Hi again physics fans, and especially to Toon
van K, who I heard say “Hi” back during the last episode. How is everyone doing? This series of videos is great fun for me,
both the first part and the questions. Several questions in previous episodes would
have been much easier to answer if I had made a video about the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. So, I decided…that’s it…I’m gonna
do it. That’s what I’m going to talk about in
this episode of Subatomic Stories. The simplest description of the Heisenberg
Uncertainty Principle says that it is impossible to simultaneously know an object’s location
and velocity. The more accurately you know the object’s
location, the less accurately you know how fast it is moving, and vice versa. It’s like a teeter-totter, where when one
side goes up, the other side goes down. This is just true. Mathematically, the uncertainty principle
can be written as the uncertainty in position times the uncertainty in momentum has to be
bigger than this constant which is called hbar divided by two. Those delta symbols mean uncertainty. P means momentum and x means position. Hbar is a super small number called the reduced
Planck constant. What it means really doesn’t matter unless
you’re trying to be an expert. All you really need to know is that it is
small and constant. Because it’s small, the Heisenberg Uncertainty
principle only matters for things the size of atoms or smaller. At low velocities, momentum is just mass times
velocity, so you can explicitly write Heisenberg’s equation to show the relationship between
uncertainty in velocity and uncertainty in position. The meaning of this equation is often explained
incorrectly. Many people claim that it is a measurement
thing. For instance, suppose you have an electron
and you want to precisely know its position. The way you would find its position it to
shine the light on it to see where it is. Light comes in many different wavelengths. The shorter the wavelength, the higher the
energy. And, if you want to find the position of the
electron with great precision, you need to use very short wavelength light. That’s because you can’t see anything
smaller than the wavelength of light you’re using. So, the story goes, if you use very short
wavelength light, you are hitting the electron with a photon with a lot of energy, so you
hit it hard and now you don’t know its velocity because you knocked it off in some direction
or another. So, this is a totally wrong explanation of
Heisenberg’s principle, although it was the first one I was taught back in high school. Sorry to out you Mr. G. This explanation is an example of what is
called the Observer’s effect. It’s definitely not Heisenberg. Kind of like this guy. In fact, the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle
is inextricably linked to the wave function of matter, like electrons and photons. Let me explain. First you need to know that the location of
a subatomic particle is determined by what are called a wave function. The wave function gives the probability of
finding a particle at any particular location. Actually, it’s the square of the wave function,
but I’m glossing over that because it’s not crucial here. Where the wave function is big, it’s likely
that you’ll find a particle there and where it’s small, it’s rare to find it. I made a long form video on the wave function
and the URL is in the description The second important point is that subatomic
particles are both particle and waves. When you’re looking at them as waves, they
have a wavelength and the wavelength is related to the momentum. High momentum particles have a short wavelength
and low momentum ones have long wavelengths. And, since in this case we know the momentum,
the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle says that we don’t know the position, so the
waves stretch off to infinity in both directions. Now if you want to have some knowledge of
both the position and momentum of the particle, you need to change the wave function from
an infinite sine wave to something more localized. And this is where it gets interesting. To do that, you can simply start adding up
the wave functions of particles whose momentum is well known, but for whom the position is
not known. You start with a single wave, but then you
add a series of waves that have a wavelength that are slightly different than the initial
one. The cumulative wave function, which is the
sum of more and more different wavelengths slowly morphs from being a sine wave to being
a wave function that is more localized. You can see here how adding a bunch of similar
waves of different wavelengths can change the wave function. The mathematics of this is called a Fourier
Transform by the way. If you like calculus, it’s worth looking
up. But even if you aren’t much into the math,
you can see the key points. Any particularly shaped wave function can
be created by mixing together a bunch of different wavelengths of different amplitudes. We can best illustrate what I’m talking
about by showing what happens when you start with a single wavelength. On a plot of wavelengths, everything is zero,
and on a plot of position, you see a sine wave. If you then mix several different wavelengths,
each with the same amplitude, you get a wiggly wave function that is more localized than
a single wavelength. If you mix even more wavelengths, you get
a wave function that is more localized. And, finally, if you mix every wavelength
with equal amplitude, you get a wave function that is perfectly localized. So, this is the core reason for the Heisenberg
Uncertainty Principle. If you have a single wavelength, which I remind
you is related to the velocity or momentum, then you have no information about the position
of the wave function. It’s everywhere. And in order to localize the wave function,
you need to add all the wavelengths, which means you have no information about the wavelength
and therefore the velocity. And that’s just how it works. Because wavefunctions are built of mixes of
wavelengths, the more you focus the position, the broader range of wavelengths is needed. The more you restrict the wavelength, the
less information you have about the position. That’s the real reason for the Heisenberg
Uncertainty principle. Of course, to use it, you just need the equation
and don’t need to ding into the deeper cause. Now, there is another version of the uncertainty
principle, which relates the uncertainty in energy, which is E and time, which is t. This is Delta E times Delta t is greater than
hbar over 2, which is the same constant as was used in the position/momentum version. Everything I said before still matters, but
this version is helpful when talking about the masses and lifetimes of subatomic particles. Particles which have a very long lifetime,
which is to say that Delta t is very big must, by the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle, have
a very small uncertainty in the energy, which is to say mass. Turning it around, particles that live for
a very short amount of time, which is to say that the delta t is very short, must have
a correspondingly large uncertainty in the energy or mass.Thus short-lived particles
have a large range of allowed masses around their average, while long-lived particles
have no range at all. That’s why subatomic particles like the
top quark or W or Z bosons can have any number of different masses, while a stable particle
like the electron have basically one and only one observed mass.So that’s the Heisenberg
Uncertainty Principle in a nutshell. It takes a while to fully appreciate all of
its implications, but I hope you have a deeper understanding of just why it is impossible
to simultaneously know a subatomic object’s position and velocity, or energy and lifetime. How about we take a look at a few viewer’s
questions? It’s question time and time for me to pay
off a debt. In a previous episode, HL65536 asked if electrons
can have different masses than the accepted electron mass of 0.511 MeV. So I hope that this video on the Heisenberg
Uncertainty Principle answers that. Given that the electron is stable, that means
that its lifetime is infinite. A delta T of infinity means a delta E of zero,
which means that the electron has a single and unique mass. Now the answer changes when we consider the
virtual particles we talked about in episode nine. In the case of virtual particles, the electrons
exist for only a very short time. That means that both the energy and momentum
could differ from the average and the result is that you could have electrons with a range
of masses – even cases where the square of the mass is negative. Virtual particles break a lot of the rules
and are super confusing when you first encounter them. George GDL asks where neutrinos get their
mass from. Hi George! The short answer is that we don’t know. They could get their mass from interactions
with the Higgs field, but we aren’t sure about that. Neutrinos are so much less massive than other
particles, that it’s possible that they get their mass from another mechanism. Theorists have invented other possibilities,
but the truthful answer is “I dunno.” TheBibo Sez asks if a neutrino could pass
through a neutron star. The answer is basically no, or at least mostly
so. The probability that a neutrino will interact
depends on energy and the density of the material it is travelling through. For a high energy neutrino of a hundred billion
electron volts of energy, the neutrino will travel less than a tenth of a millimeter before
interacting. So, it doesn’t get far. For low energy neutrinos, they can penetrate
much farther, but we’re still talking a distance of about a meter or so. Very low energy muon neutrinos don’t have
enough energy to make muons, so they bounce around inside the star essentially forever
and eventually find their way out. The neutrino that would penetrate a neutron
star most easily would have to an be electron neutrino with a few million electron volts
of energy. In principle, they could encounter a proton
and make a neutron. The density of protons inside neutron stars
is very poorly known, but if you take reasonable numbers, then a very low energy electron neutrino
might travel as far as a kilometer before finding a rare proton and turning it into
a neutron. Peli Mies asks after leptogenesis, how long
did it take for antimatter and matter to destroy one another? Hi Peli. First, you should know that leptogenesis isn’t
known to be true. Maybe it is and maybe it isn’t. For those of you who don’t know what leptogenesis
is, I made a long form video about it. The URL is in the description. However, whatever mechanism is responsible
for the matter/antimatter imbalance in the universe, it took only a tiny fraction of
a second to complete. Oisnowy asks if there have been estimates
of the masses of neutrinos. The answer is yes, although to cover all of
the answers is a huge undertaking. I guess I’m going to issue another IOU on
this one. I think that would be a great topic for an
upcoming video. Nibbler correctly points out that the Schrodinger
cat example isn’t what most people think. Schrodinger came up with the scenario to show
that the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics was silly. And that’s totally true. But it’s also true that the example, if
it wasn’t absurd, is a quick way to convey a key quantum concept when you have to explain
something as complex as neutrino oscillations in five minutes. I’ll let you know if Schrodinger’s ghost
haunts me and, if he does, what he says. Schlynn properly points out the correct pronunciation
of the thirteenth letter of the Greek alphabet is nee. Well that’s news to me. I crack myself up. Schlynn is right, but it’s certainly pronounced
“nu” by scientists in this context – even the Greek ones I know. Hey, I don’t make the rules… Russell Subedi asks for a function that characterizes
neutrino oscillation and what parameters are relevant. Hi Russell – that’s a big question. The Wikipedia is a pretty good reference,
but if you want to make plots, I recommend the package I used. It’s a Wolfram Alpha demo. I’ll put the links in the description. And the good thing is that the demon is totally
free. It’s worth your time. Mark Sakowski asks if the quarks and antiquarks
annihilated after the big bang, where did the energy go? Hi Mark, that’s a good question. You’re right. After the annihilation, there was a tremendous
amount of gamma radiation. But that was when the visible universe was
tiny. It has expanded a bunch since then. The expansion also stretched the wavelength
of the gamma rays. Nowadays, those gamma rays have a wavelength
of about a millimeter, or what is called microwaves. In fact, that one millimeter wavelength radiation
is called the cosmic microwave background radiation or CMB. The CMB is one of the strongest bits of evidence
we have that the Big Bang actually occurred. We see it everywhere we look in the universe. I’ll talk more about it in a subsequent
episode. There’s another very interesting bit of
information we can use the CMB to determine. First, we can measure the energy held in the
CMB. Second, we can calculate how many photons
that means. Finally, we can calculate the number of the
protons in the universe and compare it to the number of CMB photons. We find that the proton to photon ratio of
about three billion to one. that's how scientists can quantify the amount
of matter/antimatter imbalance in the early universe. The universe is just full of interesting data
if you know how to look. OK, that’s all the time we have for questions
today. Are you liking the series? I hope you’re liking the series. If you are, please be sure to like, subscribe
and share on social media. As long as you’re watching, I’ll keep
making videos. And since you’re watching, I hope that you’re
now a firm believer that, even at home, physics is everything.
