Researchers demonstrate Heisenberg uncertainty principle at macro level

Feb 15, 2013 by Bob Yirka report

(Phys.org)—Physicists working at the University of Colorado have succeeded in demonstrating one of the major tenets of quantum mechanics—namely the Heisenberg uncertainty principle—at the macro level. In their paper published in the journal Science, the team describes how a small but still visible drum they built in their lab, outfitted with mirrors, a laser and a detector, demonstrated that it was not possible to measure a photon's position and momentum simultaneously.

It was Heisenberg who famously noted that it was impossible to measure the momentum of an object and its position at the same time. As an example, he pointed out that using a microscope to look at a single electron, would require shining light on it. Those would cause the electron to move slightly, changing its momentum. Up till now, researchers testing or demonstrating this principle have worked at the micro level because attempting to do so with objects large enough to be seen with the naked eye seemed impossible due to the many variables at play. In this new research, the team in Colorado showed that this not necessarily the case.

They started by building a square drum frame out of silicon, with each side 0.5 millimeters long. They then stretched a thin film of over the skin to create the drum head. The drum was placed in a vacuum between two very tiny mirrors and was chilled to just 4 degrees above to eliminate extraneous noise. The experiment was conducted by shooting a laser at the drum and measuring how much the head was distended by the photons striking it as they were bounced back and forth between the mirrors. As more photons struck the drum, greater occurred in the measurements recorded, distorting the readings, and proving that the can indeed be demonstrated with objects large enough to be seen with the naked eye.

The results of the experiment could also have an impact elsewhere, as researchers in Washington and Louisiana are planning a similar experiment over a much more vast scale—they will be seeking to measure gravitationally waves, which the theory of relatively says, should cause a change in distance between two objects. Their experiment will involve the use mirrors as well, but instead of a small drum, they will be trying to measure what happens when two black holes merge.

Explore further: Attack on classical cryptography system raises security questions

More information: Science. Vol 339, February 13, 2013, p. 801. doi: 10.1126/science.1231282

Related Stories

More certainty on uncertainty's quantum mechanical role

Oct 04, 2012

Scientists who study the ultra-small world of atoms know it is impossible to make certain simultaneous measurements, for example finding out both the location and momentum of an electron, with an arbitrarily ...

Scientists cast doubt on renowned uncertainty principle

Sep 07, 2012

Werner Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, formulated by the theoretical physicist in 1927, is one of the cornerstones of quantum mechanics. In its most familiar form, it says that it is impossible to measure ...

Mechanical micro-drum cooled to quantum ground state

Jul 06, 2011

Showcasing new tools for widespread development of quantum circuits made of mechanical parts, scientists from the National Institute of Standards and Technology have demonstrated a flexible, broadly usable ...

Physicists extend entanglement in Einstein experiment

Dec 06, 2012

(Phys.org)—Using a photon fission process, physicists have split a single photon into a pair of daughter photons and then split one of the daughter photons into a pair of granddaughters to create a total ...

Recommended for you

Quantum physics just got less complicated

13 hours ago

Here's a nice surprise: quantum physics is less complicated than we thought. An international team of researchers has proved that two peculiar features of the quantum world previously considered distinct ...

Controlling light on a chip at the single-photon level

Dec 16, 2014

Integrating optics and electronics into systems such as fiber-optic data links has revolutionized how we transmit information. A second revolution awaits as researchers seek to develop chips in which individual ...

Fraud-proof credit cards possible with quantum physics

Dec 15, 2014

Credit card fraud and identify theft are serious problems for consumers and industries. Though corporations and individuals work to improve safeguards, it has become increasingly difficult to protect financial ...

User comments : 31

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

tigger
5 / 5 (1) Feb 15, 2013
It seems so obvious that measuring something means interacting and interacting means change. Not so sure that means the thing I wanted to measure didn't have exact measurements before I decided to try.
Infinum
3.7 / 5 (3) Feb 15, 2013
Did you mean 'exact measurements' or 'exact properties/characteristics'?
Heisenberg uncertainty principle deals with precision of the measurement process.

What you seem to be referring to is the Schrodinger's cat principle i.e. the 'to be measured' value is 100% unknown until it is measured.

Did I understand your comment correctly?
sigfpe
3.7 / 5 (3) Feb 15, 2013
@tigger,

> It seems so obvious that measuring something means interacting and interacting means change.

Can you quantify the change? You said it's obvious so surely you can provide some kind of lower bound on how much the position of something is modified if you measure its momentum.
vacuum-mechanics
1 / 5 (8) Feb 15, 2013
The experiment was conducted by shooting a laser at the drum and measuring how much the head was distended by the photons striking it as they were bounced back and forth between the mirrors. As more photons struck the drum, greater fluctuations occurred in the measurements recorded, distorting the readings, and proving that the Heisenberg uncertainty principle can indeed be demonstrated with objects large enough to be seen with the naked eye.

This is interesting manifesting of the uncertainty principle, but the problem is that we cannot understand how it works! Knowing it mechanism as below would be nice…
http://www.vacuum...19〈=en
ValeriaT
not rated yet Feb 15, 2013
deepsand
1.6 / 5 (7) Feb 15, 2013
The cited so-called "Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle Experiment" is actually no more than a demonstration of the wave/particle duality of matter.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (5) Feb 16, 2013
Indeed, because Mr. Heisenberg's Principle is just the quantification of wave-particle duality.
johanfprins
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 16, 2013
It seems so obvious that measuring something means interacting and interacting means change.


Bravo.

This experiment only proves that your measurement can change what you measure: It DOES NOT prove that their is an inbuilt uncertainty in the position and momentum of a moving entity; and most certainly it does not prove the Voodoo concept of "wave-particle" duality.

I do not see why they went to such extraordinary lengths to prove something that is so obvious that it can be proved on a pool table. Assume that your light-wave is the white ball, and you use it to detect the black ball. When it collides with the black ball the point of collision has a "probability distribution" which is spread over a distance of two times the diameters of the two balls; and the black ball's momentum changes. This DOES NOT PROVE that there is an uncertainty in the position and momentum of any one of these balls when they are moving.

ValeriaT
2 / 5 (4) Feb 16, 2013
It DOES NOT prove that their is an inbuilt uncertainty in the position and momentum of a moving entity
This uncertainty was proved many times. Everyone of you can check it yourself. Mr. Heisenberg's Principle is just the quantification of wave-particle duality, because only particle can have location permanently defined, only wave can have momentum permanently defined (pressure of radiation). I know, that you're trying to enforce your "all is the wave" approach all the time, but IMO it's just because you never understood the particle concept in its entirety. You vision or reality is biased in this way.
johanfprins
2.3 / 5 (6) Feb 16, 2013
It DOES NOT prove that their is an inbuilt uncertainty in the position and momentum of a moving entity
This uncertainty was proved many times.
This experiment only proves that ALL entities are waves which diffract once they move through a slit-size of the same order as the wavelength. It does NOT prove wave-particle duality at all!

Mr. Heisenberg's Principle is just the quantification of wave-particle duality,
Bullshit!

because only particle can have location permanently defined,
Bullshit: A wave has a center-of-mass.

I know, that you're trying to enforce your "all is the wave" approach all the time,
YOU "enforce" your Voodoo duck all the time and refuse to answer pertinent questions about this absurd model of yours.

IMO it's just because you never understood the particle concept in its entirety.
I have asked all time for a definition of a "particle". You cannot do this, but claim that I do not understand it: LOL
ValeriaT
1.7 / 5 (6) Feb 16, 2013
A wave has a center-of-mass.
So you even didn't understand, what the wave is - not just the particle concept. The wave is something like the sinus curve - without beginning or end. It has no shape, size, only amplitude and frequency. This is all what I can tell you about it.
johanfprins
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 16, 2013
A wave has a center-of-mass.
So you even didn't understand, what the wave is - not just the particle concept. The wave is something like the sinus curve - without beginning or end. It has no shape, size, only amplitude and frequency. This is all what I can tell you about it.


There is not a single wave in our universe "without a beginning and an end" and which has "no shape, size and only an amplitude and frequency". Anybody who believes this lives in Voodoo cloud-cuckoo land! That you are a citizen of cloud-cuckoo land you have amply demonstrated by your numerous bullshits on this forum!

Where do you get a wave without a beginning or an end! REALLY!!!

Obviously you are not able to tell me anything more about a wave since you are too stupid to solve a differential wave equation. Ask any radio-engineer whether your concept of a wave can be a reality, and he/she will immediately phone the loony bin to come and pick you up.
VendicarE
3.4 / 5 (5) Feb 16, 2013
We have a complete understanding of how the HUP works.

"we cannot understand how it works!" - Vacuum

What we do not understand is the nature of the wave function. Specifically the "collapse", or more appropriately the transition from a distributed statistical description to a well defined localized change.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (6) Feb 16, 2013
We have a complete understanding of how the HUP works.
The biggest lie of ALL lies EVER!
What we do not understand is the nature of the wave function. Specifically the "collapse", or more appropriately the transition from a distributed statistical description


There IS NO distributed statistical description which can be directly attributed to the intensity of the wave-function. Give me an experiment that proves compellingly that this is so: You cannot!

to a well defined localized change.
What do you mean by "well-defined" localized change? When is a wave that morphed from an extended state to a more localized entity, when a change in its boundary conditions require this, a "well-defined" localized state? If you cannot define "well defined localized state" then PLEASE refrain from posting on issues you are incapable of understanding.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (3) Feb 16, 2013
There is not a single wave in our universe "without a beginning and an end" and which has "no shape, size and only an amplitude and frequency"
Which means, every physical wave is of particle nature at least a bit and it cannot be quite harmonic (it's "packeted", i.e. divided into particles). For example the mass-energy equivalence principle assigns such a wave nonzero energy density, i.e. curved space-time. The pure abstract wave would have not only zero rest mass, but zero dynamic mass and it would never make the vacuum foam more dense along the wave path.
Where do you get a wave without a beginning or an end
Nowhere, which is another reason for why "pure" harmonic wave doesn't exist in the universe. At the moment, when the ends of wave are "packeted", then they get the property of particle, enclosed with curvature of space-time. It has its consequences for preparation of so-called "squeezed light", for example.
ValeriaT
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 16, 2013
In brief - I dunno, what you call a wave or particle, but for me the "wave" is solely delocalized abstract concept of purely harmonic wave without center of mass or even location, whereas the "particle" is solely localized pin-point abstract artifact with center of mass. Because all objects observable inside of our universe are neither solely localized, neither solely delocalized (they're of finite size and mass/energy density), then everything inside of our universe is a subject of particle-wave duality. Which is why all objects inside of our universe are neither traveling without interruption, neither sitting at place, but oscillating or dancing at place like the anyons.
Ober
5 / 5 (3) Feb 16, 2013
@johanfprins. Please refrain from posting if you are simply going to behave as a TROLL. Your posts include too much foul language, and are insulting to fellow posters. Try to stay focused on the topic, and leave personal feelings behind. This is SCIENCE, not a peanut gallery.

To the rest of you, I'd appreciate if everyone can uphold the above, so we can clean up this site and improve the level of discussion to reflect SCIENCE in a better light.
deepsand
2 / 5 (8) Feb 16, 2013
Indeed, because Mr. Heisenberg's Principle is just the quantification of wave-particle duality.

Incorrect. The uncertainty owes to the necessary forceful interaction between the observed and the instrument of observation, which exists even in the absence of such duality.
deepsand
2 / 5 (8) Feb 16, 2013
Indeed, because Mr. Heisenberg's Principle is just the quantification of wave-particle duality.

Incorrect. The uncertainty owes to the necessary forceful interaction between the observed and the instrument of observation, which exists even in the absence of such duality.

Addendum: And, that all matter/energy is QUANTIZED.
VendicarE
2.6 / 5 (5) Feb 16, 2013
The HUP is strictly a result of the fact that a wave function describes the probability density of a particle taking on specific characteristics like momentum or location.

Once the wave function is accepted, HUP is comes about directly from the nature of waves.

"The biggest lie of ALL lies EVER!" - Johanfprins
VendicarE
3.4 / 5 (5) Feb 16, 2013

"There IS NO distributed statistical description which can be directly attributed to the intensity of the wave-function. Give me an experiment that proves compellingly that this is so: You cannot!" - johanfprins

The classic double slit experiment does what you claim has not been done.

The probability of a photon being detected at some position on the screen behind the slits is given by the square of the amplitude of the wave function at the screen once the integral of the square over the entire possible area of detection has been normalized to 1.

This observation is the basis for QM and has been confirmed to be correct to the limit of observation, 6,7,8 decimal places.

VendicarE
3.4 / 5 (5) Feb 16, 2013

"What do you mean by "well-defined" localized change?" - Johanfprins

That depends on the experiment. But in in the case of a photon interacting with a photographic plate or a phosphor screen, it means absorption by a specific atom or molecule that has a well defined position such that the position can be accurately measured.

VendicarE
3.4 / 5 (5) Feb 16, 2013

"When is a wave that morphed from an extended state to a more localized entity, when a change in its boundary conditions require this, a "well-defined" localized state?" = johanfprins

Strictly speaking that construct is yours. The wave function may just be a mathematical entity that facilitates the computation of the properties of the particle and has no real physical value of it's own, just as a water wave is composed of individual particles and is thus a statistical entity rather than a physical object.
VendicarE
3 / 5 (4) Feb 16, 2013
Mindless.

"When it collides with the black ball the point of collision has a "probability distribution" which is spread over a distance of two times the diameters of the two balls" - Johanfprins
johanfprins
1 / 5 (4) Feb 17, 2013
There is not a single wave in our universe "without a beginning and an end" and which has "no shape, size and only an amplitude and frequency"
Which means, every physical wave is of particle nature


A single wave is a continuous field while the traditional concept of a "particle"(whatever is meant by this term) is that it is NOT a continuous field.
at least a bit and it cannot be quite harmonic (it's "packeted", i.e. divided into particles)
Are you saying that a laser beam can only be a harmonic wave when it is is infinitely long? If this is the case, the laser beam must start off being non-harmonic, and as its length grows it becomes overall more an more harmonic? Can you not see what nonsense your are talking? In the direction of motion the wave-fronts of a laser-beam are PERFECTLY parallel to one another, and therefore, no matter how long the laser beam is, it is a purely harmonic continuous SINGLE field along the direction in which it moves.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Feb 17, 2013
@johanfprins. Please refrain from posting if you are simply going to behave as a TROLL. Your posts include too much foul language, and are insulting to fellow posters. Try to stay focused on the topic, and leave personal feelings behind. This is SCIENCE, not a peanut gallery. To the rest of you, I'd appreciate if everyone can uphold the above, so we can clean up this site and improve the level of discussion to reflect SCIENCE in a better light.


Thank you: I will try but make no promises when another bozo comes along patronizing me!
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Feb 17, 2013
The classic double slit experiment does what you claim has not been done.
This is a fallacy.

The probability of a photon being detected at some position on the screen behind the slits is given by the square of the amplitude of the wave function at the screen once the integral of the square over the entire possible area of detection has been normalized to 1.


There is ZERO probability for detection at any position on the screen when there is no atomic detector at such a position; no matter how high the square of the amplitude of the incoming wave is. If there is a detector at that position, there is obviously a probability that the incoming wave will resonate with this detector and collapse to be observed. It is also obvious that the higher the intensity of the wave is at this detector the higher the probability will be that resonance will occur. But this does NOT mean that the intensity of the wave is the probability of where one will find a "particle".
Steven_Anderson
1 / 5 (1) Feb 18, 2013
I am not sure that it would demonstrate anything but this reminds me of an old physics experiment in college where we put a silver coating on one side and black coating on the other on a suspended armature and used the photons to actually spin it in a vacume. It worked quite effectively. I wonder if it could some how be adapted to show the uncertainty principle? Not that this is inside my area of expertise! http://rawcell.com
johanfprins
1 / 5 (1) Feb 18, 2013
I am not sure that it would demonstrate anything but this reminds me of an old physics experiment in college where we put a silver coating on one side and black coating on the other on a suspended armature and used the photons to actually spin it in a vacume. It worked quite effectively. I wonder if it could some how be adapted to show the uncertainty principle? Not that this is inside my area of expertise! http://rawcell.com


It shows that light has momentum which it can transfer to a material when the material absorbs the light. It does not prove any uncertainty in momentum and position. In fact, it proves just the opposite. But it is a nice experiment though!
jimsecor
1 / 5 (2) Feb 19, 2013
Well, I think this entire uncertainty principle is amply demonstrated by people openly being followed/watched (which includes knowing of covert watching): the observed changes its behavior so that, in fact, you don't have what you were observing in the first place. But...are people waves or particles? Another for instance: no one likes "the boss" looking over their shoulder. A boss who does changes his employee's behavior so he's not watching what he set out to watch. Can you measure that change of motion?????
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Feb 20, 2013
Well, I think this entire uncertainty principle is amply demonstrated by people openly being followed/watched: the observed changes its behavior so that, in fact, you don't have what you were observing in the first place.


Heisenberg pulled the wool over everybody's eyes; even Einstein's. The fact that one cannot measure with 100% accuracy, and that when you measure you change what you measure, has nothing to do with an "inbuilt" uncertainty in the position and momentum of the center-of-mass of an entity.

There is no such inbuilt uncertainty into the laws of nature whatsoever. The most important law in nature is Galileo's inertia as reformulated in Newton's first law. All the laws of nature will be wrong if the law of inertia, which demands that position and momentum must manifest simultaneously with 100% accuracy, is wrong: Including Schroedinger's equation.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.