Recoil energy and Heisenberg Uncertainty principal

AI Thread Summary
Measuring the exact position of an electron alters its orbit due to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, which states that precise knowledge of position sacrifices knowledge of momentum. The discussion highlights the need to relate energy changes from measurement to known quantities, such as ionization energy from the Rydberg formula. The energy change from measurement is estimated to be in the range of 10^-18 J, and any disturbance can cause the electron to transition to a different energy state if sufficient energy is provided. The act of measurement inherently disturbs the electron's state, leading to changes in its orbit. Further exploration of these concepts is encouraged for a deeper understanding.
amb123
Messages
97
Reaction score
0
I need to prove that the act of measuring exactly the position of an electron would change its orbit.

change in position x change in momentum = h

the limit would suggest that knowing the location exactly would set the change in momentum p= h

What is the formula that relates energy above a quantity with changing orbits? I saw that the Rhydberg formula gives an Ionization energy, I am thinking that if I can prove that the energy change due to measurement is at least equal to this quantity then I have proven a change in orbit. Is this correct? I have found this energy to be in the 10^-18 J range, any ideas on what I can look at to figure this out? I have spent so much time on this and still have nothing more than qualitative answer that is given by the Heisenberg principal.

Any help would be appreciated.
Thanks,
-A
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Orbits are wavefuction density of electrons in an atom . With each electron is associated a spatial distribution within an atom.So HUP assigns that , at a given instant you can only determine one of the aspects out of position and momentum precisely . For an accurate knowledge of position , you have to sacrifice your knowledge about the associated momentum. Because there are only some premissible values of energy are allowed for an electron , so whenever there is some disturbance in the environment of an electron , it is transmitted and absorbed by the electron , and if that disturbance is ramnant enough to provide the minimum possible energy for an electron to make a transition , it will . So the "act of measuring " the position/momentum will always lead to a disturbance.

BJ
 
"it is transmitted and absorbed by the electron , and if that disturbance is ramnant enough to provide the minimum possible energy for an electron to make a transition , it will ."

Yes, I think I'm actually getting a little closer to solving this (after hours of trying..) I will update tomorrow. This is interesting stuff, I wish I was better with it (and it will be a detriment to me if I don't become better really quickly!)

thx.
-A
 
TL;DR Summary: I came across this question from a Sri Lankan A-level textbook. Question - An ice cube with a length of 10 cm is immersed in water at 0 °C. An observer observes the ice cube from the water, and it seems to be 7.75 cm long. If the refractive index of water is 4/3, find the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. I could not understand how the apparent height of the ice cube in the water depends on the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. Does anyone have an...
Kindly see the attached pdf. My attempt to solve it, is in it. I'm wondering if my solution is right. My idea is this: At any point of time, the ball may be assumed to be at an incline which is at an angle of θ(kindly see both the pics in the pdf file). The value of θ will continuously change and so will the value of friction. I'm not able to figure out, why my solution is wrong, if it is wrong .
Back
Top