Heisenberg applied to accelerated particles

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the application of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle to accelerated particles, specifically protons, and how their momentum and energy uncertainties change when they are accelerated. Participants explore concepts related to momentum, energy, and frame of reference in the context of particle physics.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant suggests that accelerating protons from a nominally stationary state to 100KeV may reduce the uncertainty in their energy/momentum by a factor of 4E6, based on their initial uncertainty at room temperature.
  • Another participant argues that any uncertainty in momentum will remain constant, implying that the spread of uncertainty does not change with acceleration.
  • A later reply discusses the perspective of frame of reference, indicating that the uncertainty in energy/momentum may appear different depending on whether one is observing from the accelerated frame or an external frame.
  • One participant reflects on their understanding of the Uncertainty Principle and standard deviation, concluding that while the mean energy of the particles changes with acceleration, the deviation remains the same, suggesting that acceleration does not affect the original uncertainty relationship.
  • There is a request for confirmation of this reasoning, indicating uncertainty about the implications of acceleration on uncertainty in position and momentum.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on how acceleration affects uncertainty in momentum and energy. There is no consensus on whether accelerating the particles reduces uncertainty or maintains it, and the discussion remains unresolved.

Contextual Notes

Participants reference the Uncertainty Principle and standard deviation, but there are indications of potential misunderstandings regarding the implications of acceleration on these concepts. The discussion involves assumptions about the relationship between energy, momentum, and uncertainty that may not be fully clarified.

Chorlton
I may be getting these Thread Levels wrong. I get the impression that they apply to my level of knowledge such that someone else might be able to give an answer that I might be able to understand rather than the level of knowledge required to answer the question.

Rest assured I am quite stupid.

Anyway. Assume I produce a bunch or gas of nominally stationary, at rest, protons but, ignoring the fact that they are going to fly apart, they have random X,Y,Z motions.

Taking the X axis assume there is an uncertainty in their momentum along that axis expressed in electron volts, ueV.. Uncertainty in electron volts.

I think this may be some sort of Maxwell-Boltzmann kind of thing.

Let's say that they are at room temperature so about 25meV.. Milli Electron Volts. Ignore my rounding down error. Take that 25meV figure as being the uncertainty in their energy and, possibly incorrectly, extrapolated to the uncertainty in their momentum along the X axis.

I am waving hands.

What happens if I accelerate them to 100KeV along the X axis using a low, effectively zero noise, voltage source?

Specifically have I reduced the uncertainty in their Energy/Momentum along the X axis by a factor of 100KeV/25meV or 4E6?

Again I have no clue but Frames of Reference might apply.

Besides being completely wrong I might also be a factor of three and a square root out.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
Consider the momentum first. Any uncertainty in that will remain. The spread will still be be roughly constant.
 
Jilang said:
Consider the momentum first. Any uncertainty in that will remain. The spread will still be be roughly constant.

This is why I mentioned Frame of Reference. If you sit amongst the accelerated particles then... 25meV

If you try to observe them outside of their accelerated frame then 100KeV/25meV.. You are, about, 4E6 time more certain as to what there dE/dP is and therefore about 4E6 times less certain what their dT/dX is.
 
Chorlton said:
I may be getting these Thread Levels wrong. I get the impression that they apply to my level of knowledge such that someone else might be able to give an answer that I might be able to understand rather than the level of knowledge required to answer the question.

It's a combination of both. Many questions can be answered at different levels of knowledge; the answers just get more complicated and comprehensive as the knowledge level increases. So the thread level gives an indication of the level of knowledge at which you want the answer to be given. But it also requires that the question can be answered at the required level; some questions can't really be answered at all if you don't have enough background knowledge.

The level you gave to the question in this thread doesn't preclude an answer, but there won't be a lot that can be said about it at the "B" level.
 
Thanks for the replies and clarification as to 'grade'.

I think I may have resolved my own confusion by referring to the Wikipedia pages on the Uncertainty Principle and Standard Deviation. The page for Uncertainty mentions that the [in]equality is based on the standard deviations of position and momentum while the page for Deviation mentions that it is based on variance about a mean. As such I would conclude that when stationary at room temperature the particles have a mean equivalent to 0eV, 0K, with a deviation that might be approximated as being 25eV. If I now accelerate the particles through 100KeV they now have a mean of 100KeV but the deviation remains the same at 25eV. As such the acceleration has no effect on the original [in]equality. I had hoped that by accelerating the particles along the X axis the higher momentum would result in less knowledge about position, the particles would appear to be stretched along the X axis. Apparently that is not the case. Perhaps someone can confirm my somewhat convoluted reasoning.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
4K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
1K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
3K
  • · Replies 48 ·
2
Replies
48
Views
5K
  • · Replies 41 ·
2
Replies
41
Views
6K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
4K