Heisenbergs thought experiment

Click For Summary
Heisenberg's thought experiment involving a microscope to measure an electron's position illustrates the uncertainty principle, highlighting the trade-off between position and momentum. The discussion raises questions about the validity of using this analogy as evidence for the principle, suggesting that it may misrepresent the intrinsic nature of quantum objects. It is noted that only accelerating charged particles radiate energy, which complicates the detection of their properties. Some participants argue that the microscope analogy is outdated and misleading, with references to Heisenberg potentially disavowing it later in his career. The conversation emphasizes the need for a clearer understanding of quantum mechanics beyond traditional thought experiments.
mycotheology
Messages
86
Reaction score
0
Heisenbergs "thought experiment"

In two different quantum mechanics books I read about "thought experiments" involving using a microscope to determine the position of an electron, which were both presented as evidence to back up Heisenbergs uncertainty principle. Are there no real experiments that can be done to test the theory? In these thought experiments, microscopes are used to detect the positions of electrons (i.e. adding a light source and a microscope to the double slit apparatus in order to determine which slit the electron comes through) and the problem is that when a photon bounces off the electron, it changes its momentum so while you've now learned the position of the electron, you no longer know its momentum etc. Don't moving charged particles produce electromagnetic fields and thus, radiate energy that could be detected? Or is that only in magnetic fields?
 
Physics news on Phys.org


The problem with Heisenbergs "thought experiment", and which he used to illustrate his uncertainty principle, is that still too many physicists (not to say about philosophers and others) believe the microscope analogy to be the correct way to explain it. It was Heisenberg's mistake. The complementarity between position and momentum is intrinsic, inherent in the quantum objects, and does not arise due to an interaction of an 'observer' with the object we observe. A misleading analogy that was justifiable at the times of Heisenberg, but it is plain wrong to presented it "as evidence to back up Heisenbergs uncertainty principle" in 2012.
 


I thought I remembered reading somewhere that Heisenberg himself, later in his career, disavowed the "Heisenberg microscope" as an illustration of the uncertainty principle. However, I haven't been able to find a reference or quotation. Has anyone else seen something like this?
 
I am slowly going through the book 'What Is a Quantum Field Theory?' by Michel Talagrand. I came across the following quote: One does not" prove” the basic principles of Quantum Mechanics. The ultimate test for a model is the agreement of its predictions with experiments. Although it may seem trite, it does fit in with my modelling view of QM. The more I think about it, the more I believe it could be saying something quite profound. For example, precisely what is the justification of...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
8K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
4K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K