Question on Heisenberg uncertainty principle

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on applying the Heisenberg uncertainty principle to determine the minimum range of angles for particles passing through a single slit of width 0.2 mm with a de Broglie wavelength of 633 nm. Participants clarify that "minimum range of angles" refers to the spread of possible angles after diffraction, which can extend from -π/2 to +π/2, though the distribution becomes negligible beyond certain angles. The uncertainty principle is suggested as a practical approach to estimate this range, with half the slit width used as the initial position uncertainty. Additionally, there is mention of comparing results from the uncertainty principle with those from the single slit diffraction equation for further insights. The conversation emphasizes the importance of understanding the terminology and context in physics problems.
Nivlac2425
Messages
53
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


Particles pass through a single slit of width 0.2 mm in a diffraction setup. The de Broglie wavelength of each particle is 633 nm. After the particles pass through the slit, they spread out over a range of angles. Use the Heisenberg uncertainty principle to determine the minimum range of angles.


Homework Equations


Heisenberg uncertainty principle
sin \theta= \lambda/W


The Attempt at a Solution


I'm not sure exactly what a minimum range of angles mean. Is it all the possible angles through which the electrons can follow?
I believe I'm stuck on how to use the uncertainty principle to find an angle. I know that the equation for diffraction through a single slit might be useful.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Well, the wording of these sort of statements can be tricky. The particle distribution will actually extend through the full -π/2 to +π/2 range. However, the distribution becomes negligibly small beyond some angle.

Strictly speaking, "uncertainty" in physics usually means an rms deviation from a central value (in this case, 0 radians). Since, in this case, we are going after a ballpark figure, it's probably okay to use half the slit width as the initial position uncertainty.

The idea is to use the Heisenberg relation as an estimate, rather than the single slit diffraction equation. Of course, you are welcome to compare the two results afterward--in which case one might use the angle where the diffraction equation gives 1/2 of the peak value.
 
I see, so the distribution includes the negative angles.
Thank you for a clear explanation!
 
I multiplied the values first without the error limit. Got 19.38. rounded it off to 2 significant figures since the given data has 2 significant figures. So = 19. For error I used the above formula. It comes out about 1.48. Now my question is. Should I write the answer as 19±1.5 (rounding 1.48 to 2 significant figures) OR should I write it as 19±1. So in short, should the error have same number of significant figures as the mean value or should it have the same number of decimal places as...
Thread 'A cylinder connected to a hanging mass'
Let's declare that for the cylinder, mass = M = 10 kg Radius = R = 4 m For the wall and the floor, Friction coeff = ##\mu## = 0.5 For the hanging mass, mass = m = 11 kg First, we divide the force according to their respective plane (x and y thing, correct me if I'm wrong) and according to which, cylinder or the hanging mass, they're working on. Force on the hanging mass $$mg - T = ma$$ Force(Cylinder) on y $$N_f + f_w - Mg = 0$$ Force(Cylinder) on x $$T + f_f - N_w = Ma$$ There's also...

Similar threads

Back
Top