What is the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle: Explained in Simple Words
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 22 июл 2024
- Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle says that if we know everything about where a particle is located, we know nothing about its momentum. Conversely, if we know everything about its momentum, then we know nothing about where the particle is located. In other words, this principle means that we cannot measure the position and momentum of a particle with absolute precision or certainty.
But waves, as you know, don’t exist in one specific place. However, you can certainly identify and measure specific characteristics of a wave pattern as a whole, most notably, its wavelength, which is the distance between two consecutive crests or troughs. Particles that are as small or even smaller than atoms have large enough wavelengths to be detected, and can therefore be measured in experiments.
Thus, if we have a wave whose wavelength and momentum can be measured accurately, then it’s impossible to measure its specific position. Conversely, if we know the position of a particle with high certainty, then we cannot accurately determine its momentum. This is what Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle is all about.
Intro - 0:00
Position and momentum estimation of microscopic objects: 0:33
Heisenberg uncertainty principle - 2:10
Wave particle duality - 3:03
#science #animation #heisenberg
References
abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/ast123/l...
opentextbc.ca/universityphysi...
Original Article Link: www.scienceabc.com/pure-scien...
If you wish to buy/license this video, please write to us at admin@scienceabc.com.
Voice Over Artist: John Staughton ( www.fiverr.com/jswildwood )
SUBSCRIBE to get more such science videos!
/ @scienceabc
Follow us on Twitter!
/ abc_science
Follow us on Facebook!
/ sciabc
Follow our Website!
www.scienceabc.com 
Наука
As soon as I read "Heisenberg" in my textbook I thought of Walter White, and the fact that this video had such an animation is comical.
same , I was rly shocked hearing that name...In my mind , I was thinking was it true that a person named Heisenberg rly created meth or something like that...
Theory: Walter White calls himself Heisenberg because he’s uncertain of whether or not he’s doing the right thing
‘I am both the one who knocks and the one who doesn’t knock.’
Loved that breaking bad scenes, thanks!
yeahhhhhhh
YEAH, SCIENCE!
Savage scene - 5:42
@@a.pal_yt2018 fynn couldn't get the breakfast XD
Simplest, nicest way of explanation for me to comprehend.
" ..Who are you talking to right now ?. You clearly don't know who you are talking to. I am not in danger. I am the danger. A guy opens his door and gets shot and you think that of me ?. No. I am the one who knocks..." American Heisenberg
1:54
Idk why, but it made me laugh 😂😂.
Heisenberg in Breaking Bad and real Heisenberg.
Very nice👍
The principle is the one who knocks. simple as that
Thanks. Been through a lot of videos and this was the one that helped explain it best
He's wrong.
@@limtae How so?
Sorry I posted that by mistake. I meant that post for different video clip.
@@limtae LOL All good.
@@MRCAB Actually, saw that video clip again. It is actually wrong at around the 2:00 mark. It says a photon used to probe a particle imparts some energy that changes its trajectory and that's why it's impossible to know it's position and momentum simultaneously. This is wrong, and its something that's repeated over and over again. It's not that bouncing a photon off a particle "disrupts" it so that it's position and momentum can't be determined. Because if this were true, then it means a particle has a definite location and momentum so long as you don't probe it with a photon. This is not what quantum mechanics says. Quantum mechanics says a particle has no definite position and momentum to begin with. The video clip is talking about "measurement" uncertainty. Quantum mechanics says the uncertainty is there even before you measure.
Thank you. very concise and comprehensible explanation👏
Thanks for comprehensive and cognitive explanations💮
is that an emoji?
Yes, next to smilie, before red rose 🌹
The "self-five" cracked me up... Love the video and easy to understand. New Sub, Notifications turned ON... 😊😊🧡🧡
We all know the heisenberg portrayed in this video :D
You're goddam right
Amazing video, I love both the Heisenbergs!!!
the best video ever thank you
Wow so educative
Nice video! Just got to learn a new cool thing! 👍
Underated video
Its not becsuse we bounce a photon in the electron. Its because a specific position and speed of the particle do not exist.
Huh, Mr.White?
You're god damn right
you docksed him😠😡😡😡😡😠😡😠
Best explanation ever
Can you please make a video on origin of life ? By the way this video was amazing
Walter White and Jessy inspiring me to learn more about Chemistry.
This is physics you bozo
It's not that we're chasing down a physical impossibility here, we are still learning about our world and what part quantum mechanics actually plays in it. For me I've had to scrub that Schrodinger's Cat is no longer theoretically correct anymore and needs to be rewritten. At the time of Schrodinger, the Universe is all that we knew, but now that has changed, which therefore means that Schrodinger's Cat theory has changed as well.
If we now have to accept the "Multiverse" then logically we would have to re-write, both Schrodinger's Cat' and "Super Position" because it would automatically point us towards "Hyper Position" of which no one has written any rules about. Aside from me who I know has coined the new phrase. Hyper Position has to exist based on the Multiverse, being more than one universe, in any given position. We would also have to add ten to the power of infinity for the multiverse to make any sense, and with that given it then changes our understanding of "Super Position" to allow us to go up another level to "Hyper Position" which might have far more levels that we've yet to discover in our understanding of Quantum Mechanics which for us is still a relatively new concept.
Having said that it does propose that all may not be lost in terms of giving up anything here, but a theoretical adjustment that would allow us to embrace "Hyper Position" which is obviously the next level up even though it's not been thought of as far as I'm aware.
My other gut instincts is that Hyper Position ticks all the boxes when we bring in wave function, and allows not just duality relative to Super Position alone, but takes us up a level to hyper which will throw us into the dark so to speak again. In terms of incremental steps mega position would have it's place but beyond that hyper would be up there on the list. Maybe I just missed a step, and it's that simple or obvious.
I like where you’re going with it.. because I don’t think we (physics) will ever get there… i.e. regarding the nature of Reality, INFINITE REGRESS is a FEATURE .. not a bug. 🥰
it’s infinity-turtles all the way down, never to be known/seen
Great video but you only highlighted the quantum mechanical implications and left out perhaps the biggest key to understanding this principle intuitively which is the relativistic implications. Not only does the energy of the photon affect the particle you’re attempting to measure but it also warps the literal fabric of space surrounding the particle. So much to the point that if you tried to measure something the size of a Planck length the energy of the photon required would exceed the Schwarzschild radius, collapsing in on its own energy into a black hole.
I suppose that is it suffice to say that if you are trying to get the momentum or the speed of a particle by observation it becomes uncertain. But if you assume that same particle is left in a theoretical sandbox of no energy you can assume that it has a particular momentum and speed.
When he received his invitation to the 1921 Solvay Conference , Heisenberg said he'd love to come but wasn't sure where he'd be at that time.
haha
Very crisp explanation...Keep going👍
Thank you 🙂
Thanks for taking away the magic of a particle being in two places at once for me. I am both sad, and enlightened lol
Don't worry the first part is completely made up. There's no theory that it is a photon causing particles to change behaviour and the idea that its a Newtonian physics like collission with a photon is ridiculous. They've proven long ago that the superposition doesn't collapse until an actual human-being has seen the outcome. There are no photon particles being fired at a particle and this somehow telling us where it is or it's velocity. We can only detect particles that small indirectly by their effects on a field - nothing is fired at the particle. Heisenberg's principal was to do with wave-function collapse and he never tried to explain the fundamental mechanism at play, nor suggested it was due to a photon (which again not even part of the experiment) had influenced it via newtonian physics. I'm not sure where this guy got his info but it's certainly not from anyone even remotely familiar with physics. It's also pretty insulting to Heisenberg that his name is being associated with such a ridiculous idea.
They say heisenburg was just petty that he got pulled over
give meaning to this phrase "i see your point but i don't know where you're going with it "
Amazing explanation 👌😄
Glad you liked it
4:33 giggidy
thanks dude..
You're welcome!
Wow😮
It's a wrong idea that the uncertainty in positioning is due to collision with photons.
True, but it is correct that it is a result of wave-particle duality. It's also true that position and momentum are not the only complementary variables.
Yes, what he explains is 'Observer's effect'.
Isn't it because electrons correspond to the energy of the photon?
Exactly that's why I swap the term uncertainty with standard deviation and never tell physics scholar that. The deviation in position has a direct effect to the deviation of momentum. An even the idea of one particle at different locations at same time is also vague. Coz quantum particle has one single state Always Always.
Thanks!!!
The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle isn't about uncertainty in measuring things. It is about uncertainty in describing things.
WE CAN NEVER MEASURE THE IMMEASURABLE.
Example… if you type a password and don’t look at it before pressing ‘Enter’ it will be wrong. BUT if you click the eye to reveal what’s been typed it will be correct… then you can press ‘Enter’.
No, it will be both right and wrong and until you look you will never know if it is right or wrong. If you reveal the eye it can be both right and wrong and only when you look will it either be right or wrong (exclusivity or); it cannot be both at the same time. If it is right then we know for a fact that it is definitely not wrong and vice versa. You are trying to make an analogous example about quantum systems and failed doing so.
learned better w this compared to the other vid from teded
You forgot about Werner's older brother Groucho Heisenberg who always knew where he was just not certain how he got there.
Q : Was the speed gun properly calibrated 😂 ?
yehh science
What is a wave ,,plz make a video on this
And what’s the purpose or the application of this knowledge?
Any experiment that probes quantum systems will run into this problem
To make m3th
@@betterwatchRezwrong heisenberg
The problem with transportation devices as shown in Star Trek, for instance.
this video is so funny haha
4:59 kid named finger:
teacher: class today we will be learning about heisenberg's uncertainty principle
kid named finger:
I believe this video is incorrect it intrinsic to the universe that either position or velocity is uncertain.Heisenberg thought the act of measurement could be the cause but later experiments have shown this not to be the cas.
Tell em baby 🎈💋🍎🪬🪶🕊️
2:31 why not
Something about this just seems...
Wrong.
Like we're following an interesting train of thought but completely unaware as to what we're actually looking at, likely because we're not taking something, or several somethings, into consideration. I wonder if I'm the only one who feels this way?
ahhh... wavelength
Isn't this quantum entaglement?
different
I am the one who KNOCKS
An accurate estimate? Doesn't sound very scientific to me.
Look at the RUclips video "Double Slit Experiment" by Todd Grigsby.
It uses an interferometer to show that light waves can bounce off another.
This applies to the double slit experiment thus the title.
But does that explain how a particle can or cannot be in two places at once? Or were you just adding to the knowledge here. Trying to decide if you are arguing something or not.
@@BlinkinFirefly True I did not explain that. Light is just a wave that appears to be a particle. A detector cannot be placed in the path without altering the wave. It is an error to attempt to place a detector in the experiment. I was just trying to add something to the knowledge as well.
is this for children? Have we come to this - comic book learning.
the cartoon is beautiful, but stupid, some kind of mess, to cram more abstruse. For example, why the example with a tennis ball, how was its wave frequency calculated?
breaking bad reference
I'm more confused than i was 6:19 minutes ago.
Let's say that in the future, I get a 2km² dark room and a camera that can take a million frames a second, are you telling me that i can't find its location and momentum on one axis? Could do it on both axis by insterting another camera. Could also do 3D with 4diagonal cameras. I reckon this rule will be broken when we understand the momentum of our galaxy and the external forces that push and/or pull it.
Say my name
Heisenberg is driving down the road when he gets pulled over by a cop. The police officer says “I clocked you going 90 miles an hour“. Heisenberg then says “Darn now I don’t know where I am“! And by the way, the explanation for the Heisenberg uncertainty principle given this cute video is completely wrong.
I dint get the joke😞 p.s. if u don't mind, can u explain this principle?
This doesn't explain why the uncertainties exist.
Your whole argument is based on the assumption that we know what a particle is.
Also there is an assumption that wave/particle duality makes sense. It is very much like Jesus is God duality.
There are particles and there are energy waves. All particles have associated energy waves.
Hiwever first explain what a particle is before you make any other claims. No one knows what particle is.
That protons for instance. The most recent description of a protons mass says the mass comes from the energy of the strong force holding the quarks in place. No one has the faintest clue what a quark is. No one has the faintest clue what the strong force is. Even electromagnetic forces are fundamental not known. Scientists describe fields and charges without actually knowing what is a field is or what a charge actually is. Then your descriptions show bundkes of curly lines that supposedly demonstrate wave particle duality. This diagram is just plain silly. How are the waves within each blob interfering with other waves whether in the same blob or with other blobs.
I summarise by saying the mathematics of continuous functions cannot hope in any way to describe the discrete or quantum, except at a statistical level of probability.
LOL is being condescending is the only thing theists' good at? and jesus had to come out of nowhere like that?
We told you in high school that there are no particles. There are only quanta of energy. You weren't paying any attention. ;-)
Sorry but the first part of this video is completely inaccurate. This theory of some rational explanation to wave-particle duality such as a photon interfering with the path of a wave has never been accepted by the community nor was it ever a theory of Heisenberg's let alone the basis of his Uncertainty Principal. Detectors do not fire photons at particles in order to measure their velocity. That is not how they work and particles do not follow Newtonian physics at the quantum scale, they are measured indirectly by their effects on the field and this is detected by detectors with incredible sensitivity. There are numerous theories as to how something can be both a wave and a particle and exist in multiple positions simultaneously. And many more that try to explain how a particle knows its being observed, but photons colliding with the particle is not even consistent with the methodology and can be ruled out.
There are no videos the explain it. They all state it as if it's a fact, then spend the rest of the video explaining what it means. No value added.