http://www.physorg.com/news100354343.html
"..still far to tiny to see."
Do I expect *too* much from a science publication?
Nice article, despite the typo. Cool that they used a camcorder and worked around the need for a photo multiplier. How does the cam corder capture the strobe frames with its 50fps sample rate? Perhaps for their next trick they could jazz up some of the weird Feynman diagrams and cloud chamber photo's into a movie. I want to see movies coming out of the LHC.
This is really exciting news. Nothing like going from visualizing to seeing the real thing. Can't wait for the Science Channel doc that's sure to come. Now that these guys have gone outside the box and opened some doors up, so, so much will be following.
Heck, I'm seeing it now in literary critiques. It's here to stay, the old days are gone! At least until our machines learn to correct everyone's errors.
QUOTE
Do I expect *too* much from a science publication?
Heck, I'm seeing it now in literary critiques. It's here to stay, the old days are gone! At least until our machines learn to correct everyone's errors.
This really cool. Better than the Nessie video. Why don't they have the electrons travel through a magnetic field and confirm they are really seeing electrons by the way their path bends, kind of like what is done with a cloud chamber?
I agree, it seems obvious that an electric or magnetic field would confirm the electron's presence. However the prediction and observation of the threshold behavior is pretty bloody strong evidence.
Even more amazing when some crazies believe that electrons are point sources. 
wouldn't a "movie" of an electron violate Heisenberg's uncertainty principle?
Ok I have a very limited understanding of physics, but isn't this a step in overcoming the Uncertainty Principle? PLEASE DON'T beat me to death for saying that. I ask to increase my understanding. It was my understanding that Uncertainty stated that we couldn't know the position and velocity of a single electron at any given time...but I could be on the wrong order of magnitude...Hberg may have said quantum particles. Like I said...don't beat me to death.
Dustin, here is how it works:
picture an atom with the atomic nucleus in the middle and the elctrons swirling around it.
A good analogy would be a football stadium where the atomic nucleus is a bug in the middle of the field's lawn. The electrons could be ANYWHERE in the stadium. (Actually, it's not really accurate to see elctrons an atom as "points" in space either, but let's not get into that here)
The uncertaity that arises from the Heisenber uncerteinty Principle is NOT the uncertainty about where the electron is in the room or something like that: it is the uncertainty in defining a very exact orbital space/shape of the electron in the atomic ensemble, INSIDE the atom.
From the human eye's point of view, the is no "uncertainty", especially regarding this visualisation experiment: the light could emenate from an atom, a molecule or whatever - the human eye certainly cannot differentiate that.
I hope I could clear that up for you.
picture an atom with the atomic nucleus in the middle and the elctrons swirling around it.
A good analogy would be a football stadium where the atomic nucleus is a bug in the middle of the field's lawn. The electrons could be ANYWHERE in the stadium. (Actually, it's not really accurate to see elctrons an atom as "points" in space either, but let's not get into that here)
The uncertaity that arises from the Heisenber uncerteinty Principle is NOT the uncertainty about where the electron is in the room or something like that: it is the uncertainty in defining a very exact orbital space/shape of the electron in the atomic ensemble, INSIDE the atom.
From the human eye's point of view, the is no "uncertainty", especially regarding this visualisation experiment: the light could emenate from an atom, a molecule or whatever - the human eye certainly cannot differentiate that.
I hope I could clear that up for you.
googleplex: the camera was run in a strange mode with 4fps so that on each frame several images of the same bubble would be recorded.
Guest_Dave: it's interesting to apply electric field to change the motion of these bubbles. But currently another test is going on. A tungsten tip is installed in the chamber. When a high voltage is applied on the tip, electrons could be emitted from the tip. In this way, it's possible to make an image for electron fountain. Further study may related to vortex images.
Guest_Dave: it's interesting to apply electric field to change the motion of these bubbles. But currently another test is going on. A tungsten tip is installed in the chamber. When a high voltage is applied on the tip, electrons could be emitted from the tip. In this way, it's possible to make an image for electron fountain. Further study may related to vortex images.
by the way, the uncertainty principle is not violated at all. Inside the bubble, the exact position and velocity of the electron still can not be determined at the same time. What we saw is just the image of the bubble. uncertainty principle is important only at very small scale.
Dustin, you may be confusing the uncertainty principle with the "observer effect", and coming up with a third effect:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle
Someone who actually understands these things, please correct me if I'm wrong, but from reading the wiki entry above, the uncertainty principle seems to state (among other things) a "drier" concept: that it's impossible to measure a subatomic particle's position AND momentum at a specific point in time, with infinite precision, and so we can't say where it's going with infinite precision, even if we had infinitely precise measuring devices, since the act of measuring one of these factors interferes somehow with the accuracy of measuring the other factor, possibly because the two measurements have to be made sequentially instead of at the same time. Somehow, this is then interpreted (at least by the "public") as meaning a subatomic particle has no precise position or momentum at any specific point in time. But if that was a true interpretation of the uncertainty principle, it wouldn't mean the particle could be here, or clear across the universe (unless that's what it means too??
), or that it might not really exist until we observe it--it means (I think) that the measurements we make of it, come pretty close, but they aren't exact, and can't be, since the particle never occupies both an exact position and momentum. But it doesn't state that we can't observe such a subatomic particle--that's done all the time. But because we can observe these particles, I think that means they DO have a specific position and momentum at any given point in time--the uncertainty has to do with our measurement capabilities, not with the actual behavior of the particle. In this, I guess I take Einstein's position--he really didn't like the idea that subatomic particles don't have a specific position and momentum--he said they retained a "local reality"--but on the other hand, all experiments supposedly verify the actual concept that subatomic particles really DON'T have a precise position or momentum. I personally think it's still a measurement concept blown out of proportion, ingrown upon itself and using its own terminology, and thus inaccurately stating that's how the real world works, but maybe I'm wrong.
The observer effect is different, though related only because it has to do with the act of measuring something: it states that the act of measuring something changes that thing, even if by only a tiny amount, due to some transfer of energy between the observer and the observed, which is necessary in order to acquire data, and so in the case of a subatomic particle, where we're measuring position and momentum, our measurements don't tell us what that item's position and momentum would have been if we'd left it alone and not measured it. But that doesn't mean it comes into being only if we measure it or observe it. That's a bit of popular science folklore on which not many physicists have seen fit to set the public straight. But it sure sounds cool, doesn't it? Maybe they don't spend much time trying to correct this notion, because they think it'll help make physics sound more interesting to the general public, and thus gain more funding, or make them more popular.
Involved in these apparent conundrums, maybe, is kaneda's reminder about the dual nature of these things, both as particles and as wave functions--calling them "particles" is both a matter of old-school convenience, and because they really do exhibit classic particle behavior under certain circumstances--but maybe their wave function is partly responsible for the inherent inaccuracies in measuring them (how's that for a generalized concept?).
Getting back to your question, Dustin: even if it were possible to take a video of the electron itself, instead of the bubble around the electron, it still wouldn't violate the uncertainty principle, since a video isn't an attempt to acquire an infinitely precise measurement of the electron's position and/or momentum--it still wouldn't allow us to know that information.
There are a few other modern myths that arise from misinterpretations of these theories, such as the one that goes even further, stating that subatomic particles literally occupy more than one location simultaneously. I tend to doubt that, even though that's what some quantum physicists sometimes SAY it means. It certainly isn't what Heisenberg was saying--he said we can't predict a particle's position and momentum with infinite precision, and so we can't predict with infinite precision where it will wind up. That's a lot different than saying the particle doesn't really occupy a particular point in space at any given time, and/or that it occupies more than one location simultaneously. But it sounds cooler. Until I see a good explanation as to how that's literally true, I'm gonna have to believe that this is a mathematical way of looking at these things, and not a reflection of actual reality. As long as one simply presents a mathematical construct that, even though correctly, takes into account the principles of the uncertainty of measurements, it can be made to seem like that's a literal interpretation how the actual world works, as if it's the particles themselves that are uncertain, not us (blame the particles). The fact that physicists haven't done much to dispel these myths, resembles the sort of leeway that the Catholic church allows for various myths that sprung up after Jesus's death, since these myths help perpetuate the Church. I hope we don't see this kind of thing go on too much longer in the areas of science.
Of course, I may be COMPLETELY WRONG (or close to it, within a reasonable amount of uncertainty of measurement).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle
Someone who actually understands these things, please correct me if I'm wrong, but from reading the wiki entry above, the uncertainty principle seems to state (among other things) a "drier" concept: that it's impossible to measure a subatomic particle's position AND momentum at a specific point in time, with infinite precision, and so we can't say where it's going with infinite precision, even if we had infinitely precise measuring devices, since the act of measuring one of these factors interferes somehow with the accuracy of measuring the other factor, possibly because the two measurements have to be made sequentially instead of at the same time. Somehow, this is then interpreted (at least by the "public") as meaning a subatomic particle has no precise position or momentum at any specific point in time. But if that was a true interpretation of the uncertainty principle, it wouldn't mean the particle could be here, or clear across the universe (unless that's what it means too??
), or that it might not really exist until we observe it--it means (I think) that the measurements we make of it, come pretty close, but they aren't exact, and can't be, since the particle never occupies both an exact position and momentum. But it doesn't state that we can't observe such a subatomic particle--that's done all the time. But because we can observe these particles, I think that means they DO have a specific position and momentum at any given point in time--the uncertainty has to do with our measurement capabilities, not with the actual behavior of the particle. In this, I guess I take Einstein's position--he really didn't like the idea that subatomic particles don't have a specific position and momentum--he said they retained a "local reality"--but on the other hand, all experiments supposedly verify the actual concept that subatomic particles really DON'T have a precise position or momentum. I personally think it's still a measurement concept blown out of proportion, ingrown upon itself and using its own terminology, and thus inaccurately stating that's how the real world works, but maybe I'm wrong.The observer effect is different, though related only because it has to do with the act of measuring something: it states that the act of measuring something changes that thing, even if by only a tiny amount, due to some transfer of energy between the observer and the observed, which is necessary in order to acquire data, and so in the case of a subatomic particle, where we're measuring position and momentum, our measurements don't tell us what that item's position and momentum would have been if we'd left it alone and not measured it. But that doesn't mean it comes into being only if we measure it or observe it. That's a bit of popular science folklore on which not many physicists have seen fit to set the public straight. But it sure sounds cool, doesn't it? Maybe they don't spend much time trying to correct this notion, because they think it'll help make physics sound more interesting to the general public, and thus gain more funding, or make them more popular.
Involved in these apparent conundrums, maybe, is kaneda's reminder about the dual nature of these things, both as particles and as wave functions--calling them "particles" is both a matter of old-school convenience, and because they really do exhibit classic particle behavior under certain circumstances--but maybe their wave function is partly responsible for the inherent inaccuracies in measuring them (how's that for a generalized concept?).
Getting back to your question, Dustin: even if it were possible to take a video of the electron itself, instead of the bubble around the electron, it still wouldn't violate the uncertainty principle, since a video isn't an attempt to acquire an infinitely precise measurement of the electron's position and/or momentum--it still wouldn't allow us to know that information.
There are a few other modern myths that arise from misinterpretations of these theories, such as the one that goes even further, stating that subatomic particles literally occupy more than one location simultaneously. I tend to doubt that, even though that's what some quantum physicists sometimes SAY it means. It certainly isn't what Heisenberg was saying--he said we can't predict a particle's position and momentum with infinite precision, and so we can't predict with infinite precision where it will wind up. That's a lot different than saying the particle doesn't really occupy a particular point in space at any given time, and/or that it occupies more than one location simultaneously. But it sounds cooler. Until I see a good explanation as to how that's literally true, I'm gonna have to believe that this is a mathematical way of looking at these things, and not a reflection of actual reality. As long as one simply presents a mathematical construct that, even though correctly, takes into account the principles of the uncertainty of measurements, it can be made to seem like that's a literal interpretation how the actual world works, as if it's the particles themselves that are uncertain, not us (blame the particles). The fact that physicists haven't done much to dispel these myths, resembles the sort of leeway that the Catholic church allows for various myths that sprung up after Jesus's death, since these myths help perpetuate the Church. I hope we don't see this kind of thing go on too much longer in the areas of science.
Of course, I may be COMPLETELY WRONG (or close to it, within a reasonable amount of uncertainty of measurement).
This experiment is interesting but has nothing to do with the uncertainty principle and there has been no violation. The bubble sizes are very much in the classical domain.