Can we pinpoint the exact location of an electron in motion?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter lawtonfogle
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Principle
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the possibility of pinpointing the exact location of an electron in motion, exploring concepts related to the uncertainty principle, measurement limitations, and the implications of theoretical scenarios such as time travel on these principles. The scope includes theoretical and conceptual aspects of quantum mechanics.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that while we cannot determine an electron's exact position, we might limit its possible positions and momenta through extensive calculations and measurements.
  • Others argue that the uncertainty principle fundamentally restricts the simultaneous knowledge of position and momentum, asserting that any measurement alters the electron's state.
  • A participant suggests that if time travel were possible, it might allow for different experimental conditions that could circumvent the uncertainty principle, raising questions about the implications of such a scenario.
  • There is a discussion about the nature of electron motion, with one participant describing it as electrons appearing and disappearing around the nucleus, likening it to a firefly lighting up at various points.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express disagreement regarding the implications of the uncertainty principle and whether it can be circumvented through hypothetical scenarios like time travel. There is no consensus on the feasibility of pinpointing an electron's location or the interpretation of its motion.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the dependence on interpretations of quantum mechanics and the unresolved nature of the discussions surrounding the uncertainty principle and its implications for measurement and theoretical constructs.

lawtonfogle
Messages
159
Reaction score
0
I thought of this the same time i was thinking of my other post (a.k.a. If God does exist).

we cannot tell where the electron is by testing it, but we can tell where it is not. If we shoot particle form point A, and it does not return to point A, we can tell that the electorn is not in the orbit that would have existed by a straight head on collision with the particle. Using this method and many super computers, in theory could not we limit the posible positions, speeds and directions of the electron, and given ehough time we could actualy leave only one posible path. This might even be applied to atoms above H, given though the time and amount of calculations would grow (expotetionaly so).
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You seem to have missed the whole point of the "uncertainty" principle. The "uncertainty" principle doesn't say you can't know the electron's position- it says you can't know the electron's position and momentum at the same time. If you don't know the position of an electron, you can't be sure that some of your particles won't hit the electron. As soon as that happens, you have changed the electrons momentum.
 
maybe i did not state like i meant. I do know of the uncertainty principle, which says the better you know the position or momentum, the worse you know the other. What I am saying is there might be some long drawn out way to eliminate posible postions and momentums. The main problem is how much calculating it would take even knowing an electrons position and momentum, to predict the continuation of its orbit for even a year. Now multiply this by all the orbits we can prove false, and we cannot not find a computer to handle this.
 
lawtonfogle said:
maybe i did not state like i meant. I do know of the uncertainty principle, which says the better you know the position or momentum, the worse you know the other. What I am saying is there might be some long drawn out way to eliminate posible postions and momentums. The main problem is how much calculating it would take even knowing an electrons position and momentum, to predict the continuation of its orbit for even a year. Now multiply this by all the orbits we can prove false, and we cannot not find a computer to handle this.


No.

The uncertainty principle is a real physical property of matter, not just a limitation on measurement. If it wasn't, the sun would never have been able to attain fusion. (it would have to be about a thousand times hotter in the core). You can't try to get around the unceraitnty principle like that because it is a physical property of matter.
 
What I am saying is there might be some long drawn out way to eliminate posible postions and momentums.

Yes, it is clear that you do not understand what the "uncertainty principle" says. Every time you do one measurement (in order to "eliminate posible postions and momentums") you completely change the situation. The next measurement cannot be used with preceding measurements to get a more accurate result- the preceding measurements are no longer valid and you are right back to the original situation with only one measurement.
 
ok, my misunderstanting. But if one could time travle, could not one go back and do a different expereiments on the atom at the exact time, and come up with the answer after enough test were done.

If this is true, then would not time travle make the uncertainty principle not true. Which would only allow on or the other to exist. Just another problem with time travle
 
Do electrons really come in and out of existence?

The motion of the electron about the nucleus is a somewhat controversial topic. The electron does not exhibit motion in the physical sense — it does not "float"; rather, it seems to appear in and out of existence, at various points around the nucleus (of course, 90% of the time the electron can be found in its designated orbital). A simple analogy would be a firefly, in a dark room, lighting up at various points about a central light source — it can light up anywhere, but it is most likely to appear closer to the source than otherwise.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
286
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 35 ·
2
Replies
35
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
10K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K