- Thank you received: 0
Uncertainty Principle
18 years 10 months ago #13117
by Patrick
Reply from P was created by Patrick
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Mikko</i>
<br />I've been trying to get my head around this concept with little success. If i've understood it correctly (propably not) it states that the more precisely you know the position of an electron the less precisely you know it's direction of motion and it's velocity (meaning that momentum is a vector in this case?) <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
The closer you move towards an objects position the fewer reference points you have. When you have fewer, or no, reference points and your field is very narrow it becomes more difficult to determine a change is direction or velocity. EXAMPLE: Let's say that you launch a monkey named Larry in a space ship towards the moon. From your view on earth you can see the ship heading towards the moon, your knowledge of Larry the monkey's position is vague. Now, let's say that you get out your telescope and ZOOM in on Larry the monkey. You get a perfect pin(reference)point view, of his cheesey smile working the controls, right through the porthole window. You no longer have any sense of the ships direction or velocity because you are too focused in on Larry the monkey.
Does that make better sense now?
Patrick[]
<br />I've been trying to get my head around this concept with little success. If i've understood it correctly (propably not) it states that the more precisely you know the position of an electron the less precisely you know it's direction of motion and it's velocity (meaning that momentum is a vector in this case?) <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
The closer you move towards an objects position the fewer reference points you have. When you have fewer, or no, reference points and your field is very narrow it becomes more difficult to determine a change is direction or velocity. EXAMPLE: Let's say that you launch a monkey named Larry in a space ship towards the moon. From your view on earth you can see the ship heading towards the moon, your knowledge of Larry the monkey's position is vague. Now, let's say that you get out your telescope and ZOOM in on Larry the monkey. You get a perfect pin(reference)point view, of his cheesey smile working the controls, right through the porthole window. You no longer have any sense of the ships direction or velocity because you are too focused in on Larry the monkey.
Does that make better sense now?
Patrick[]
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
18 years 10 months ago #14382
by Mikko
Replied by Mikko on topic Reply from Mikko Penttilä
I'm not sure whether your example is accurate but since i like monkeys that's OK. []
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
18 years 10 months ago #14469
by thebobgy
Replied by thebobgy on topic Reply from Robert (Bob) Smith
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Mikko</i>
<br />I've been trying to get my head around this concept with little success. If i've understood it correctly (propably not) it states that the more precisely you know the position of an electron the less precisely you know it's direction of motion and it's velocity (meaning that momentum is a vector in this case?) But i've also read somewhere (don't recall where) that the uncertainty principle was developed in the 19th. century before anyone knew electrons existed and that it was used on the study of heatflow and so Heisenberg didn't invent the principle itself but rather it's application in Quantum Physics. Is this true? [?]
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">It is not possible to measure speed and location at the same time but that does not alter its speed or given location at a specified point in time. Consider the cameras that photograph speeders. The picture it triggered by the speed but the picture only shows location at that point in time and the vehicle appears stopped. The cars speed is determined by the triggering device not the picture, the picture only identifies the vehicle. Determining the direction of an electron, or other moving object, requires a least two (photographs) using the xyz coordinates. Thank you for your time.
thebobgy
<br />I've been trying to get my head around this concept with little success. If i've understood it correctly (propably not) it states that the more precisely you know the position of an electron the less precisely you know it's direction of motion and it's velocity (meaning that momentum is a vector in this case?) But i've also read somewhere (don't recall where) that the uncertainty principle was developed in the 19th. century before anyone knew electrons existed and that it was used on the study of heatflow and so Heisenberg didn't invent the principle itself but rather it's application in Quantum Physics. Is this true? [?]
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">It is not possible to measure speed and location at the same time but that does not alter its speed or given location at a specified point in time. Consider the cameras that photograph speeders. The picture it triggered by the speed but the picture only shows location at that point in time and the vehicle appears stopped. The cars speed is determined by the triggering device not the picture, the picture only identifies the vehicle. Determining the direction of an electron, or other moving object, requires a least two (photographs) using the xyz coordinates. Thank you for your time.
thebobgy
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Time to create page: 0.283 seconds