The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle
(Δx Δp ≳ ℏ)
• Implies that there really is no such thing as 'a particle is at 𝑥 with momentum 𝑝'
• That is, the more narrow the 𝑥-PDF |Ψ(x)|², the more broad the 𝑝-PDF |Φ(p)|² will become & vice versa (
)pic.twitter.com/6AUqy3Mpt1
-
Show this thread
-
Replying to @InertialObservr
I disagree with the first bullet point. If there was no such a thing, how could we even prove the second point? What I mean is that one has to measure both the position and momentum of a particle many times if one aspires to fill a histogram that may resamble a PDF.
3 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @Draquarkula
If you confine a particle to go through a tiny slit, the more spread you will have in the momentum distribution. Take a photon, as it goes through the slit you will precisely where it is but you won't know the direction it is headed (i.e. it's instantaneous momentum vector)
1 reply 0 retweets 15 likes -
Replying to @InertialObservr @Draquarkula
Make the slit smaller and smaller, the light the resulting interference pattern will grow wider and wider. If you can get both at the same time then you my friend will get a nobel prize
1 reply 0 retweets 14 likes -
Replying to @InertialObservr
Again, look at how you would measure the interference pattern. I think that one would throw one photon at a time. And for each photon, one would need to know both the slit size and the place where it lands. Effectively measuring both x and p.
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @Draquarkula
No, quantum particles don’t follow definite trajectories.. this is the whole point of the path integral approach. It envisions space as infinitely many infinitesimally small slits stacked one after another.
2 replies 0 retweets 17 likes -
Replying to @InertialObservr @Draquarkula
You can’t say it left the slot with this or that momentum and followed some definite trajectory and work backwards
1 reply 0 retweets 7 likes -
Replying to @InertialObservr @Draquarkula
We can say this only of asymptotic non interacting states, which we do in the LHC
1 reply 0 retweets 6 likes -
Replying to @InertialObservr
In essence I am not arguing against Heissenbergs principle. I am arguing against applying it to a single event, when it is an expression on ensambles/many events.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @Draquarkula
But you were just applying the photon scattering to a single event saying you could work backwards and find the momentum
2 replies 0 retweets 6 likes
I know you know what you’re talking about, I just disagree with you on this point
-
-
Replying to @InertialObservr
Just out of curiosity. The probability that we talk about in QM, do you think of it as a Bayesian ir as frequentists?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Draquarkula
I haven’t thought about it very deeply, Since I thing being an everettian is the way to go
2 replies 0 retweets 5 likes - 12 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.