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
 
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...
Back
Top