Bumblebee uncertainty question

  • Thread starter Thread starter Nathew
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Uncertainty
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around a problem involving a bumblebee's position and the theoretical uncertainty in that position, framed within the context of quantum mechanics. The original poster presents measurements of the bumblebee's position in three dimensions and queries about the uncertainty associated with these measurements.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Assumption checking, Conceptual clarification

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the meaning of Δx in the context of the uncertainty principle and question how to interpret the measurements provided. There is confusion regarding the relevance of mass and velocity in calculating uncertainty, as well as the implications of measurement precision.

Discussion Status

The conversation is ongoing, with participants exploring different interpretations of the problem and the associated uncertainties. Some suggest that the problem may not directly relate to quantum mechanics, while others express uncertainty about how to apply the provided measurements to the uncertainty equation.

Contextual Notes

Participants note that the problem statement does not explicitly mention mass or quantum mechanics, leading to varied interpretations. There is also discussion about the precision of the measurements and how that affects the calculation of uncertainty.

Nathew

Homework Statement


A bumblebee is flying around your kitchen with an average speed of 5.0 m/s. You very carefully measure its position to be 3.01 m in the x direction, 0.25 m in the y direction and 1.23 m in the z direction. What is the approximate theoretical uncertainty in its position?

Homework Equations


(Δx)(Δp)≥ℏ

The Attempt at a Solution


I was told to just estimate the mass of a bumblebee. let's say 1.5 grams. so p=7.5. I'm just confused on the Δx part. I assume it has to do with the amount of decimals, but how do I fit that in?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
It's hard to answer that without giving away the solution. (Edit: No, it's not that simple. I originally thought that this problem was much simpler than it is. But it's hard to understand what the problem is asking for. See post #11.) Do you have any thoughts at all about what to do here?

Is that an exact statement of the problem? The problem statement doesn't mention the mass, and doesn't even give any indication that this is a quantum physics problem. I first thought that this was about how measurement errors affect the result of the calculation.

I will move this thread to advanced physics, since it's about quantum physics.
 
Last edited:
Our teacher told us to estimate mass of bumblebee. and yes this is the exact statement. And i am still unsure how to factor in the uncertainty in measurement.
 
Nathew said:
i am still unsure how to factor in the uncertainty in measurement.
What do you think Δx means in the equation?
 
Nathew said:
And i am still unsure how to factor in the uncertainty in measurement.
Being unsure shouldn't prevent you from sharing an idea or two with us.
 
haruspex said:
What do you think Δx means in the equation?

The uncertainty in the measurement in the x direction.
 
Nathew said:
The uncertainty in the measurement in the x direction.
No, it's not meant to be specifically the x direction. It just means uncertainty in position.
 
haruspex said:
No, it's not meant to be specifically the x direction. I believe the equation is properly a vector one, using the dot product: Δx.Δp≥ℏ

either way, when plugging in for Δx, do i use .01?
 
Δx≥ℏ/mΔv
so (1.05E-34)/((2E/-4)(5))
Δx≥ 1.05E-31
yes, no?
 
  • #10
Nathew said:
either way, when plugging in for Δx, do i use .01?
I don't know what your instructor has in mind. I think a "very carefully" measured 0.25 can also be interpreted as 0.25 ± 0.005, i.e. the only error comes from rounding off to two decimals.
 
  • #11
haruspex said:
No, it's not meant to be specifically the x direction. It just means uncertainty in position.
That was my first thought, but there are three different position operators, and there's an uncertainty relation associated with each of them.

I don't understand this problem. "What is the approximate theoretical uncertainty in its position?" What does that even mean? My first thought is that this has nothing to do with uncertainty relations, and is only a matter of specifying appropriate "errors" to go with the measurements of the position coordinates. But the OP was told to estimate the mass, and has been given a velocity. So is he supposed to calculate the position uncertainties from the momentum uncertainties? Then why was he given those position measurement results? I don't get it.
 
  • #12
Fredrik said:
That was my first thought, but there are three different position operators, and there's an uncertainty relation associated with each of them.

I don't understand this problem. "What is the approximate theoretical uncertainty in its position?" What does that even mean? My first thought is that this has nothing to do with uncertainty relations, and is only a matter of specifying appropriate "errors" to go with the measurements of the position coordinates. But the OP was told to estimate the mass, and has been given a velocity. So is he supposed to calculate the position uncertainties from the momentum uncertainties? Then why was he given those position measurement results? I don't get it.
Yes, I'm inclined to agree, it's a trick question. Heisenberg has nothing to do with it. It is just a matter of the precision of the measurements.
So we have ±0.005m for each of x, y and z. What, then, is the approximate range for the magnitude of the error in (x, y, z)? I.e. |(δx, δy, δz)|.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
6K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
5K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
8K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K