaring the amplitude gives the “intensi-
they can arrive at various positions behind them. ty” of the wave. The result is a multipeaked curve. The
peaks mark the regions of constructive interference; the
valleys mark the regions of destructive interference. If
one slit is closed, the interference largely disappears and

Figure 16.3. A two-slit experiment using waves. The

Figure 16.2. A two-slit experiment using particles (bul- graph with the peaks represents the intensity of the
lets) fired by a rickety machine gun. The probability of waves along the backdrop as might be observed by
arrival of the bullets at the backdrop is described by a watching a cork at various positions. The peaks in the
double-peaked curve. Each peak is roughly behind one curve are points of constructive interference; the valleys
of the open slits. are points of destructive interference.

144
a single peaked curve reminiscent of the single-peaked arrival of electrons that must be coming through the
curve for the bullets is observed. We refer to these remaining open slit. Now open the closed slit. The
curves as “interference” curves. detector stops counting. How do electrons going
Now we can try the experiment with electrons (Fig. through one slit know whether the other slit is open or
16.4). But which experiment? If the electrons are parti- closed? If the electrons are little lumps, how do the
cles, then we try to measure the arrival of little lumps at lumps get “canceled” so that nothing arrives at the
spots behind the screen and try to plot a probability detector? You can slow down the rate of the electrons
curve. If the electrons are waves, we try to measure the so that only one electron at a time is fired—and they
amplitude of some disturbance and plot an interference still “know.” The “interference” curve, in fact, becomes
curve. What, then, is the electron? a composite of all the arrivals of the individual elec-
Some experiments do indicate that electrons trons. It is very puzzling.
behave like little particles. So we proceed to set up a
two-slit experiment for electrons and design a detector Waves of Probability
to place behind the slits to play the role the bucket of
sand played for bullets. Note, however, that the wave- The presently accepted explanation is that the
lengths of electrons (according to de Broglie’s formula) waves associated with electrons are waves of probabili-
are very short and the slits will have to be similar to the ty. They are not real disturbances in a medium. The
spacing between layers of atoms in a crystal. As waves themselves are nothing more than mathematical
Richard Feynman expressed, this is where nature pro- descriptions of probability of occurrence. And perhaps
vides us with a very strange and unexpected result: we wouldn’t take them too seriously if Erwin
Schrödinger (1887-1961) hadn’t devised the equation
That is the phenomenon of nature, that she pro- that bears his name.
duces the curve which is the same as you would Without some mathematical sophistication,
get for the interference of waves. She produces Schrödinger’s equation doesn’t mean much. But it is an
this curve for what? Not for the energy in a equation that describes how waves move through space
wave but for the probability of arrival of one of and time. The waves it describes may have peaks and
these lumps (Richard Feynman, The Character valleys that correspond to the high or low probability of
of Physical Law, p. 137). finding an electron at a particular place at a given time.
The peaks and valleys move and the equation describes
their movements. When we imagine firing an electron
at the two slits, we visualize such a wave being pro-
duced, and we imagine it propagating toward and
through the two slits and approaching the screen behind.
All of this motion of the probability wave is described
by Schrödinger’s equation. The motion of the wave of
probability is deterministic.
Now imagine the wave of probability positioned
just in front of the detecting screen with its peaks and
valleys spread out like an interference curve. At this
point something almost mystical happens that no one
can predict. Out of all the possibilities represented by
the spread-out probability curve, one of them becomes
reality and the electron is seen to strike the screen at a
particular, small spot. No one knows how this choice is
made. Theories that have tried to incorporate some way
Figure 16.4. A two-slit experiment using electrons. The of deciding how the probabilities become realities have
probability of arrival of the particles (electrons) takes always failed to agree with experiments. It is as if some
the form of the graph that describes the intensity of giant dice-roller in the sky casts the dice and reality
waves. rests on the outcome.

As Feynman wrote, this is very strange indeed. Electron Microscope

Look at one of the valleys in the probability curve, a
point where—with both slits open—there are no detect- Yet the diffraction and interference patterns dis-
ed electrons (see point A in Fig. 16.4). Then imagine played by electrons seem to be real enough. If they are
slowly closing one of the slits so that the valley of prob- real in at least some sense, they offer the potential to
ability goes away and the detector begins to count the solve a very important problem. Microscopes are limit-

145
ed in what they can see by the effects of diffraction. electrons could be accelerated to shorten the wave-
Typical microscopes use visible light. When the wave- length, and if they could be focused, we would have the
length of the light being used is about the same measure makings of a very high-resolution microscope—an
as the size of the objects being viewed, the diffraction of electron microscope.
the light around the edges of the objects becomes sub- The electron accelerator (or electron gun) is made
stantial and the images get fuzzy. The microscope can- of two parts: an electrically heated wire and a grid,
not resolve the detail and has reached its fundamental which is basically a small piece of window screen.
limit (see Fig. 16.5). The only way the problem can be When the grid is positively charged, it attracts electrons
solved is to use shorter wavelengths of viewing light. from the hot wire. The electrons are accelerated toward
Short-wavelength x-rays would work, but nothing is able the grid, and most of them pass through its holes, as dia-
to bend or focus short-wavelength x-rays in the way that gramed in Figure 16.6. The electrons achieve more
a glass lens bends and focuses rays of visible light. speed (shorter wavelengths) as the grid is given more
positive charge.
In the microscope itself, the electron beam is
focused and its diameter is magnified by magnets, as
shown in Figure 16.7. The image is made visible when
the electrons strike a glass plate (the screen) that is coat-
ed with a material that glows when struck by energetic
particles. Because the wavelengths of the electrons can
be made very short, the resolution of the electron micro-
scope is much better than the resolution that can be
achieved by visible light microscopes. (See Fig. 16.8;
see also Fig. 5.7 and Color Plates 1 and 2.)

Figure 16.5. Upper: Two small objects that are to be

viewed by a microscope. Lower: When the wavelength
of the viewing light is the same size as the objects, dif-
fraction causes a loss of resolution.

This is where electron waves come to the rescue.

According to de Broglie’s equation, electrons have very
short wavelengths. Indeed, they can be made even
shorter by increasing the speed of the electrons. If the

Figure 16.7. Diagram of an electron microscope.

Actual height is about 2 meters.

The (Heisenberg) Uncertainty Principle

Figure 16.6. Electron source. Most electrons pass The wave nature of matter raises another interest-
through the grid. ing problem. To what extent is it possible to determine

146
 Figure 16.8. Scanning electron micrograph of a human whisker at "500 magnification. (Courtesy of W. M. Hess)

the position of a particle? The probability of locating a we were to look, we would expect to find the particle
particle at a particular point is high where the wave within the space occupied by the packet, but we don’t
function is large and low where the wave function is know where with certainty. The uncertainty of the posi-
small. Imagine such a wave as depicted in Figure 16.9. tion, which we will designate as ∆x, is roughly the
This kind of wave might be called a “wave packet.” If length of the region in which there are large peaks and
valleys. If the region is broad (∆x is large), then the
position is quite uncertain; if the region is narrow (∆x is
small), then the position is less uncertain. In other
words, the position of particles is specified more pre-
cisely by narrow waves than by broad waves. This lim-
iting precision is decreed by nature. Since the packet
can be no shorter than the wavelength, the wavelength
itself sets the limit of precision.
The speeds of particles have probabilities and
uncertainties in just the same way that positions have
probabilities and uncertainties. For technical reasons
we will multiply the uncertainty in speed by the mass of
the electron and call the resulting quantity ∆p. The two
Figure 16.9. A moving electron might be represented as uncertainties are related through the Schrödinger equa-
a localized wave or wave packet. In each case, the elec- tion in a relationship called the (Heisenberg)
tron can only be specified as being somewhere inside Uncertainty Principle:
the region bounded by the dashed lines. (∆x) " (∆p) is greater than Planck’s constant .

147
Figure 16.10. A beam of electrons diffracts as it passes through a narrow slit. How would the pattern change if the slit
were even narrower?

What the relationship means is that experiments cle were known, the Newtonian laws of motion would
designed to reduce the uncertainty in the position of a predict the future. Indeed, by following Newtonian ideas
particle always result in loss of certainty about the speed and using computer programs, scientists can predict the
of the particle. The opposite is also true: Experiments motions of planets for thousands of years into the future.
designed to reduce the uncertainty in the speed of a par- But to make Newtonian physics work for electrons, we
ticle always result in a loss of certainty about the posi- have to know exactly where the electron is and, simulta-
tion of the particle. Because Planck’s constant is small, neously, its speed and direction of motion. This is pre-
these two uncertainties can still be small by everyday cisely what the Uncertainty Principle says we fundamen-
standards; but when we get down to observations of the tally cannot know. We can know one or the other, but not
atomic world, the Uncertainty Principle becomes an both together. Thus, we cannot predict the future of the
important factor. electron. Therefore, when an electron is fired at the two
Consider, for example, the electrons passing slits, we cannot predict exactly where it will land on the
through a single slit as in Figure 16.10. The arrival pat- screen behind. The best we can do is to know the proba-
tern of the many electrons passing through the slit is bilities associated with the wave function.
broad. Just as for light, the narrower the slit, the broad- Bohr saw the position and the speed as comple-
er the pattern. When we make the slit narrow, we also mentary descriptors of the electron. But no one could
make the uncertainty in the horizontal position of the know both with precision at the same time. He, there-
electron small, as it passes through the slit. We know the fore, denied reality to a description that specifies both at
position of the electron to within the width of the slit as the same time.
it passes through. But making the slit narrower means Recall the two-slit experiment. Imagine again a
that the uncertainty in the horizontal speed of the elec- wave function that describes an electron fired by a gun
tron must get larger so that the Uncertainty Principle is toward the slits and a screen behind. Imagine the wave
satisfied. We no longer know precisely where it is head- function with its hills and valleys undulating through
ed or how much horizontal motion it has acquired by space. The wave function (probability curve) contains
interacting with the slit. It is this large uncertainty in the all the information about the possibilities of where the
horizontal speed that makes it impossible to predict pre- electron might land for any electron fired through the
cisely where the electron will land. This causes the pat- slits to a screen behind. Not only does the wave function
tern to spread. We can think of the spreading as a con- contain the possibilities about where the electron should
sequence of the Uncertainty Principle. finally land on the screen, but it also contains a descrip-
tion of the probabilities to assign to those possibilities.
What is Reality? Now imagine that the wave function reaches the
screen. What we would see is a tiny spot where the
The Newtonian clockwork was a distressingly electron strikes the screen. The spot is much smaller
deterministic machine. The Second Law of than the space over which the wave was actually
Thermodynamics said the clock was running down. extended. The wave is spread over the entire pattern of
Quantum mechanics threatens to make the world more spots that eventually becomes the “interference pat-
a slot machine than a clock. tern.” When the electron is revealed as it strikes the
The Uncertainty Principle prevents us from predict- screen, the pattern of probabilities changes drastically
ing with certainty the future of an individual particle. In and immediately. Suddenly the probability becomes 1.0
the Newtonian view the future was exactly predictable. at the spot of observation and 0.0 everywhere else. Of
If the position, speed and direction of motion of a parti- all the possibilities, only one has become reality. For

148
the next electron through the slits, a different possibili- ty, essentially 100 percent, of finding the earth at the
ty will become reality. This sudden change is called the locations predicted by the Newtonian laws. We would
“collapse of the wave function.” find low probability, nearly zero percent, of finding it
The collapse of the wave function is a great mys- anywhere else. The two views predict exactly the same
tery. One interpretation (by Max Born in 1920) is that future locations.
the collapse is not a physical change but, rather, “our However, the situation is quite different if we try to
knowledge of the system suddenly changes.” Humans, predict the motion of an electron inside an atom. Here
in their capacity as observers, become an essential fea- we cannot even begin by using the Newtonian laws. We
ture of physics. In science, reality is what we see or cannot assign an exact position to the electron because
detect with the help of instruments. As long as the wave of its wave nature. Since its position is not known, there
function moves unobserved through space with all of its is no way to calculate accurately the force acting on it
possibilities and probabilities, we cannot attribute reali- and thus no way to predict its acceleration or its future
ty to the electron’s position, its speed, or even its exis- position. In this domain, quantum mechanics provides
tence. Is it the seeing and observing itself which turns the only way to predict the motion and future course of
the possibilities into a single reality? If this view is cor- the electron wave.
rect (and it is surely debatable), then reality is literally Consider Figure 16.11. The sizes of things are listed
created by the act of conscious observation! Without along a horizontal axis; their speeds are listed along the
the observation, the world remains unrealized possibili- vertical axis. The things we normally encounter would
ty and probability. occur near the middle of the range of possible sizes and
In a sense, we can say that the electron moves from near the low end of possible speeds. Such objects and
place to place as a wave of probability. Yet it is always such motions form the basis of our intuitive feelings about
observed as a particle. When we don’t observe it, we nature. The Newtonian laws accurately describe the
cannot say what its nature is. We cannot ascribe reality motions of such objects that seem reasonable and proper.
to any of the usual descriptions of position, speed, ener- Since we rarely deal directly with small things,
gy, and so forth. such as atoms and their constituent particles, we should
Niels Bohr defended and enlarged the above view- not be surprised that their rules of behavior are different
point into what has come to be called the Copenhagen from those to which we are accustomed.
Interpretation of quantum mechanics. To Einstein, who The laws governing atoms represent refinements of
believed in a world that existed completely indepen- the Newtonian laws. We could use any or all of the laws
dently of man’s consciousness, the interpretation was of quantum mechanics to calculate and predict the
anathema; he argued and fought against it with tenacity motions of objects we normally encounter and find the
in what came to be a losing battle. The whole idea is in same answer as if we had used Newton’s laws. The
violent contradiction to the rigidly deterministic additional sophistication is simply not necessary for an
Newtonian view we discussed earlier. accurate description of the things with which we ordi-
narily deal. Only when we wish to understand the
The Role of the Newtonian Laws behavior of things exceedingly small or fast do we need
the additional insights of the extended laws. In this
The Newtonian view has merit even though we sense, the Newtonian laws are approximations of the
now know it is incomplete. Its amazing success when more complete laws; however, as approximations, they
applied to a wide variety of phenomena should indicate are totally adequate when limited to objects with appro-
that it is at least close to being an accurate description priate size and speed.
of nature. How can we reconcile the quantum mechan-
ical view of change in the universe with the older, but Summary
successful, exact determinism of Newtonian physics?
Quantum mechanics and Newtonian laws give Matter has a dual nature—particle and wave. Its
exactly the same results in the domain in which the particulate nature dominates the behavior of large-scale
Newtonian laws have been successful. Suppose we objects; the wave nature dominates small-scale (submi-
were to use the usual laws of motion and gravitation to croscopic) behavior. The wave properties of submicro-
predict the position of the earth in its motion about the scopic matter limit the motion of particles in such a way
sun. We would assign a specific location and motion for that the particles cannot have unique values for both
the earth at the present time, and then predict exact loca- position and speed simultaneously. This limitation is
tions and motions for later times. Now suppose we formalized by the Uncertainty Principle. The wave
were to use quantum mechanics and the modern view to nature of matter also implies that changes in any part of
describe the same motion. We could then predict prob- the universe are statistical processes, and the laws we
abilities for the arrival of the earth at certain locations at have discovered allow us to predict the probability that
particular times. The result would be a high probabili- certain kinds of changes will occur. Newton’s laws of

149
Figure 16.11. The Newtonian laws are adequate for describing the motions of objects whose size and speed are with-
in our range of experience. More precise laws must be used outside that range.

motion are ways to calculate with high probability the sis in one of his own papers, restated the argument in a
kinds of motion that large objects will undergo. forceful way, and bolstered the conjecture with addi-
Electrons in atoms behave almost entirely as tional arguments. Thus, the idea came to the attention
waves. These wave properties determine the structure of Erwin Schrödinger, who developed a wave model of
of atoms and the ways that each atom interacts with its the atom based on the wave equation that bears his
neighbors. Electron wave interactions thus regulate the name and is synonymous with “quantum mechanics.”
kinds of collections of atoms that can occur, and also Yet de Broglie still had not one shred of solid experi-
determine the properties of bulk matter. mental evidence that electrons behaved like waves.
By 1925 the crucial experiments had already been
Historical Perspectives done by an American, Clinton Davisson, and, indepen-
dently, by George Thomson. (Ironically, George
Some scoffed at de Broglie’s thesis, labeled it a Thomson’s father, J. J. Thomson, received a Nobel
“French comedy,” and expressed reservations about Prize [1906] for crucial experiments in demonstrating
accepting it. But by chance de Broglie’s thesis came to the particle nature of the electron, and his son, George,
the attention of Albert Einstein, who in 1905 had pro- later received a Nobel Prize [1937] for showing the
posed the revolutionary idea of the dual nature of light entirely opposite wave nature of the electron.) But in
in order to explain the photoelectric effect. Therefore, 1925, Davisson had not heard of de Broglie’s idea and
it was natural for Einstein to be drawn to de Broglie’s was struggling to explain puzzling results that he had
proposal for a dual nature of matter. By 1923 Einstein acquired quite by accident.
was quite famous, and the scientific world hung on his In his experiments he was observing the scattering
every word. Einstein drew attention to de Broglie’s the- of electrons as they encountered a piece of nickel.

150
However, quite by accident, the surface of his piece of 6. Is there evidence to support the position that matter
nickel became oxidized, and he was forced to interrupt has a wave aspect?
the experiment to heat the piece of metal to restore its 7. What is uncertain in the Uncertainty Principle, and
condition. In doing so, and without knowing, some can the uncertainty be eliminated with more careful
areas of the nickel on the surface crystallized, forming experiments?
the regular layered structure of a crystal. The spaces
between the layers became perfect “slits” of just the right C. GLOSSARY
dimension for electron waves to diffract and interfere; 1. Interference Curve: In the context of this chapter,
this demonstrated their wave nature. But for Davisson we mean a mathematical graph which is a measure
the interference pattern that appeared was a puzzle, “an of the squared amplitude of waves in a region
irritating failure” as he put it. Nevertheless, he was alert where wave interference is taking place.
to a possible discovery and tried with theory after theo- 2. Planck’s Constant: See Chapter 14.
ry to explain the results, until he was led by discussions 3. Probability Curve: In the context of this chapter,
with European physicists to de Broglie’s work. we mean a mathematical graph (like the famed
De Broglie won the Nobel Prize for his “French bell-shaped curve that describes the probability of
comedy” in 1929 and Davisson for elaborations and having a particular IQ) which describes the proba-
refinements of his “irritating failure” in 1937. (Adapt- bility of finding an electron (or other particle) at
ed from Barbara Lovett Cline, Men Who Made A New various positions in space.
Physics, pp. 152-156.) 4. Probability Wave: A probability curve which is
changing in time and space in a manner that is like
STUDY GUIDE the movement of a wave in space and time.
Chapter 16: Duality of Matter 5. Quantum Mechanics: The set of laws and princi-
ples that govern wave-particle duality.
A. FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES 6. Uncertainty: For a quantity that is not known pre-
1. Wave-Particle Duality of Matter: Matter in its cisely, the uncertainty is a measure of the bounds
finest state is observed as particles (electrons, pro- within which the quantity is known with high prob-
tons, quarks), but when unobserved (such as mov- ability. If you knew that your friend was on the
ing from place to place) is described by waves of freeway somewhere between Provo and Orem, the
probability. uncertainty in your knowledge of exactly where
2. Wave-Particle Duality of Electromagnetic he/she was on the freeway might be about 10 miles
Radiation: See Chapter 14. since the two towns are about 10 miles apart.
3. The (Heisenberg) Uncertainty Principle: The
product of the uncertainty in the position of an D. FOCUS QUESTIONS
object and the uncertainty in its momentum is 1. A single electron is sent toward a pair of very close-
always larger than Planck’s constant. (The momen- ly spaced slits. The electron is later detected by a
tum of an object is its mass times its speed; thus, screen placed on the opposite side. Then, a great
uncertainty in momentum of an object of fixed many electrons are sent one at a time through the
mass is an uncertainty in speed.) same device.
a. Describe the pattern produced on the screen by
B. MODELS, IDEAS, QUESTIONS, OR APPLICA- the single electron and later the total pattern of the
TIONS many electrons.
1. What was the de Broglie hypothesis? b. Name and state a fundamental principle that
2. What pattern would be observed if a rickety can account for all of these observations.
machine gun fired bullets through two closely c. Explain the observations in terms of the funda-
spaced slits in a metal sheet? mental principle.
3. What pattern would be observed if water waves 2. A single photon is sent toward a pair of closely
were allowed to pass through two openings in a spaced slits. The photon is later detected by a
dike? screen placed on the opposite side. Then, a great
4. What pattern would be observed if electrons were many photons are sent one at a time through the
allowed to pass through two very closely spaced same device.
slits? What would the pattern be like if the elec- a. Describe the pattern produced on the screen by
trons were sent through the device one at a time? If the single photon, and later the total pattern of the
one of the holes were closed, what pattern would many photons.
develop? b. Name and state in your own words the funda-
5. Is there evidence to support the position that matter mental principle that can account for the observa-
has a particle aspect? tions.

151
 c. Explain the observations in terms of the funda- mechanics”?
mental principle.
3. A single electron is sent through a tiny slit. Later it 16.9. Why are electron microscopes used for view-
is detected by a screen placed on the opposite side. ing atoms instead of regular light microscopes?
It is possible to change the width of the slit.
a. What is observed on the screen? 16.10. Why must a particle have a high speed if it
b. Is it possible to predict exactly where the elec- is to be confined within a very small region of space?
tron will be seen when it arrives at the screen?
c. State the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. 16.11. What does the Uncertainty Principle say
d. If the slit is made narrower in an attempt to about simultaneous measurements of position and
know exactly where the electron is when it passes speed?
through the slit, what else will happen? Will we
now be able to predict where the electron will be 16.12. How does the Newtonian model differ from
seen on the screen? Explain in terms of the the Uncertainty Principle?
Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.
4. How does the Newtonian Model of motion of 16.13. Explain the meaning of the Uncertainty
things in the world differ from the Uncertainty Principle.
Principle? To what extent is the future determined
by the present according to the Newtonian Model? 16.14. Why is it that the Uncertainty Principle is
To what extent is the future determined according important in dealing with small particles such as elec-
to a model that includes wave-particle duality? trons, but unimportant when dealing with ordinary-
sized objects such as billiard balls and automobiles?
E. EXERCISES
16.1. Why do we think of matter as particles? 16.15 Explain why the Uncertainty Principle does
Carefully describe some experimental evidence that not permit objects to be completely at rest, even when
supports this view. at the temperature of absolute zero.

16.2. Why do we think of matter as waves? 16.16. To what extent is the future determined by
Carefully describe some experimental evidence that the present according to (a) Newtonian physics and (b)
supports this view. quantum physics?

16.3. Is matter wavelike or particlelike? Carefully 16.17. Illustrate the statistical nature of physical
describe some experimental evidence that supports your processes by describing the motion of individual parti-
conclusion. cles in the one- or two-slit experiments.

16.4. What is meant by the term “wave-particle 16.18. How does the Uncertainty Principle modify
duality?” Does it apply to matter, or to electromagnet- our view that the universe is “deterministic?”
ic radiation, or to both?
16.19. Why should we not be surprised when the
16.5. One possible explanation of the interference rules governing very small or very fast objects do not
effects of electrons is to presume that the wavelike seem “reasonable?”
behavior is due to the cooperative effect of groups of
electrons acting together. What experimental evidence 16.20. In what situations would you expect both the
is there for believing the opposing view that electron Newtonian laws and wave mechanics to accurately pre-
waves are associated with individual particles? dict the motions of objects? In what situations would
the two predictions be significantly different?
16.6. Consider an experiment to test the diffraction of
electrons as illustrated in Figure 16.10. Why would it be 16.21. Which of the following would form an inter-
important to place a charged rod or a magnet near the ference pattern?
beam between the diffracting hole and photographic film? (a) electrons
(b) blue light
16.7. How does one describe the motion of elec- (c) radio waves
trons when their wave properties must be taken into (d) sound waves
account? (e) all of the above

16.8. What is the meaning of the term “quantum

152
16.22. The Uncertainty Principle
(a) is an outcome of Newtonian mechanics
(b) applies mainly to subatomic particles
(c) conflicts with wave-particle duality
(d) supports strict determinism
(e) all of the above

153
154