Understanding the Uncertainty Principle

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, exploring its implications for the nature of particles, particularly electrons, in quantum mechanics. Participants examine the relationship between position and momentum, questioning whether the inability to know both simultaneously implies that these properties do not exist in a specific sense. The conversation touches on philosophical interpretations and the wave-particle duality of electrons.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested
  • Meta-discussion

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants assert that the Uncertainty Principle indicates it is impossible to know both the momentum and position of a particle fully, but question whether this means the particle lacks specific values for these properties.
  • Others argue that the classical analogy of a particle having definite position and momentum does not apply in quantum mechanics, where electrons exhibit wave-particle duality.
  • A participant raises concerns about the implications of the Uncertainty Principle on the existence of specific position and momentum, suggesting that if they cannot be known, it does not necessarily mean they do not exist.
  • Some contributions highlight that quantum mechanics does not support the idea of predetermined values for position and momentum, referencing Bell's theorem and the nature of entanglement.
  • There is a discussion about whether the Uncertainty Principle applies to the wave-like nature of electrons or is limited to their particle-like behavior.
  • Participants express differing views on whether the outcomes of measurements are predetermined or inherently unknowable, indicating a spectrum of interpretations within quantum mechanics.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on whether the inability to know both position and momentum implies that these properties do not exist. Multiple competing views remain regarding the interpretation of the Uncertainty Principle and its implications for the nature of particles.

Contextual Notes

The discussion includes philosophical considerations about existence and knowledge, particularly in relation to quantum mechanics. There are unresolved questions about the definitions and implications of the Uncertainty Principle, as well as the relationship between classical and quantum descriptions of particles.

  • #61
I just wanted to jump in with a simple question about the double slit experiment:

Has this ever been done in an environment where care has been taken to remove everything (including things which are not considered to act on a particle) else? By everything I mean doing the experiment in a vacuum at 0 kelvin in a led box blocking out gamma rays, removing magnetic fields, preferably at 0 g, and so on.

If this has been done, did it affect the result at all?

I can't stop looking the unknown variable in this experiment, because I don't understand the math / underlying physics of it (yet).

k
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #62
kenewbie said:
I just wanted to jump in with a simple question about the double slit experiment:

Has this ever been done in an environment where care has been taken to remove everything (including things which are not considered to act on a particle) else? By everything I mean doing the experiment in a vacuum at 0 kelvin in a led box blocking out gamma rays, removing magnetic fields, preferably at 0 g, and so on.

Can you show an argument or derivation on why this would matter?

Please also note that the double-slit experiment is testing a more general principle of QM, which is the principle of superposition of orthogonal states. The experiments that tests this principle come in many different types, not just the double slit. I've mentioned the Delft/Stony Brook experiments many times on here which illustrates this principle even MORE dramatically than the double-slit. Those are done on a "robust" system at very low temperature (0 Kelvin is unrealistic especially when no one has achieve it) that was "immune" to such external factors that you described (superconductivity is a "quantum protectorate" state).

So doing what you wanted would not change anything.

Zz.
 
  • #63
I certainly cannot show or make it logically follow that any of the criteria I mentioned has any impact. My only argument would be that historically there has been cases where "obvious" non-relevant factors turned out to have an impact after all, once they were removed.

So, if I where to do a follow-up to the original experiment (which had a result which seemed counter-intuitive at least at that point) I would go the extra mile and remove as much as possible.

I will take a look at the Delft/Stony Brook experiments, thanks a lot for the pointer.

k
 

Similar threads

Undergrad Heisenberg uncertainty principle and the canonical momentum operator
  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
3K
Undergrad Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle and macroscopic objects
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Undergrad Question about Commutators and Uncertainty
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K
Undergrad Uncertainty Principle in QFT & Early Universe Conditions
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Undergrad Possible paradox in the uncertainty principle?
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
Undergrad Using general relativity to violate the uncertainty principle
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
Graduate Is this a valid derivation of the Uncertainty Principle?
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Undergrad Double slit experiment and the Uncertainty Principle
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
Undergrad Understanding the meaning of "uncertainty" in Heisenberg's UP
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
Undergrad Measurements and uncertainty principle
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K