Welcome to Gaia! :: Quantum Mechanics, Hiesenburg uncertanty principle | Forum

Register FaceBook Login Login

 

Welcome to Gaia's forums, where millions discuss thousands of topics a day.

Lurking is creepy. Quit skulking in the shadows and join the conversation!

Advertisement

Quantum Mechanics, Hiesenburg uncertanty principle 

Share:
forum:59, topic:45614647
1 2 >
Okay, any ideas on why this happens:
When a particle of anti-matter and matter collide they let off two photon particles which start rotating simultaneously (no matter how far apart they are) ONLY when they are being observed, and when they are not being observed the photons stop rotating.. what is the connection? any ideas would be interesting
 
     
 
The reason that they rotate (actually, in opposite directions) is that they have to; at the moment of creation, they have to be created in opposite pairs because otherwise there's a violation of conservation of angular momentum.
The photons don't stop rotating when you're not observing them. It's just that their angular momenta isn't well-defined until they're observed, and then once you've stopped observing them their angular momenta goes back to being ill-defined, although the ill-defined angular momenta are still opposite.
     
First off, electrons don't have "rotation". They have spin. They can spin up or down. Spin as applied to particles doesn't mean the same thing as it normally does, but just roll with it.

The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle says that until we observe one electron or the other, they are in a superposition of states where they each have both spins simultaneously. When we observe one, the wave function collapses and each electron assumes one spin or the other.
 
     
 
Eh, the uncertainty principle actually says that we cannot have precise simultaneous knowledge of two observables properties if the quantum operators that "generate" them do not commute.

To get a tincy bit more technical, if you have real observables a and b which satisfy a|Ψ> = A|Ψ> and b|Ψ> = B|Ψ> where A and B are the quantum operators, then the uncertainty in our understanding of a and b — Δa and Δb — is bound by:
(Δa)² + (Δb)² >= k <Ψ|(AB - BA)|Ψ>
(where k is some constant I've forgotten as it has been so long).
     
A Lost Iguana
Eh, the uncertainty principle actually say that we cannot have precise simultaneous knowledge of two observables properties if the quantum operators that "generate" them do not commute.

To get a tincy bit more technical, if you have real observables a and b which satisfy a|Ψ> = A|Ψ> and b|Ψ> = B|Ψ> where A and B are the quantum operators, then the uncertainty in our understanding of a and b — Δa and Δb — is bound by:
(Δa)² + (Δb)² >= k <Ψ|(AB - BA)|Ψ>
(where k is some constant I've forgotten as it has been so long).


k=1/(2i) or something like that?
 
     
 
(Δa)(Δb) >= |<Ψ|(AB - BA)|Ψ>|/2
     
Layra-chan
(Δa)(Δb)
Curses! stressed

I'm getting old. crying
 
     
"Compassion and mercy are about upholding the beliefs that we seek to live by, remaining true to our values as a people. No matter the severity of the provocation or the atrocity perpetrated."
Blog
 
Layra-chan
(Δa)(Δb) >= |<Ψ|(AB - BA)|Ψ>|/2
I'm going to pretend I understand that and nod knowingly.

P.S. WTF does that mean?
     
BrendanM
Layra-chan
(Δa)(Δb) >= |<Ψ|(AB - BA)|Ψ>|/2
I'm going to pretend I understand that and nod knowingly.

P.S. WTF does that mean?


For a given property a, Δa is the amount of uncertainty in measurement/knowledge; it's the average amount of how much the measured value differs from the expected value. Thus (Δa)(Δb) means the amount of uncertainty there is in the measurement of property a times the amount of uncertainty there is in the measurement of property b. In some sense, this uncertainty in measurement can mean an uncertainty in actual existence, i.e. if Δa is positive, then a doesn't have an actual, definite value but rather is spread out amongst many possible values.

The right side is the tricky part. Warning: long read ahead that requires calculus. See next post for shorter, less technical summary:

In quantum mechanics, the state of the system is described by a wavefunction, usually written as |Ψ>. We're going to consider it to be a function of position that returns a complex value. Due to notational difficulties, as a function of position x the wavefunction is usually written as Ψ(x), but the | > notation comes in handy for formal manipulations.
We assume that the integral of |Ψ|²(x) as x goes from negative infinity to infinity, is 1. Nothing interesting or useful happens if we don't assume this, and it's convenient.

Anyway, a given property a of the system, such as the position of a given particle, is gotten by applying a corresponding operator A to the wavefunction Ψ(x) to get a new wavefunction (AΨ)(x), also written A|Ψ>.
Don't worry about what "operator" means exactly; it's just a function that takes a wavefunction to a wavefunction or to a number of wavefunctions. Just like functions on, say, the reals, we can add two operators by adding their outputs, and we can compose them by applying the second operator to the output of the first operator, assuming the first operator spits out only one wavefunction.

If the property is well-defined for the system, then A|Ψ> is a multiple of |Ψ>; specifically, we get that
A|Ψ> = a|Ψ> where a is the measured value. In other words, there is some fixed value of a such that for all x, (AΨ)(x) = aΨ(x)
Even if the property is not well-defined for the system, we can still take the average by calculating <Ψ|A|Ψ>, which just means the integral of Ψ*(x)(AΨ)(x) as x goes from negative infinity to positive infinity. Note that if (AΨ)(x) = aΨ(x), then <Ψ|A|Ψ> = a since a is a constant and the integral of Ψ*(x)Ψ(x) is 1.

Now suppose we want to know the values of the product of two different properties a and b with corresponding operators A and B. What can we do? Well, we can find <Ψ|AB|Ψ>. But we can also find <Ψ|BA|Ψ>. At first glance they look the same, right?
Nope. Operators don't necessarily commute, i.e. A(BΨ) doesn't necessarily equal B(AΨ). The simplest example is position and momentum. In one dimension, the position operator X takes a wavefunction |Ψ> and multiplies it pointwise by the position x, i.e.
(XΨ)(x) = xΨ(x)
while the momentum operator P takes the derivative with respect to x and then multiplies by -ih, i.e.
(PΨ)(x) = -ih(dΨ/dx)(x)
Never mind the strange form of P, that follows from deeper principles. h is a positive constant (the reduced Planck constant) whose exact value is unimportant for this discussion. The important part is that first applying the position operator followed by the momentum operator is different from first applying the momentum operator followed by the position operator, i.e.

P(XΨ) = -ih(d/dx)(xΨ(x)) = -ih(Ψ(x)+x(dΨ/dx)(x)) by the product rule for differentiation
X(PΨ) = -ih(x(dΨ/dx)(x))
(P(XΨ))(x) - (X(PΨ))(x) = ((PX-XP)Ψ)(x) = -ihΨ(x)

Thus we get that <Ψ|PX-XP|Ψ> = -ih, so |Ψ|PX-XP|Ψ>| = h

So the formula says that (Δx)(Δp) >= h/2, i.e. the amount of uncertainty in the position times the amount of uncertainty in the momentum is at least h/2, where h is positive. This says that if you know the position of a particle exactly, then Δp is infinity and you know nothing about the momentum; conversely, if you know the momentum of the particle exactly, then Δx is infinity and the particle is smeared across the entire universe. A happier medium is that you can't know either position or momentum exactly, with a bound on your certainty given by the formula above.
 
     
 
BrendanM
Layra-chan
(Δa)(Δb) >= |<Ψ|(AB - BA)|Ψ>|/2
I'm going to pretend I understand that and nod knowingly.

P.S. WTF does that mean?


Normal numbers 'commute'; it doesn't matter which way you multiply them. I.e. a*b = b*a or a*b - b*a = 0. But, in quantum mechanics, observables are a special type of 'operator' object, and they don't always commute. So if you have two observables A and B, then AB - BA can be nonzero (AB does not equal BA). So making an observation of type A followed immediately by type B will not yield the same results as making an observation of type B followed immediately by type A.

For our purposes, the term <Ψ|(AB - BA)|Ψ> can be understood as the "average value" or "expectation value" of AB - BA.

(Δa)(Δb) is the uncertainty of an a times the uncertainty of b. Where a and b are observations corresponding to observables A and B (The most obvious example is where A is position and B is momentum.)

So the uncertainty relation between (Δa) and (Δb) is related to the expectation value of AB - BA by the above equation.
     
"I have been quite rigorous in my maths. I just don't get involved in the arcane and irrelevant musings of Theoretical Maths" --They shall be remain nameless
Ok. So I think I somewhat understand that equation now. However what, in simplified saying, does this tell us. Does it help us predict the spin of the photons/electrons or what? Im pretty sure its in your explanation somewhere so I apologize if it is.
 
     
 
Oh, bloody hell, this is what I've got to learn in a week.

>.>
     


I'm an INTP! Madness!

Can't we just go home, Shi, and forget this dreadful night?

http://i39.tinypic.com/j0cg09.jpg

For all your AVATAR, Repo, Mass Effect, Fallout 3, Dragon Age and Merlin needs: INB4GAYZOMBIES.
Master Knowitall
Ok. So I think I somewhat understand that equation now. However what, in simplified saying, does this tell us. Does it help us predict the spin of the photons/electrons or what? Im pretty sure its in your explanation somewhere so I apologize if it is.


The equation says that we can't predict various properties (in this case, the spin) beyond a certain level of accuracy. The more accurately we know, say, its position, the less accurately our knowledge of its spin must be.
 
     
Physics and Mathematics Guild

"It's a rave, you've never done it before, everybody sit the ******** down!"
-MC Cutter
 
Layra-chan
Master Knowitall
Ok. So I think I somewhat understand that equation now. However what, in simplified saying, does this tell us. Does it help us predict the spin of the photons/electrons or what? Im pretty sure its in your explanation somewhere so I apologize if it is.


The equation says that we can't predict various properties (in this case, the spin) beyond a certain level of accuracy. The more accurately we know, say, its position, the less accurately our knowledge of its spin must be.


So basically over all, going back to the topic, the spin of electrons is always there wether its being observed or not. And basically, in order to gain knowledge on a certain thing, we will find out less in another? such as, positon and spin
     
Master Knowitall
Layra-chan
Master Knowitall
Ok. So I think I somewhat understand that equation now. However what, in simplified saying, does this tell us. Does it help us predict the spin of the photons/electrons or what? Im pretty sure its in your explanation somewhere so I apologize if it is.


The equation says that we can't predict various properties (in this case, the spin) beyond a certain level of accuracy. The more accurately we know, say, its position, the less accurately our knowledge of its spin must be.


So basically over all, going back to the topic, the spin of electrons is always there wether its being observed or not. And basically, in order to gain knowledge on a certain thing, we will find out less in another? such as, positon and spin
Well, before it's observed, the spin is in a state of ambiguity. It is said to be in a "superposition of states" where it has both an up spin and a down spin simultaneously. When we observe it, one of those spins goes away (this has something to do with wave functions, I think.) and it is left with only one spin.
 
     
1 2 >

Quick Reply

Enter both words below, separated by a space:

Can't read the text? Click here

Submit