But one hit of gamma will give the electron the energy of ionization. We would like a clearer image, so we try for gamma radiation. The problem is that visible light has a large wavelength relative to the size of the electron, so we would not get a clear image. So we can try to look at it with a microscope. We would like to know not only where it is, but where it is going and how fast it is headed there.

The Heisenberg microscope was a kind of reductio ad adsurdum argument, no? We start with the everyday view that says that electrons are little spheres circling the nucleus of some atom. I do not mean to be unkind just strong in my arguments. I give a rather brutal debate on the Uncertainty Principle talk section because I'm battling strong supporters of the Heisenberg microscope. I believe this is a throwback to the Heisenberg microscope thought experiment which is not a correct image of Uncertainty. I do not believe that the uncertainty principle teaches that the position is 'disturbed' by measurement. Bwr6 20:58, 15 December 2010 (UTC)Ĭopied from Basics of quantum mechanics talk: Some reference should be given here - or, if none can be found, it should be acknowledged that it's not clear who invented the argument. All the expressions of it by Heisenberg that I've been able to find have been later.

Is it clear that Heisenberg invented the microscope argument and not Bohr? The first written instance of the microscope that I can find is in the above 1928 article by Bohr. This alternative expression (and acknowledgement that it is correct) could be included in the discussion of Bohr. However, in the 1928 Nature article], Bohr actually does give this correct expression in his discussion of the microscope. However, I would suggest keeping the error in the 'Heisenberg's Argument' section, since that section does give a literal expression of what Heisenberg said. Bwr6 20:58, 15 December 2010 (UTC)Įxpression of the Uncertaintly Principle Īs pointed out in the uncertainty principle article, Heisenberg's expression of this principle is not mathematically correct - in this discussion, 'change in momentum' Δ p x. The main difference, from what I can tell, is that Bohr emphasizes the objective indeterminacy of momentum given a sharp position measurement, and vice versa - he makes it clear that this is not a mere human ability to know something. But Bohr clearly accepted the argument just fine - see this p.583 of this 1928 Nature article, in which Bohr gives a rather more sophisticated version of the 1930 microscope argument given by Heisenberg. So, he might have been critical of this aspect of Heisenberg's *interpretation* of the microscope. Bohr was critical of Heisenberg's interpretation of 'uncertainty' as a mere 'human inability' to know some things. The introduction to this article (and a reference in the discussion) suggests that Bohr 'criticized' the microscope argument. I recommend a new section be written called 'Bohr's Contribution,' which would discuss the following three points (comments welcome).

Heisenberg principle talk