Quantcast
Connect with us

Quantum physics experiment shows Heisenberg was right about uncertainty — in a certain sense

Published

on

The word uncertainty is used a lot in quantum mechanics. One school of thought is that this means there’s something out there in the world that we are uncertain about. But most physicists believe nature itself is uncertain.

Intrinsic uncertainty was central to the way German physicist Werner Heisenberg, one of the originators of modern quantum mechanics, presented the theory.

ADVERTISEMENT

He put forward the Uncertainty Principle that showed we can never know all the properties of a particle at the same time.




Read more:
Explainer: Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle


For example, measuring the particle’s position would allow us to know its position. But this measurement would necessarily disturb its velocity, by an amount inversely proportional to the accuracy of the position measurement.

Was Heisenberg wrong?

Heisenberg used the Uncertainty Principle to explain how measurement would destroy that classic feature of quantum mechanics, the two-slit interference pattern (more on this below).

ADVERTISEMENT

But back in the 1990s, some eminent quantum physicists claimed to have proved it is possible to determine which of the two slits a particle goes through, without significantly disturbing its velocity.

Does that mean Heisenberg’s explanation must be wrong? In work just published in Science Advances, my experimental colleagues and I have shown that it would be unwise to jump to that conclusion.

We show a velocity disturbance — of the size expected from the Uncertainty Principle — always exists, in a certain sense.

ADVERTISEMENT

But before getting into the details we need to explain briefly about the two-slit experiment.

The two-slit experiment

In this type of experiment there is a barrier with two holes or slits. We also have a quantum particle with a position uncertainty large enough to cover both slits if it is fired at the barrier.

Since we can’t know which slit the particle goes through, it acts as if it goes through both slits. The signature of this is the so-called “interference pattern”: ripples in the distribution of where the particle is likely to be found at a screen in the far field beyond the slits, meaning a long way (often several metres) past the slits.

ADVERTISEMENT

Particles going through two slits at once form an interference pattern on a screen in the far field. There are bands (dark) where they are more likely to show up separated by bands (light) where they are less likely to show up.
Wikimedia/NekoJaNekoJa/Johannes Kalliauer, CC BY-SA

But what if we put a measuring device near the barrier to find out which slit the particle goes through? Will we still see the interference pattern?

We know the answer is no, and Heisenberg’s explanation was that if the position measurement is accurate enough to tell which slit the particle goes through, it will give a random disturbance to its velocity just large enough to affect where it ends up in the far field, and thus wash out the ripples of interference.

What the eminent quantum physicists realised is that finding out which slit the particle goes through doesn’t require a position measurement as such. Any measurement that gives different results depending on which slit the particle goes through will do.

ADVERTISEMENT

And they came up with a device whose effect on the particle is not that of a random velocity kick as it goes through. Hence, they argued, it is not Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle that explains the loss of interference, but some other mechanism.

As Heisenberg predicted

We don’t have to get into what they claimed was the mechanism for destroying interference, because our experiment has shown there is an effect on the velocity of the particle, of just the size Heisenberg predicted.

We saw what others have missed because this velocity disturbance doesn’t happen as the particle goes through the measurement device. Rather it is delayed until the particle is well past the slits, on the way towards the far field.

How is this possible? Well, because quantum particles are not really just particles. They are also waves.

ADVERTISEMENT

In fact, the theory behind our experiment was one in which both wave and particle nature are manifest — the wave guides the motion of the particle according to the interpretation introduced by theoretical physicist David Bohm, a generation after Heisenberg.

Let’s experiment

In our latest experiment, scientists in China followed a technique suggested by me in 2007 to reconstruct the hypothesised motion of the quantum particles, from many different possible starting points across both slits, and for both results of the measurement.

They compared the velocities over time when there was no measurement device present to those when there was, and so determined the change in the velocities as a result of the measurement.




Read more:
We did a breakthrough ‘speed test’ in quantum tunnelling, and here’s why that’s exciting

ADVERTISEMENT


The experiment showed that the effect of the measurement on the velocity of the particles continued long after the particles had cleared the measurement device itself, as far as 5 metres away from it.

By that point, in the far field, the cumulative change in velocity was just large enough, on average, to wash out the ripples in the interference pattern.

So, in the end, Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle emerges triumphant.

The take-home message? Don’t make far-reaching claims about what principle can or cannot explain a phenomenon until you have considered all theoretical formulations of the principle.

Yes, that’s a bit of an abstract message, but it’s advice that could apply in fields far from physics.The Conversation

ADVERTISEMENT

Howard Wiseman, Director, Centre for Quantum Dynamics, Griffith University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.


Report typos and corrections to: [email protected].
READ COMMENTS - JOIN THE DISCUSSION
Continue Reading

Breaking Banner

Maggie Haberman details the insane few hours Trump had a impeachment lawyer — before he was basically out

Published

on

For one brief day this week, President Donald Trump hired former Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC) to help him with a recently launched impeachment inquiry by the House. It took mere hours before the footage was revealed of Gowdy attacking the previous White House for not providing requested documents about Hillary Clinton.

While an impeachment inquiry is supposed to give more teeth to a Congressional investigation, the White House has still refused to cooperate, comply with subpoenas or even allow department staffers to appear and answer questions.

Continue Reading

Breaking Banner

Trump goes after Fox News’ Chris Wallace after Shep Smith departure

Published

on

President Donald Trump appears to be waging his own war against Fox News hosts that report the factual news and not opinions.

Friday, longtime Fox newsman Shep Smith was officially released from his contract, at his request and fellow Fox staffers are warning it's only the beginning. But now, it seems the president is seeing his sights on ridding the network of anyone who doesn't parrot his policies, politics, talking points or dares to fact-check him.

Continue Reading
 

Breaking Banner

Robert Reich walks through all the ways Trump is selling America to foreign powers for his own personal profit

Published

on

Notorious class warrior Robert Reich wrote a sharp attack of President Donald Trump for his international policies that are doing nothing more than scoring him personal cash and power.

Writing for The Guardian, Reich called Trump "the most xenophobic and isolationist American president in modern history," saying that the president has been "selling America to foreign powers for his own personal benefit."

While Trump promised during the 2016 election that he would "bring troops home," it was likely assumed that Trump meant the decades-long wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The work on the ground in Syria was mostly being done by Kurdish allies and not American soldiers. The number of troops on the ground in Syria, prior to Turkey beginning their bombing campaign, was relatively low.

Continue Reading
 
 
Help Raw Story Uncover Injustice. Join Raw Story Investigates for $1 and go ad-free.
close-image