Ok, it's an inherent property because of wave-particle duality, why then the long tangent on the limitations of our instruments? Why do you mention interaction with the quantum system?
how can p be equal to c/ lambda ?? p is actually the momentum which is the product of mass and velocity and c/ lambda is equal to frequency so these two to things are nowhere connected to eachother so the equation which he had written in the board is wrong it should be P = h/lambda so instead of h which is the Planck's constant he wrote c which is the velocity of light
Hi, Thanks for the video. There are some problems. First - There is a mistake in the De Broglie wave formula : p = h/lambda (et not c/lambda) Second - The way the principle is presented here leads to a wrong idea of it. As explained in the video, it seems that the electron had a position and that that position is changed by the mesurement. It's not right ! The electron did'nt have any position before ! The thought experiment as shown considers a collision between an incident photon and the electron considered as a corpuscule (a kind of small marble) ...but it's not. De fact is that before the mesurement (i.e the interaction between photon and electron), the electron doesn't have any position because it's in a superposition of states. (i.e a superposition of positions and a superposition of momenta). The interaction with the photon causes the wave fonction (wave packet) to collapse in a position in a Delta x range (the position "taken" is just one of those which were possible before the mesurement but not THE position of the electron (just because the electron simply didn't have any position !). When the wave function collapse, as it's a wave, it cannot collapse to a point but in a range (delta x , approximatively equal to lambda). Because of the De Broglie relationship, this Delta X implies a delpa p on momentum. As the De Broglie relationship shows the more Delta X is small, the more delta p is big.
When you're dealing with such a small scale, it does not really matter if you have a 2 in the denominator. A careful mathematical calculation can show that the product of these two uncertainties is approximately equal to greater than the reduced Planck constant :-)
It is absolutely amazing how the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is directly ralated to the so called "Quantum Enigma". Obviously, the conservation laws hold for the problem, the "Quantum Enigma". There is a "Trade-off" that must be understood in complete details for us to fully understand the "Uncertainty Principle". That trade off is between: our certainty of the particle's postion -vs- our knowledge of the particles's momentum. So, explaining the problem's/unknowns of this phenomenon, we have to remember that it is not possible for an individual to know the complete mind of God. The "Uncertainty Principle" essentially explains the fact that God will never allow man to be fully in control of his universe. This means that no matter how long or short your life on this planet, the knowledge of God will always extend beyond your individual concepts. However, getting closer to God, i.e., the knowledge of God is always a wonderful thing. "
Sir if we find the momentum and finally subtract the energy provided ...because if we take a known frequency...could than the two parameters b measured accurately,,?
Sir, photon can't give it's half energy to electron, either it will give it's total energy or it won't give anything. Here in that experiment if photon gives all of it's energy to the electron then it won't be having any energy left. So how can it travel the rest of the distance? And also if it's gives the total energy to the electron then we can easily calculate the momentum of the electron by calculating the momentum of photon. Because it will be the same. Isn't it?
that is about bands in atom which is different depends on distance from nuclei, but a free electron can collide with a photon and depends on the mass and initially speed can get some energy and rest will be for photon with different wavelength. Im not sure but its my opinion.
You just said it was both a particle and a wave. and electrons are referred to as elementary particles or fundamental particles so how can you say this. you dont clarify this in future videos
He did not say that : he just said that an electron ACTS like a particle or a wave, not that is IS a particle and a wave. Actually, an electron is not a "particle" (ie "a small body"), nor a "wave". But we can use some characteristics of a "particle" or a "wave" to describe its behavior.
![Lp. Сердце Вселенной #60 РОЖДЕНИЕ ЛОЛОЛОШКИ [Финал] • Майнкрафт](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/YoR0pAV9FVQ/mqdefault.jpg)
You came to save the universe ! Thank you a million times!
Explanation God Level... Love from India... Best channel to clarify doubts on specific topics
you are great, i really started to understand it. please publish a book also and also publish in india. i will definitely want that
I might be wrong but I think u made a mistake with the uncertainty formula, h dutch should be divided by 2
No... It's correct
It can really be either. When we are dealing with numbers as small as h, a factor of 2 doesn't really do shit
You are right.
Your lectures are awesome
Ok, it's an inherent property because of wave-particle duality, why then the long tangent on the limitations of our instruments? Why do you mention interaction with the quantum system?
how can p be equal to c/ lambda ?? p is actually the momentum which is the product of mass and velocity and c/ lambda is equal to frequency so these two to things are nowhere connected to eachother so the equation which he had written in the board is wrong it should be P = h/lambda so instead of h which is the Planck's constant he wrote c which is the velocity of light
you are uploading perfect videos but can make pdf of these notes plz
Hi, Thanks for the video.
There are some problems.
First - There is a mistake in the De Broglie wave formula : p = h/lambda (et not c/lambda)
Second - The way the principle is presented here leads to a wrong idea of it.
As explained in the video, it seems that the electron had a position and that that position is changed by the mesurement. It's not right ! The electron did'nt have any position before !
The thought experiment as shown considers a collision between an incident photon and the electron considered as a corpuscule (a kind of small marble) ...but it's not. De fact is that before the mesurement (i.e the interaction between photon and electron), the electron doesn't have any position because it's in a superposition of states. (i.e a superposition of positions and a superposition of momenta). The interaction with the photon causes the wave fonction (wave packet) to collapse in a position in a Delta x range (the position "taken" is just one of those which were possible before the mesurement but not THE position of the electron (just because the electron simply didn't have any position !). When the wave function collapse, as it's a wave, it cannot collapse to a point but in a range (delta x , approximatively equal to lambda). Because of the De Broglie relationship, this Delta X implies a delpa p on momentum. As the De Broglie relationship shows the more Delta X is small, the more delta p is big.
Thanks for this awesome video! Your explanation was clear concise and informative!
Thanks! Glad to hear it!
isn't p = h/lampda.. i mean h instead of c should be there
p = h / lamda is correct sir..
Incredible video, but... man, (delta x)(delta p) > h/4pi !!!! The reduced Plank constant should be divided by 2!!!
When you're dealing with such a small scale, it does not really matter if you have a 2 in the denominator. A careful mathematical calculation can show that the product of these two uncertainties is approximately equal to greater than the reduced Planck constant :-)
P= C / lambda
is dimentionally incorrect (C/lambda ;term does not contain mass 'm' in it ,where as momentum is m*v )
it is P= hc/lambda
It is p=h/lambda
I think( h=h/4 pi) but why you had written (h=h/2pi) ???
It is absolutely amazing how the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is directly ralated to the so called "Quantum Enigma". Obviously, the conservation laws hold for the problem, the "Quantum Enigma". There is a "Trade-off" that must be understood in complete details for us to fully understand the "Uncertainty Principle". That trade off is between: our certainty of the particle's postion -vs- our knowledge of the particles's momentum. So, explaining the problem's/unknowns of this phenomenon, we have to remember that it is not possible for an individual to know the complete mind of God. The "Uncertainty Principle" essentially explains the fact that God will never allow man to be fully in control of his universe. This means that no matter how long or short your life on this planet, the knowledge of God will always extend beyond your individual concepts. However, getting closer to God, i.e., the knowledge of God is always a wonderful thing.
"
thank you for your videos sir.please do tell us ,which book can we refer for notes making in quantum mechanics
Sir if we find the momentum and finally subtract the energy provided ...because if we take a known frequency...could than the two parameters b measured accurately,,?
thank u so much,,i actually understood it better..
Sir, photon can't give it's half energy to electron, either it will give it's total energy or it won't give anything. Here in that experiment if photon gives all of it's energy to the electron then it won't be having any energy left. So how can it travel the rest of the distance? And also if it's gives the total energy to the electron then we can easily calculate the momentum of the electron by calculating the momentum of photon. Because it will be the same. Isn't it?
that is about bands in atom which is different depends on distance from nuclei, but a free electron can collide with a photon and depends on the mass and initially speed can get some energy and rest will be for photon with different wavelength. Im not sure but its my opinion.
How do your "quantum theory" and "quantum mechanical model of the atom" playlists differ from this one ?
Yash Chavan From what? This is a single video, not a playlist.
it should be h bar divided by 2
You just said it was both a particle and a wave. and electrons are referred to as elementary particles or fundamental particles so how can you say this. you dont clarify this in future videos
He did not say that : he just said that an electron ACTS like a particle or a wave, not that is IS a particle and a wave. Actually, an electron is not a "particle" (ie "a small body"), nor a "wave". But we can use some characteristics of a "particle" or a "wave" to describe its behavior.
baya how p equal to c by wavelength
h bar should have been divided by two
divide by 2
wow
Thanks!!
you're welcome!