Quantum mechanics/Course/Wave-particle duality quiz/Testbank

Wave particle duality quiz version B

	a) true
	b) false

	a) true
	b) false

	a) true
	b) false

	a) Forces that the De Broglie pilot wave exert between pairs of particles.
	b) Forces that the De Broglie pilot wave exert on individual particles.
	c) Interference between the component of the wave from each slit.
	d) The fact that particles can make glancing collisions with the edge of a slit.
	e) All of these nearly equivalent models explain diffraction.

	a) Taylor in 1909.
	b) Young in 1801.
	c) Schroedinger in 1926.
	d) Newton in 1704.
	e) Heisenberg in 1925.

	a) By the Copenhagen interpretation, knowing that the particle is in one slit destroys the wavefunction at the other slit.
	b) While all of these arguments have been used, the validity of some are "uncertain"(pun intended).
	c) If Heisenberg's microscope is used to ascertain which slit has the particle, the wavelength required to obtain sufficient resolution implies that the photons have sufficient individual momentum to "kick" the particle out of its original path.
	d) By the uncertainty principle, knowing that the particle is near one slit constitutes a measurement that causes uncertainty in the particle's future motion.

	a) true
	b) false

	a) true
	b) false

9 A dead "fly" of mass $m$ is placed in a dark gravity-free vacuum, somewhere not too far from the origin. The speed of the fly is known to be zero with virtually zero uncertainty. To ascertain the fly's position you construct "flyswatter" that can detect any collision between the flyswatter" and fly. A small hole of radius $\Delta x$ in the center of the flyswatter will inform you of whether a collision took place. The uncertainty in the fly's position is $\Delta x$ if the fly passed through the hole. The fly's (non-relativistic) speed is now unknown but estimated to be zero with an uncertainty that can be calculated from:

	a) $\Delta v\cdot \Delta x\geq {\frac {m\hbar }{2}}$
	b) $m\Delta v\cdot \Delta x\geq {\frac {\hbar }{2}}$
	c) $\Delta v\cdot \Delta x\leq {\frac {m\hbar }{2}}$
	d) $m\Delta v\cdot \Delta x\leq {\frac {\hbar }{2}}$

	a) Young in 1801.
	b) Davisson and Germer in 1925.
	c) Taylor in 1909.
	d) Newton in 1704.
	e) Aspect in 1982.

Wave particle duality quiz version C

	a) Schroedinger in 1926.
	b) Newton in 1704.
	c) Young in 1801.
	d) Taylor in 1909.
	e) Heisenberg in 1925.

	a) true
	b) false

	a) true
	b) false

	a) If Heisenberg's microscope is used to ascertain which slit has the particle, the wavelength required to obtain sufficient resolution implies that the photons have sufficient individual momentum to "kick" the particle out of its original path.
	b) While all of these arguments have been used, the validity of some are "uncertain"(pun intended).
	c) By the uncertainty principle, knowing that the particle is near one slit constitutes a measurement that causes uncertainty in the particle's future motion.
	d) By the Copenhagen interpretation, knowing that the particle is in one slit destroys the wavefunction at the other slit.

	a) true
	b) false

	a) Davisson and Germer in 1925.
	b) Taylor in 1909.
	c) Newton in 1704.
	d) Aspect in 1982.
	e) Young in 1801.

	a) Forces that the De Broglie pilot wave exert on individual particles.
	b) Forces that the De Broglie pilot wave exert between pairs of particles.
	c) Interference between the component of the wave from each slit.
	d) The fact that particles can make glancing collisions with the edge of a slit.
	e) All of these nearly equivalent models explain diffraction.

	a) true
	b) false

	a) true
	b) false

10 A dead "fly" of mass $m$ is placed in a dark gravity-free vacuum, somewhere not too far from the origin. The speed of the fly is known to be zero with virtually zero uncertainty. To ascertain the fly's position you construct "flyswatter" that can detect any collision between the flyswatter" and fly. A small hole of radius $\Delta x$ in the center of the flyswatter will inform you of whether a collision took place. The uncertainty in the fly's position is $\Delta x$ if the fly passed through the hole. The fly's (non-relativistic) speed is now unknown but estimated to be zero with an uncertainty that can be calculated from:

	a) $m\Delta v\cdot \Delta x\leq {\frac {\hbar }{2}}$
	b) $\Delta v\cdot \Delta x\geq {\frac {m\hbar }{2}}$
	c) $m\Delta v\cdot \Delta x\geq {\frac {\hbar }{2}}$
	d) $\Delta v\cdot \Delta x\leq {\frac {m\hbar }{2}}$

Wave particle duality quiz version D

	a) While all of these arguments have been used, the validity of some are "uncertain"(pun intended).
	b) If Heisenberg's microscope is used to ascertain which slit has the particle, the wavelength required to obtain sufficient resolution implies that the photons have sufficient individual momentum to "kick" the particle out of its original path.
	c) By the uncertainty principle, knowing that the particle is near one slit constitutes a measurement that causes uncertainty in the particle's future motion.
	d) By the Copenhagen interpretation, knowing that the particle is in one slit destroys the wavefunction at the other slit.

	a) true
	b) false

	a) Davisson and Germer in 1925.
	b) Taylor in 1909.
	c) Aspect in 1982.
	d) Young in 1801.
	e) Newton in 1704.

	a) true
	b) false

5 A dead "fly" of mass $m$ is placed in a dark gravity-free vacuum, somewhere not too far from the origin. The speed of the fly is known to be zero with virtually zero uncertainty. To ascertain the fly's position you construct "flyswatter" that can detect any collision between the flyswatter" and fly. A small hole of radius $\Delta x$ in the center of the flyswatter will inform you of whether a collision took place. The uncertainty in the fly's position is $\Delta x$ if the fly passed through the hole. The fly's (non-relativistic) speed is now unknown but estimated to be zero with an uncertainty that can be calculated from:

	a) $\Delta v\cdot \Delta x\geq {\frac {m\hbar }{2}}$
	b) $\Delta v\cdot \Delta x\leq {\frac {m\hbar }{2}}$
	c) $m\Delta v\cdot \Delta x\geq {\frac {\hbar }{2}}$
	d) $m\Delta v\cdot \Delta x\leq {\frac {\hbar }{2}}$

	a) Forces that the De Broglie pilot wave exert between pairs of particles.
	b) Forces that the De Broglie pilot wave exert on individual particles.
	c) The fact that particles can make glancing collisions with the edge of a slit.
	d) Interference between the component of the wave from each slit.
	e) All of these nearly equivalent models explain diffraction.

	a) true
	b) false

	a) true
	b) false

	a) true
	b) false

	a) Heisenberg in 1925.
	b) Newton in 1704.
	c) Young in 1801.
	d) Taylor in 1909.
	e) Schroedinger in 1926.

Wave particle duality quiz version E

	a) true
	b) false

	a) true
	b) false

	a) Taylor in 1909.
	b) Newton in 1704.
	c) Aspect in 1982.
	d) Davisson and Germer in 1925.
	e) Young in 1801.

	a) Schroedinger in 1926.
	b) Heisenberg in 1925.
	c) Taylor in 1909.
	d) Young in 1801.
	e) Newton in 1704.

5 A dead "fly" of mass $m$ is placed in a dark gravity-free vacuum, somewhere not too far from the origin. The speed of the fly is known to be zero with virtually zero uncertainty. To ascertain the fly's position you construct "flyswatter" that can detect any collision between the flyswatter" and fly. A small hole of radius $\Delta x$ in the center of the flyswatter will inform you of whether a collision took place. The uncertainty in the fly's position is $\Delta x$ if the fly passed through the hole. The fly's (non-relativistic) speed is now unknown but estimated to be zero with an uncertainty that can be calculated from:

	a) $m\Delta v\cdot \Delta x\geq {\frac {\hbar }{2}}$
	b) $\Delta v\cdot \Delta x\leq {\frac {m\hbar }{2}}$
	c) $\Delta v\cdot \Delta x\geq {\frac {m\hbar }{2}}$
	d) $m\Delta v\cdot \Delta x\leq {\frac {\hbar }{2}}$

	a) true
	b) false

	a) Forces that the De Broglie pilot wave exert on individual particles.
	b) The fact that particles can make glancing collisions with the edge of a slit.
	c) Interference between the component of the wave from each slit.
	d) Forces that the De Broglie pilot wave exert between pairs of particles.
	e) All of these nearly equivalent models explain diffraction.

	a) true
	b) false

	a) true
	b) false

	a) While all of these arguments have been used, the validity of some are "uncertain"(pun intended).
	b) If Heisenberg's microscope is used to ascertain which slit has the particle, the wavelength required to obtain sufficient resolution implies that the photons have sufficient individual momentum to "kick" the particle out of its original path.
	c) By the uncertainty principle, knowing that the particle is near one slit constitutes a measurement that causes uncertainty in the particle's future motion.
	d) By the Copenhagen interpretation, knowing that the particle is in one slit destroys the wavefunction at the other slit.

Wave particle duality quiz version F

	a) true
	b) false

2 A dead "fly" of mass $m$ is placed in a dark gravity-free vacuum, somewhere not too far from the origin. The speed of the fly is known to be zero with virtually zero uncertainty. To ascertain the fly's position you construct "flyswatter" that can detect any collision between the flyswatter" and fly. A small hole of radius $\Delta x$ in the center of the flyswatter will inform you of whether a collision took place. The uncertainty in the fly's position is $\Delta x$ if the fly passed through the hole. The fly's (non-relativistic) speed is now unknown but estimated to be zero with an uncertainty that can be calculated from:

	a) $m\Delta v\cdot \Delta x\leq {\frac {\hbar }{2}}$
	b) $\Delta v\cdot \Delta x\geq {\frac {m\hbar }{2}}$
	c) $m\Delta v\cdot \Delta x\geq {\frac {\hbar }{2}}$
	d) $\Delta v\cdot \Delta x\leq {\frac {m\hbar }{2}}$

	a) true
	b) false

	a) All of these nearly equivalent models explain diffraction.
	b) Interference between the component of the wave from each slit.
	c) Forces that the De Broglie pilot wave exert between pairs of particles.
	d) Forces that the De Broglie pilot wave exert on individual particles.
	e) The fact that particles can make glancing collisions with the edge of a slit.

	a) true
	b) false

	a) By the Copenhagen interpretation, knowing that the particle is in one slit destroys the wavefunction at the other slit.
	b) While all of these arguments have been used, the validity of some are "uncertain"(pun intended).
	c) By the uncertainty principle, knowing that the particle is near one slit constitutes a measurement that causes uncertainty in the particle's future motion.
	d) If Heisenberg's microscope is used to ascertain which slit has the particle, the wavelength required to obtain sufficient resolution implies that the photons have sufficient individual momentum to "kick" the particle out of its original path.

	a) Schroedinger in 1926.
	b) Young in 1801.
	c) Heisenberg in 1925.
	d) Newton in 1704.
	e) Taylor in 1909.

	a) true
	b) false

	a) true
	b) false

	a) Taylor in 1909.
	b) Newton in 1704.
	c) Aspect in 1982.
	d) Young in 1801.
	e) Davisson and Germer in 1925.

Wave particle duality quiz version G

	a) Aspect in 1982.
	b) Newton in 1704.
	c) Davisson and Germer in 1925.
	d) Taylor in 1909.
	e) Young in 1801.

2 A dead "fly" of mass $m$ is placed in a dark gravity-free vacuum, somewhere not too far from the origin. The speed of the fly is known to be zero with virtually zero uncertainty. To ascertain the fly's position you construct "flyswatter" that can detect any collision between the flyswatter" and fly. A small hole of radius $\Delta x$ in the center of the flyswatter will inform you of whether a collision took place. The uncertainty in the fly's position is $\Delta x$ if the fly passed through the hole. The fly's (non-relativistic) speed is now unknown but estimated to be zero with an uncertainty that can be calculated from:

	a) $\Delta v\cdot \Delta x\leq {\frac {m\hbar }{2}}$
	b) $m\Delta v\cdot \Delta x\geq {\frac {\hbar }{2}}$
	c) $\Delta v\cdot \Delta x\geq {\frac {m\hbar }{2}}$
	d) $m\Delta v\cdot \Delta x\leq {\frac {\hbar }{2}}$

	a) Taylor in 1909.
	b) Young in 1801.
	c) Schroedinger in 1926.
	d) Heisenberg in 1925.
	e) Newton in 1704.

	a) true
	b) false

	a) true
	b) false

	a) true
	b) false

	a) true
	b) false

	a) If Heisenberg's microscope is used to ascertain which slit has the particle, the wavelength required to obtain sufficient resolution implies that the photons have sufficient individual momentum to "kick" the particle out of its original path.
	b) By the Copenhagen interpretation, knowing that the particle is in one slit destroys the wavefunction at the other slit.
	c) While all of these arguments have been used, the validity of some are "uncertain"(pun intended).
	d) By the uncertainty principle, knowing that the particle is near one slit constitutes a measurement that causes uncertainty in the particle's future motion.

	a) true
	b) false

	a) Interference between the component of the wave from each slit.
	b) All of these nearly equivalent models explain diffraction.
	c) The fact that particles can make glancing collisions with the edge of a slit.
	d) Forces that the De Broglie pilot wave exert on individual particles.
	e) Forces that the De Broglie pilot wave exert between pairs of particles.

Wave particle duality quiz version H

	a) true
	b) false

	a) Taylor in 1909.
	b) Davisson and Germer in 1925.
	c) Young in 1801.
	d) Aspect in 1982.
	e) Newton in 1704.

3 A dead "fly" of mass $m$ is placed in a dark gravity-free vacuum, somewhere not too far from the origin. The speed of the fly is known to be zero with virtually zero uncertainty. To ascertain the fly's position you construct "flyswatter" that can detect any collision between the flyswatter" and fly. A small hole of radius $\Delta x$ in the center of the flyswatter will inform you of whether a collision took place. The uncertainty in the fly's position is $\Delta x$ if the fly passed through the hole. The fly's (non-relativistic) speed is now unknown but estimated to be zero with an uncertainty that can be calculated from:

	a) $m\Delta v\cdot \Delta x\leq {\frac {\hbar }{2}}$
	b) $\Delta v\cdot \Delta x\leq {\frac {m\hbar }{2}}$
	c) $\Delta v\cdot \Delta x\geq {\frac {m\hbar }{2}}$
	d) $m\Delta v\cdot \Delta x\geq {\frac {\hbar }{2}}$

	a) The fact that particles can make glancing collisions with the edge of a slit.
	b) All of these nearly equivalent models explain diffraction.
	c) Forces that the De Broglie pilot wave exert on individual particles.
	d) Forces that the De Broglie pilot wave exert between pairs of particles.
	e) Interference between the component of the wave from each slit.

	a) By the Copenhagen interpretation, knowing that the particle is in one slit destroys the wavefunction at the other slit.
	b) If Heisenberg's microscope is used to ascertain which slit has the particle, the wavelength required to obtain sufficient resolution implies that the photons have sufficient individual momentum to "kick" the particle out of its original path.
	c) While all of these arguments have been used, the validity of some are "uncertain"(pun intended).
	d) By the uncertainty principle, knowing that the particle is near one slit constitutes a measurement that causes uncertainty in the particle's future motion.

	a) true
	b) false

	a) true
	b) false

	a) true
	b) false

	a) Schroedinger in 1926.
	b) Heisenberg in 1925.
	c) Newton in 1704.
	d) Young in 1801.
	e) Taylor in 1909.

	a) true
	b) false

Wave particle duality quiz version I

	a) Taylor in 1909.
	b) Aspect in 1982.
	c) Newton in 1704.
	d) Davisson and Germer in 1925.
	e) Young in 1801.

	a) true
	b) false

	a) All of these nearly equivalent models explain diffraction.
	b) Forces that the De Broglie pilot wave exert on individual particles.
	c) Forces that the De Broglie pilot wave exert between pairs of particles.
	d) Interference between the component of the wave from each slit.
	e) The fact that particles can make glancing collisions with the edge of a slit.

4 A dead "fly" of mass $m$ is placed in a dark gravity-free vacuum, somewhere not too far from the origin. The speed of the fly is known to be zero with virtually zero uncertainty. To ascertain the fly's position you construct "flyswatter" that can detect any collision between the flyswatter" and fly. A small hole of radius $\Delta x$ in the center of the flyswatter will inform you of whether a collision took place. The uncertainty in the fly's position is $\Delta x$ if the fly passed through the hole. The fly's (non-relativistic) speed is now unknown but estimated to be zero with an uncertainty that can be calculated from:

	a) $\Delta v\cdot \Delta x\leq {\frac {m\hbar }{2}}$
	b) $m\Delta v\cdot \Delta x\geq {\frac {\hbar }{2}}$
	c) $m\Delta v\cdot \Delta x\leq {\frac {\hbar }{2}}$
	d) $\Delta v\cdot \Delta x\geq {\frac {m\hbar }{2}}$

	a) true
	b) false

	a) Heisenberg in 1925.
	b) Newton in 1704.
	c) Taylor in 1909.
	d) Young in 1801.
	e) Schroedinger in 1926.

	a) true
	b) false

	a) true
	b) false

	a) true
	b) false

	a) By the Copenhagen interpretation, knowing that the particle is in one slit destroys the wavefunction at the other slit.
	b) While all of these arguments have been used, the validity of some are "uncertain"(pun intended).
	c) By the uncertainty principle, knowing that the particle is near one slit constitutes a measurement that causes uncertainty in the particle's future motion.
	d) If Heisenberg's microscope is used to ascertain which slit has the particle, the wavelength required to obtain sufficient resolution implies that the photons have sufficient individual momentum to "kick" the particle out of its original path.

Wave particle duality quiz version J

	a) true
	b) false

	a) All of these nearly equivalent models explain diffraction.
	b) Forces that the De Broglie pilot wave exert on individual particles.
	c) The fact that particles can make glancing collisions with the edge of a slit.
	d) Interference between the component of the wave from each slit.
	e) Forces that the De Broglie pilot wave exert between pairs of particles.

	a) Heisenberg in 1925.
	b) Schroedinger in 1926.
	c) Taylor in 1909.
	d) Newton in 1704.
	e) Young in 1801.

	a) By the Copenhagen interpretation, knowing that the particle is in one slit destroys the wavefunction at the other slit.
	b) By the uncertainty principle, knowing that the particle is near one slit constitutes a measurement that causes uncertainty in the particle's future motion.
	c) While all of these arguments have been used, the validity of some are "uncertain"(pun intended).
	d) If Heisenberg's microscope is used to ascertain which slit has the particle, the wavelength required to obtain sufficient resolution implies that the photons have sufficient individual momentum to "kick" the particle out of its original path.

	a) true
	b) false

	a) true
	b) false

	a) Davisson and Germer in 1925.
	b) Aspect in 1982.
	c) Taylor in 1909.
	d) Young in 1801.
	e) Newton in 1704.

	a) true
	b) false

9 A dead "fly" of mass $m$ is placed in a dark gravity-free vacuum, somewhere not too far from the origin. The speed of the fly is known to be zero with virtually zero uncertainty. To ascertain the fly's position you construct "flyswatter" that can detect any collision between the flyswatter" and fly. A small hole of radius $\Delta x$ in the center of the flyswatter will inform you of whether a collision took place. The uncertainty in the fly's position is $\Delta x$ if the fly passed through the hole. The fly's (non-relativistic) speed is now unknown but estimated to be zero with an uncertainty that can be calculated from:

	a) $\Delta v\cdot \Delta x\leq {\frac {m\hbar }{2}}$
	b) $m\Delta v\cdot \Delta x\geq {\frac {\hbar }{2}}$
	c) $m\Delta v\cdot \Delta x\leq {\frac {\hbar }{2}}$
	d) $\Delta v\cdot \Delta x\geq {\frac {m\hbar }{2}}$

	a) true
	b) false

Wave particle duality quiz version K

	a) Forces that the De Broglie pilot wave exert between pairs of particles.
	b) Interference between the component of the wave from each slit.
	c) The fact that particles can make glancing collisions with the edge of a slit.
	d) All of these nearly equivalent models explain diffraction.
	e) Forces that the De Broglie pilot wave exert on individual particles.

	a) Aspect in 1982.
	b) Young in 1801.
	c) Davisson and Germer in 1925.
	d) Taylor in 1909.
	e) Newton in 1704.

	a) true
	b) false

4 A dead "fly" of mass $m$ is placed in a dark gravity-free vacuum, somewhere not too far from the origin. The speed of the fly is known to be zero with virtually zero uncertainty. To ascertain the fly's position you construct "flyswatter" that can detect any collision between the flyswatter" and fly. A small hole of radius $\Delta x$ in the center of the flyswatter will inform you of whether a collision took place. The uncertainty in the fly's position is $\Delta x$ if the fly passed through the hole. The fly's (non-relativistic) speed is now unknown but estimated to be zero with an uncertainty that can be calculated from:

	a) $\Delta v\cdot \Delta x\leq {\frac {m\hbar }{2}}$
	b) $m\Delta v\cdot \Delta x\leq {\frac {\hbar }{2}}$
	c) $m\Delta v\cdot \Delta x\geq {\frac {\hbar }{2}}$
	d) $\Delta v\cdot \Delta x\geq {\frac {m\hbar }{2}}$

	a) true
	b) false

	a) true
	b) false

	a) By the Copenhagen interpretation, knowing that the particle is in one slit destroys the wavefunction at the other slit.
	b) If Heisenberg's microscope is used to ascertain which slit has the particle, the wavelength required to obtain sufficient resolution implies that the photons have sufficient individual momentum to "kick" the particle out of its original path.
	c) By the uncertainty principle, knowing that the particle is near one slit constitutes a measurement that causes uncertainty in the particle's future motion.
	d) While all of these arguments have been used, the validity of some are "uncertain"(pun intended).

	a) true
	b) false

	a) Newton in 1704.
	b) Young in 1801.
	c) Schroedinger in 1926.
	d) Heisenberg in 1925.
	e) Taylor in 1909.

	a) true
	b) false

Wave particle duality quiz version L

	a) true
	b) false

	a) true
	b) false

	a) true
	b) false

	a) While all of these arguments have been used, the validity of some are "uncertain"(pun intended).
	b) By the uncertainty principle, knowing that the particle is near one slit constitutes a measurement that causes uncertainty in the particle's future motion.
	c) By the Copenhagen interpretation, knowing that the particle is in one slit destroys the wavefunction at the other slit.
	d) If Heisenberg's microscope is used to ascertain which slit has the particle, the wavelength required to obtain sufficient resolution implies that the photons have sufficient individual momentum to "kick" the particle out of its original path.

	a) Newton in 1704.
	b) Taylor in 1909.
	c) Heisenberg in 1925.
	d) Young in 1801.
	e) Schroedinger in 1926.

	a) Newton in 1704.
	b) Davisson and Germer in 1925.
	c) Taylor in 1909.
	d) Young in 1801.
	e) Aspect in 1982.

	a) true
	b) false

8 A dead "fly" of mass $m$ is placed in a dark gravity-free vacuum, somewhere not too far from the origin. The speed of the fly is known to be zero with virtually zero uncertainty. To ascertain the fly's position you construct "flyswatter" that can detect any collision between the flyswatter" and fly. A small hole of radius $\Delta x$ in the center of the flyswatter will inform you of whether a collision took place. The uncertainty in the fly's position is $\Delta x$ if the fly passed through the hole. The fly's (non-relativistic) speed is now unknown but estimated to be zero with an uncertainty that can be calculated from:

	a) $\Delta v\cdot \Delta x\leq {\frac {m\hbar }{2}}$
	b) $m\Delta v\cdot \Delta x\leq {\frac {\hbar }{2}}$
	c) $\Delta v\cdot \Delta x\geq {\frac {m\hbar }{2}}$
	d) $m\Delta v\cdot \Delta x\geq {\frac {\hbar }{2}}$

	a) true
	b) false

	a) Forces that the De Broglie pilot wave exert between pairs of particles.
	b) The fact that particles can make glancing collisions with the edge of a slit.
	c) All of these nearly equivalent models explain diffraction.
	d) Interference between the component of the wave from each slit.
	e) Forces that the De Broglie pilot wave exert on individual particles.

Wave particle duality quiz version M

	a) true
	b) false

	a) Interference between the component of the wave from each slit.
	b) Forces that the De Broglie pilot wave exert on individual particles.
	c) Forces that the De Broglie pilot wave exert between pairs of particles.
	d) All of these nearly equivalent models explain diffraction.
	e) The fact that particles can make glancing collisions with the edge of a slit.

	a) By the uncertainty principle, knowing that the particle is near one slit constitutes a measurement that causes uncertainty in the particle's future motion.
	b) By the Copenhagen interpretation, knowing that the particle is in one slit destroys the wavefunction at the other slit.
	c) While all of these arguments have been used, the validity of some are "uncertain"(pun intended).
	d) If Heisenberg's microscope is used to ascertain which slit has the particle, the wavelength required to obtain sufficient resolution implies that the photons have sufficient individual momentum to "kick" the particle out of its original path.

	a) true
	b) false

	a) true
	b) false

	a) true
	b) false

	a) Heisenberg in 1925.
	b) Taylor in 1909.
	c) Schroedinger in 1926.
	d) Young in 1801.
	e) Newton in 1704.

	a) Davisson and Germer in 1925.
	b) Aspect in 1982.
	c) Young in 1801.
	d) Newton in 1704.
	e) Taylor in 1909.

	a) true
	b) false

10 A dead "fly" of mass $m$ is placed in a dark gravity-free vacuum, somewhere not too far from the origin. The speed of the fly is known to be zero with virtually zero uncertainty. To ascertain the fly's position you construct "flyswatter" that can detect any collision between the flyswatter" and fly. A small hole of radius $\Delta x$ in the center of the flyswatter will inform you of whether a collision took place. The uncertainty in the fly's position is $\Delta x$ if the fly passed through the hole. The fly's (non-relativistic) speed is now unknown but estimated to be zero with an uncertainty that can be calculated from:

	a) $\Delta v\cdot \Delta x\geq {\frac {m\hbar }{2}}$
	b) $m\Delta v\cdot \Delta x\leq {\frac {\hbar }{2}}$
	c) $\Delta v\cdot \Delta x\leq {\frac {m\hbar }{2}}$
	d) $m\Delta v\cdot \Delta x\geq {\frac {\hbar }{2}}$

Wave particle duality quiz version N

	a) true
	b) false

	a) true
	b) false

	a) Heisenberg in 1925.
	b) Taylor in 1909.
	c) Newton in 1704.
	d) Schroedinger in 1926.
	e) Young in 1801.

4 A dead "fly" of mass $m$ is placed in a dark gravity-free vacuum, somewhere not too far from the origin. The speed of the fly is known to be zero with virtually zero uncertainty. To ascertain the fly's position you construct "flyswatter" that can detect any collision between the flyswatter" and fly. A small hole of radius $\Delta x$ in the center of the flyswatter will inform you of whether a collision took place. The uncertainty in the fly's position is $\Delta x$ if the fly passed through the hole. The fly's (non-relativistic) speed is now unknown but estimated to be zero with an uncertainty that can be calculated from:

	a) $m\Delta v\cdot \Delta x\leq {\frac {\hbar }{2}}$
	b) $\Delta v\cdot \Delta x\geq {\frac {m\hbar }{2}}$
	c) $\Delta v\cdot \Delta x\leq {\frac {m\hbar }{2}}$
	d) $m\Delta v\cdot \Delta x\geq {\frac {\hbar }{2}}$

	a) true
	b) false

	a) true
	b) false

	a) By the uncertainty principle, knowing that the particle is near one slit constitutes a measurement that causes uncertainty in the particle's future motion.
	b) If Heisenberg's microscope is used to ascertain which slit has the particle, the wavelength required to obtain sufficient resolution implies that the photons have sufficient individual momentum to "kick" the particle out of its original path.
	c) While all of these arguments have been used, the validity of some are "uncertain"(pun intended).
	d) By the Copenhagen interpretation, knowing that the particle is in one slit destroys the wavefunction at the other slit.

	a) true
	b) false

	a) Taylor in 1909.
	b) Davisson and Germer in 1925.
	c) Newton in 1704.
	d) Young in 1801.
	e) Aspect in 1982.

	a) Interference between the component of the wave from each slit.
	b) Forces that the De Broglie pilot wave exert between pairs of particles.
	c) The fact that particles can make glancing collisions with the edge of a slit.
	d) All of these nearly equivalent models explain diffraction.
	e) Forces that the De Broglie pilot wave exert on individual particles.

Wave particle duality quiz version O

	a) true
	b) false

2 A dead "fly" of mass $m$ is placed in a dark gravity-free vacuum, somewhere not too far from the origin. The speed of the fly is known to be zero with virtually zero uncertainty. To ascertain the fly's position you construct "flyswatter" that can detect any collision between the flyswatter" and fly. A small hole of radius $\Delta x$ in the center of the flyswatter will inform you of whether a collision took place. The uncertainty in the fly's position is $\Delta x$ if the fly passed through the hole. The fly's (non-relativistic) speed is now unknown but estimated to be zero with an uncertainty that can be calculated from:

	a) $m\Delta v\cdot \Delta x\geq {\frac {\hbar }{2}}$
	b) $\Delta v\cdot \Delta x\geq {\frac {m\hbar }{2}}$
	c) $\Delta v\cdot \Delta x\leq {\frac {m\hbar }{2}}$
	d) $m\Delta v\cdot \Delta x\leq {\frac {\hbar }{2}}$

	a) true
	b) false

	a) Taylor in 1909.
	b) Davisson and Germer in 1925.
	c) Newton in 1704.
	d) Aspect in 1982.
	e) Young in 1801.

	a) true
	b) false

	a) true
	b) false

	a) All of these nearly equivalent models explain diffraction.
	b) Forces that the De Broglie pilot wave exert between pairs of particles.
	c) Interference between the component of the wave from each slit.
	d) Forces that the De Broglie pilot wave exert on individual particles.
	e) The fact that particles can make glancing collisions with the edge of a slit.

	a) By the uncertainty principle, knowing that the particle is near one slit constitutes a measurement that causes uncertainty in the particle's future motion.
	b) By the Copenhagen interpretation, knowing that the particle is in one slit destroys the wavefunction at the other slit.
	c) While all of these arguments have been used, the validity of some are "uncertain"(pun intended).
	d) If Heisenberg's microscope is used to ascertain which slit has the particle, the wavelength required to obtain sufficient resolution implies that the photons have sufficient individual momentum to "kick" the particle out of its original path.

	a) Young in 1801.
	b) Taylor in 1909.
	c) Heisenberg in 1925.
	d) Newton in 1704.
	e) Schroedinger in 1926.

	a) true
	b) false

Wave particle duality quiz version P

	a) true
	b) false

	a) Heisenberg in 1925.
	b) Taylor in 1909.
	c) Schroedinger in 1926.
	d) Newton in 1704.
	e) Young in 1801.

	a) true
	b) false

	a) true
	b) false

	a) By the Copenhagen interpretation, knowing that the particle is in one slit destroys the wavefunction at the other slit.
	b) By the uncertainty principle, knowing that the particle is near one slit constitutes a measurement that causes uncertainty in the particle's future motion.
	c) If Heisenberg's microscope is used to ascertain which slit has the particle, the wavelength required to obtain sufficient resolution implies that the photons have sufficient individual momentum to "kick" the particle out of its original path.
	d) While all of these arguments have been used, the validity of some are "uncertain"(pun intended).

	a) Taylor in 1909.
	b) Davisson and Germer in 1925.
	c) Young in 1801.
	d) Newton in 1704.
	e) Aspect in 1982.

7 A dead "fly" of mass $m$ is placed in a dark gravity-free vacuum, somewhere not too far from the origin. The speed of the fly is known to be zero with virtually zero uncertainty. To ascertain the fly's position you construct "flyswatter" that can detect any collision between the flyswatter" and fly. A small hole of radius $\Delta x$ in the center of the flyswatter will inform you of whether a collision took place. The uncertainty in the fly's position is $\Delta x$ if the fly passed through the hole. The fly's (non-relativistic) speed is now unknown but estimated to be zero with an uncertainty that can be calculated from:

	a) $m\Delta v\cdot \Delta x\leq {\frac {\hbar }{2}}$
	b) $\Delta v\cdot \Delta x\geq {\frac {m\hbar }{2}}$
	c) $m\Delta v\cdot \Delta x\geq {\frac {\hbar }{2}}$
	d) $\Delta v\cdot \Delta x\leq {\frac {m\hbar }{2}}$

	a) true
	b) false

	a) Forces that the De Broglie pilot wave exert between pairs of particles.
	b) All of these nearly equivalent models explain diffraction.
	c) Interference between the component of the wave from each slit.
	d) The fact that particles can make glancing collisions with the edge of a slit.
	e) Forces that the De Broglie pilot wave exert on individual particles.

	a) true
	b) false

Wave particle duality quiz version Q

1 A dead "fly" of mass $m$ is placed in a dark gravity-free vacuum, somewhere not too far from the origin. The speed of the fly is known to be zero with virtually zero uncertainty. To ascertain the fly's position you construct "flyswatter" that can detect any collision between the flyswatter" and fly. A small hole of radius $\Delta x$ in the center of the flyswatter will inform you of whether a collision took place. The uncertainty in the fly's position is $\Delta x$ if the fly passed through the hole. The fly's (non-relativistic) speed is now unknown but estimated to be zero with an uncertainty that can be calculated from:

	a) $\Delta v\cdot \Delta x\geq {\frac {m\hbar }{2}}$
	b) $\Delta v\cdot \Delta x\leq {\frac {m\hbar }{2}}$
	c) $m\Delta v\cdot \Delta x\geq {\frac {\hbar }{2}}$
	d) $m\Delta v\cdot \Delta x\leq {\frac {\hbar }{2}}$

	a) true
	b) false

	a) true
	b) false

	a) All of these nearly equivalent models explain diffraction.
	b) The fact that particles can make glancing collisions with the edge of a slit.
	c) Interference between the component of the wave from each slit.
	d) Forces that the De Broglie pilot wave exert between pairs of particles.
	e) Forces that the De Broglie pilot wave exert on individual particles.

	a) Heisenberg in 1925.
	b) Young in 1801.
	c) Taylor in 1909.
	d) Schroedinger in 1926.
	e) Newton in 1704.

	a) true
	b) false

	a) Taylor in 1909.
	b) Young in 1801.
	c) Davisson and Germer in 1925.
	d) Newton in 1704.
	e) Aspect in 1982.

	a) true
	b) false

	a) true
	b) false

	a) By the uncertainty principle, knowing that the particle is near one slit constitutes a measurement that causes uncertainty in the particle's future motion.
	b) By the Copenhagen interpretation, knowing that the particle is in one slit destroys the wavefunction at the other slit.
	c) While all of these arguments have been used, the validity of some are "uncertain"(pun intended).
	d) If Heisenberg's microscope is used to ascertain which slit has the particle, the wavelength required to obtain sufficient resolution implies that the photons have sufficient individual momentum to "kick" the particle out of its original path.

Wave particle duality quiz version R

	a) Newton in 1704.
	b) Aspect in 1982.
	c) Davisson and Germer in 1925.
	d) Young in 1801.
	e) Taylor in 1909.

	a) true
	b) false

	a) By the Copenhagen interpretation, knowing that the particle is in one slit destroys the wavefunction at the other slit.
	b) While all of these arguments have been used, the validity of some are "uncertain"(pun intended).
	c) If Heisenberg's microscope is used to ascertain which slit has the particle, the wavelength required to obtain sufficient resolution implies that the photons have sufficient individual momentum to "kick" the particle out of its original path.
	d) By the uncertainty principle, knowing that the particle is near one slit constitutes a measurement that causes uncertainty in the particle's future motion.

4 A dead "fly" of mass $m$ is placed in a dark gravity-free vacuum, somewhere not too far from the origin. The speed of the fly is known to be zero with virtually zero uncertainty. To ascertain the fly's position you construct "flyswatter" that can detect any collision between the flyswatter" and fly. A small hole of radius $\Delta x$ in the center of the flyswatter will inform you of whether a collision took place. The uncertainty in the fly's position is $\Delta x$ if the fly passed through the hole. The fly's (non-relativistic) speed is now unknown but estimated to be zero with an uncertainty that can be calculated from:

	a) $m\Delta v\cdot \Delta x\geq {\frac {\hbar }{2}}$
	b) $\Delta v\cdot \Delta x\geq {\frac {m\hbar }{2}}$
	c) $\Delta v\cdot \Delta x\leq {\frac {m\hbar }{2}}$
	d) $m\Delta v\cdot \Delta x\leq {\frac {\hbar }{2}}$

	a) true
	b) false

	a) Interference between the component of the wave from each slit.
	b) All of these nearly equivalent models explain diffraction.
	c) The fact that particles can make glancing collisions with the edge of a slit.
	d) Forces that the De Broglie pilot wave exert on individual particles.
	e) Forces that the De Broglie pilot wave exert between pairs of particles.

	a) true
	b) false

	a) true
	b) false

	a) Newton in 1704.
	b) Heisenberg in 1925.
	c) Young in 1801.
	d) Taylor in 1909.
	e) Schroedinger in 1926.

	a) true
	b) false

Wave particle duality quiz version S

	a) true
	b) false

	a) true
	b) false

	a) Forces that the De Broglie pilot wave exert between pairs of particles.
	b) The fact that particles can make glancing collisions with the edge of a slit.
	c) Forces that the De Broglie pilot wave exert on individual particles.
	d) Interference between the component of the wave from each slit.
	e) All of these nearly equivalent models explain diffraction.

	a) true
	b) false

	a) By the uncertainty principle, knowing that the particle is near one slit constitutes a measurement that causes uncertainty in the particle's future motion.
	b) While all of these arguments have been used, the validity of some are "uncertain"(pun intended).
	c) If Heisenberg's microscope is used to ascertain which slit has the particle, the wavelength required to obtain sufficient resolution implies that the photons have sufficient individual momentum to "kick" the particle out of its original path.
	d) By the Copenhagen interpretation, knowing that the particle is in one slit destroys the wavefunction at the other slit.

	a) Newton in 1704.
	b) Taylor in 1909.
	c) Schroedinger in 1926.
	d) Young in 1801.
	e) Heisenberg in 1925.

	a) true
	b) false

8 A dead "fly" of mass $m$ is placed in a dark gravity-free vacuum, somewhere not too far from the origin. The speed of the fly is known to be zero with virtually zero uncertainty. To ascertain the fly's position you construct "flyswatter" that can detect any collision between the flyswatter" and fly. A small hole of radius $\Delta x$ in the center of the flyswatter will inform you of whether a collision took place. The uncertainty in the fly's position is $\Delta x$ if the fly passed through the hole. The fly's (non-relativistic) speed is now unknown but estimated to be zero with an uncertainty that can be calculated from:

	a) $\Delta v\cdot \Delta x\leq {\frac {m\hbar }{2}}$
	b) $m\Delta v\cdot \Delta x\leq {\frac {\hbar }{2}}$
	c) $\Delta v\cdot \Delta x\geq {\frac {m\hbar }{2}}$
	d) $m\Delta v\cdot \Delta x\geq {\frac {\hbar }{2}}$

	a) Davisson and Germer in 1925.
	b) Young in 1801.
	c) Taylor in 1909.
	d) Newton in 1704.
	e) Aspect in 1982.

	a) true
	b) false

Wave particle duality quiz version T

1 A dead "fly" of mass $m$ is placed in a dark gravity-free vacuum, somewhere not too far from the origin. The speed of the fly is known to be zero with virtually zero uncertainty. To ascertain the fly's position you construct "flyswatter" that can detect any collision between the flyswatter" and fly. A small hole of radius $\Delta x$ in the center of the flyswatter will inform you of whether a collision took place. The uncertainty in the fly's position is $\Delta x$ if the fly passed through the hole. The fly's (non-relativistic) speed is now unknown but estimated to be zero with an uncertainty that can be calculated from:

	a) $\Delta v\cdot \Delta x\geq {\frac {m\hbar }{2}}$
	b) $m\Delta v\cdot \Delta x\geq {\frac {\hbar }{2}}$
	c) $m\Delta v\cdot \Delta x\leq {\frac {\hbar }{2}}$
	d) $\Delta v\cdot \Delta x\leq {\frac {m\hbar }{2}}$

	a) The fact that particles can make glancing collisions with the edge of a slit.
	b) Forces that the De Broglie pilot wave exert between pairs of particles.
	c) All of these nearly equivalent models explain diffraction.
	d) Forces that the De Broglie pilot wave exert on individual particles.
	e) Interference between the component of the wave from each slit.

	a) Aspect in 1982.
	b) Taylor in 1909.
	c) Newton in 1704.
	d) Davisson and Germer in 1925.
	e) Young in 1801.

	a) Heisenberg in 1925.
	b) Taylor in 1909.
	c) Newton in 1704.
	d) Schroedinger in 1926.
	e) Young in 1801.

	a) By the Copenhagen interpretation, knowing that the particle is in one slit destroys the wavefunction at the other slit.
	b) If Heisenberg's microscope is used to ascertain which slit has the particle, the wavelength required to obtain sufficient resolution implies that the photons have sufficient individual momentum to "kick" the particle out of its original path.
	c) By the uncertainty principle, knowing that the particle is near one slit constitutes a measurement that causes uncertainty in the particle's future motion.
	d) While all of these arguments have been used, the validity of some are "uncertain"(pun intended).

	a) true
	b) false

	a) true
	b) false

	a) true
	b) false

	a) true
	b) false

	a) true
	b) false

Wave particle duality quiz version U

	a) true
	b) false

2 A dead "fly" of mass $m$ is placed in a dark gravity-free vacuum, somewhere not too far from the origin. The speed of the fly is known to be zero with virtually zero uncertainty. To ascertain the fly's position you construct "flyswatter" that can detect any collision between the flyswatter" and fly. A small hole of radius $\Delta x$ in the center of the flyswatter will inform you of whether a collision took place. The uncertainty in the fly's position is $\Delta x$ if the fly passed through the hole. The fly's (non-relativistic) speed is now unknown but estimated to be zero with an uncertainty that can be calculated from:

	a) $m\Delta v\cdot \Delta x\leq {\frac {\hbar }{2}}$
	b) $\Delta v\cdot \Delta x\leq {\frac {m\hbar }{2}}$
	c) $\Delta v\cdot \Delta x\geq {\frac {m\hbar }{2}}$
	d) $m\Delta v\cdot \Delta x\geq {\frac {\hbar }{2}}$

	a) true
	b) false

	a) Young in 1801.
	b) Davisson and Germer in 1925.
	c) Aspect in 1982.
	d) Taylor in 1909.
	e) Newton in 1704.

	a) Schroedinger in 1926.
	b) Young in 1801.
	c) Heisenberg in 1925.
	d) Taylor in 1909.
	e) Newton in 1704.

	a) true
	b) false

	a) true
	b) false

	a) By the Copenhagen interpretation, knowing that the particle is in one slit destroys the wavefunction at the other slit.
	b) While all of these arguments have been used, the validity of some are "uncertain"(pun intended).
	c) By the uncertainty principle, knowing that the particle is near one slit constitutes a measurement that causes uncertainty in the particle's future motion.
	d) If Heisenberg's microscope is used to ascertain which slit has the particle, the wavelength required to obtain sufficient resolution implies that the photons have sufficient individual momentum to "kick" the particle out of its original path.

	a) true
	b) false

	a) Forces that the De Broglie pilot wave exert on individual particles.
	b) All of these nearly equivalent models explain diffraction.
	c) Forces that the De Broglie pilot wave exert between pairs of particles.
	d) Interference between the component of the wave from each slit.
	e) The fact that particles can make glancing collisions with the edge of a slit.

Wave particle duality quiz version V

	a) Taylor in 1909.
	b) Davisson and Germer in 1925.
	c) Young in 1801.
	d) Newton in 1704.
	e) Aspect in 1982.

	a) true
	b) false

	a) Newton in 1704.
	b) Young in 1801.
	c) Schroedinger in 1926.
	d) Heisenberg in 1925.
	e) Taylor in 1909.

4 A dead "fly" of mass $m$ is placed in a dark gravity-free vacuum, somewhere not too far from the origin. The speed of the fly is known to be zero with virtually zero uncertainty. To ascertain the fly's position you construct "flyswatter" that can detect any collision between the flyswatter" and fly. A small hole of radius $\Delta x$ in the center of the flyswatter will inform you of whether a collision took place. The uncertainty in the fly's position is $\Delta x$ if the fly passed through the hole. The fly's (non-relativistic) speed is now unknown but estimated to be zero with an uncertainty that can be calculated from:

	a) $\Delta v\cdot \Delta x\geq {\frac {m\hbar }{2}}$
	b) $m\Delta v\cdot \Delta x\leq {\frac {\hbar }{2}}$
	c) $m\Delta v\cdot \Delta x\geq {\frac {\hbar }{2}}$
	d) $\Delta v\cdot \Delta x\leq {\frac {m\hbar }{2}}$

	a) If Heisenberg's microscope is used to ascertain which slit has the particle, the wavelength required to obtain sufficient resolution implies that the photons have sufficient individual momentum to "kick" the particle out of its original path.
	b) By the Copenhagen interpretation, knowing that the particle is in one slit destroys the wavefunction at the other slit.
	c) By the uncertainty principle, knowing that the particle is near one slit constitutes a measurement that causes uncertainty in the particle's future motion.
	d) While all of these arguments have been used, the validity of some are "uncertain"(pun intended).

	a) true
	b) false

	a) true
	b) false

	a) true
	b) false

	a) Interference between the component of the wave from each slit.
	b) The fact that particles can make glancing collisions with the edge of a slit.
	c) Forces that the De Broglie pilot wave exert on individual particles.
	d) All of these nearly equivalent models explain diffraction.
	e) Forces that the De Broglie pilot wave exert between pairs of particles.

	a) true
	b) false

Wave particle duality quiz version W

	a) true
	b) false

	a) Young in 1801.
	b) Schroedinger in 1926.
	c) Heisenberg in 1925.
	d) Taylor in 1909.
	e) Newton in 1704.

	a) By the Copenhagen interpretation, knowing that the particle is in one slit destroys the wavefunction at the other slit.
	b) By the uncertainty principle, knowing that the particle is near one slit constitutes a measurement that causes uncertainty in the particle's future motion.
	c) While all of these arguments have been used, the validity of some are "uncertain"(pun intended).
	d) If Heisenberg's microscope is used to ascertain which slit has the particle, the wavelength required to obtain sufficient resolution implies that the photons have sufficient individual momentum to "kick" the particle out of its original path.

4 A dead "fly" of mass $m$ is placed in a dark gravity-free vacuum, somewhere not too far from the origin. The speed of the fly is known to be zero with virtually zero uncertainty. To ascertain the fly's position you construct "flyswatter" that can detect any collision between the flyswatter" and fly. A small hole of radius $\Delta x$ in the center of the flyswatter will inform you of whether a collision took place. The uncertainty in the fly's position is $\Delta x$ if the fly passed through the hole. The fly's (non-relativistic) speed is now unknown but estimated to be zero with an uncertainty that can be calculated from:

	a) $m\Delta v\cdot \Delta x\geq {\frac {\hbar }{2}}$
	b) $m\Delta v\cdot \Delta x\leq {\frac {\hbar }{2}}$
	c) $\Delta v\cdot \Delta x\geq {\frac {m\hbar }{2}}$
	d) $\Delta v\cdot \Delta x\leq {\frac {m\hbar }{2}}$

	a) true
	b) false

	a) true
	b) false

	a) Interference between the component of the wave from each slit.
	b) Forces that the De Broglie pilot wave exert between pairs of particles.
	c) Forces that the De Broglie pilot wave exert on individual particles.
	d) The fact that particles can make glancing collisions with the edge of a slit.
	e) All of these nearly equivalent models explain diffraction.

	a) Newton in 1704.
	b) Taylor in 1909.
	c) Aspect in 1982.
	d) Young in 1801.
	e) Davisson and Germer in 1925.

	a) true
	b) false

	a) true
	b) false

Wave particle duality quiz version X

	a) Heisenberg in 1925.
	b) Taylor in 1909.
	c) Schroedinger in 1926.
	d) Newton in 1704.
	e) Young in 1801.

	a) true
	b) false

	a) true
	b) false

	a) Newton in 1704.
	b) Aspect in 1982.
	c) Taylor in 1909.
	d) Young in 1801.
	e) Davisson and Germer in 1925.

	a) All of these nearly equivalent models explain diffraction.
	b) Interference between the component of the wave from each slit.
	c) Forces that the De Broglie pilot wave exert between pairs of particles.
	d) Forces that the De Broglie pilot wave exert on individual particles.
	e) The fact that particles can make glancing collisions with the edge of a slit.

	a) true
	b) false

	a) true
	b) false

8 A dead "fly" of mass $m$ is placed in a dark gravity-free vacuum, somewhere not too far from the origin. The speed of the fly is known to be zero with virtually zero uncertainty. To ascertain the fly's position you construct "flyswatter" that can detect any collision between the flyswatter" and fly. A small hole of radius $\Delta x$ in the center of the flyswatter will inform you of whether a collision took place. The uncertainty in the fly's position is $\Delta x$ if the fly passed through the hole. The fly's (non-relativistic) speed is now unknown but estimated to be zero with an uncertainty that can be calculated from:

	a) $\Delta v\cdot \Delta x\geq {\frac {m\hbar }{2}}$
	b) $\Delta v\cdot \Delta x\leq {\frac {m\hbar }{2}}$
	c) $m\Delta v\cdot \Delta x\geq {\frac {\hbar }{2}}$
	d) $m\Delta v\cdot \Delta x\leq {\frac {\hbar }{2}}$

	a) By the Copenhagen interpretation, knowing that the particle is in one slit destroys the wavefunction at the other slit.
	b) By the uncertainty principle, knowing that the particle is near one slit constitutes a measurement that causes uncertainty in the particle's future motion.
	c) If Heisenberg's microscope is used to ascertain which slit has the particle, the wavelength required to obtain sufficient resolution implies that the photons have sufficient individual momentum to "kick" the particle out of its original path.
	d) While all of these arguments have been used, the validity of some are "uncertain"(pun intended).

	a) true
	b) false

Wave particle duality quiz version Y

	a) true
	b) false

	a) Taylor in 1909.
	b) Aspect in 1982.
	c) Davisson and Germer in 1925.
	d) Newton in 1704.
	e) Young in 1801.

	a) Newton in 1704.
	b) Taylor in 1909.
	c) Schroedinger in 1926.
	d) Young in 1801.
	e) Heisenberg in 1925.

4 A dead "fly" of mass $m$ is placed in a dark gravity-free vacuum, somewhere not too far from the origin. The speed of the fly is known to be zero with virtually zero uncertainty. To ascertain the fly's position you construct "flyswatter" that can detect any collision between the flyswatter" and fly. A small hole of radius $\Delta x$ in the center of the flyswatter will inform you of whether a collision took place. The uncertainty in the fly's position is $\Delta x$ if the fly passed through the hole. The fly's (non-relativistic) speed is now unknown but estimated to be zero with an uncertainty that can be calculated from:

	a) $m\Delta v\cdot \Delta x\leq {\frac {\hbar }{2}}$
	b) $m\Delta v\cdot \Delta x\geq {\frac {\hbar }{2}}$
	c) $\Delta v\cdot \Delta x\leq {\frac {m\hbar }{2}}$
	d) $\Delta v\cdot \Delta x\geq {\frac {m\hbar }{2}}$

	a) true
	b) false

	a) true
	b) false

	a) Forces that the De Broglie pilot wave exert on individual particles.
	b) Interference between the component of the wave from each slit.
	c) Forces that the De Broglie pilot wave exert between pairs of particles.
	d) All of these nearly equivalent models explain diffraction.
	e) The fact that particles can make glancing collisions with the edge of a slit.

	a) By the uncertainty principle, knowing that the particle is near one slit constitutes a measurement that causes uncertainty in the particle's future motion.
	b) By the Copenhagen interpretation, knowing that the particle is in one slit destroys the wavefunction at the other slit.
	c) While all of these arguments have been used, the validity of some are "uncertain"(pun intended).
	d) If Heisenberg's microscope is used to ascertain which slit has the particle, the wavelength required to obtain sufficient resolution implies that the photons have sufficient individual momentum to "kick" the particle out of its original path.

	a) true
	b) false

	a) true
	b) false

Wave particle duality quiz version Z

	a) true
	b) false

	a) Aspect in 1982.
	b) Taylor in 1909.
	c) Young in 1801.
	d) Newton in 1704.
	e) Davisson and Germer in 1925.

	a) true
	b) false

	a) Young in 1801.
	b) Heisenberg in 1925.
	c) Taylor in 1909.
	d) Schroedinger in 1926.
	e) Newton in 1704.

	a) Interference between the component of the wave from each slit.
	b) All of these nearly equivalent models explain diffraction.
	c) The fact that particles can make glancing collisions with the edge of a slit.
	d) Forces that the De Broglie pilot wave exert between pairs of particles.
	e) Forces that the De Broglie pilot wave exert on individual particles.

6 A dead "fly" of mass $m$ is placed in a dark gravity-free vacuum, somewhere not too far from the origin. The speed of the fly is known to be zero with virtually zero uncertainty. To ascertain the fly's position you construct "flyswatter" that can detect any collision between the flyswatter" and fly. A small hole of radius $\Delta x$ in the center of the flyswatter will inform you of whether a collision took place. The uncertainty in the fly's position is $\Delta x$ if the fly passed through the hole. The fly's (non-relativistic) speed is now unknown but estimated to be zero with an uncertainty that can be calculated from:

	a) $m\Delta v\cdot \Delta x\geq {\frac {\hbar }{2}}$
	b) $m\Delta v\cdot \Delta x\leq {\frac {\hbar }{2}}$
	c) $\Delta v\cdot \Delta x\geq {\frac {m\hbar }{2}}$
	d) $\Delta v\cdot \Delta x\leq {\frac {m\hbar }{2}}$

	a) true
	b) false

	a) true
	b) false

	a) true
	b) false

	a) If Heisenberg's microscope is used to ascertain which slit has the particle, the wavelength required to obtain sufficient resolution implies that the photons have sufficient individual momentum to "kick" the particle out of its original path.
	b) While all of these arguments have been used, the validity of some are "uncertain"(pun intended).
	c) By the uncertainty principle, knowing that the particle is near one slit constitutes a measurement that causes uncertainty in the particle's future motion.
	d) By the Copenhagen interpretation, knowing that the particle is in one slit destroys the wavefunction at the other slit.

This article is issued from Wikiversity. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.