# A Contradiction for Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle for macroscopic objects...

I AM SORRY IT IS DE-BROGLIE'S WAVELENGTH.......................................... This is something different from what we read in the textbooks..... In the textbooks, it is always written that we cannot see the macroscopic particles moving in a wave form because the mass and velocity of macroscopic particles make the wavelength negligible..... But I think that no doubt that the wavelength of such particles is very small, but is not the reason why we cannot see those particles in a wave..... It is because the AMPLITUDE is very small......Whether the wave of those particles is visible to us or not should depend on their AMPLITUDE , NOT THEIR WAVELENGTH. For example, suppose that a ball has a long wavelength but a short amplitude, it will appear to us as a straight line...... But if I suppose it to have a long amplitude but a very short wavelength, it will appear to us as if it is stretched...

Note by Arjun Mehra
4 years, 11 months ago

MarkdownAppears as
*italics* or _italics_ italics
**bold** or __bold__ bold
- bulleted- list
• bulleted
• list
1. numbered2. list
1. numbered
2. list
Note: you must add a full line of space before and after lists for them to show up correctly
paragraph 1paragraph 2

paragraph 1

paragraph 2

[example link](https://brilliant.org)example link
> This is a quote
This is a quote
    # I indented these lines
# 4 spaces, and now they show
# up as a code block.

print "hello world"
# I indented these lines
# 4 spaces, and now they show
# up as a code block.

print "hello world"
MathAppears as
Remember to wrap math in $$...$$ or $...$ to ensure proper formatting.
2 \times 3 $$2 \times 3$$
2^{34} $$2^{34}$$
a_{i-1} $$a_{i-1}$$
\frac{2}{3} $$\frac{2}{3}$$
\sqrt{2} $$\sqrt{2}$$
\sum_{i=1}^3 $$\sum_{i=1}^3$$
\sin \theta $$\sin \theta$$
\boxed{123} $$\boxed{123}$$

Sort by:

There are a few good points to make. The first point is that the De Broglie wavelength is an interesting way to approach quantum mechanics but is not used in modern physics. The idea of a De Broglie wavelength predates the Schrodinger equation, which is the real physics in this case. The second point is one that De Broglie struggled with himself, which is the question "What does a De Broglie wave represent?" While De Broglie's ideas don't have an answer to this question, the Schrodinger equation shows that the De Broglie wavelength is the wavelength of the wavefunction for a particle with a specific momentum. Now the amplitude of a wavefunction is defined so that the whole wavefunction square integrates to one. The amplitude at a given point, when squared (as a real value) is the probability of finding a particle at that point. If you were to calculate a wavefunction for a macroscopic object, you would come up with an extremely short wavelength because the object would have a large momentum. However, the amplitude of the wavefunction would still be a large enough value that the whole wavefunction would square integrate to one.

- 4 years, 11 months ago

You don't need to go into such a depth.... Just apply common sense.... Peep into my diagram... I am not making any comments on whether the amplitude is small or not.......... But I am just saying that it is incorrect to say that a ball appears to be moving in a straight line due to it's short wavelength.... Actually, it is because it has a short AMPLITUDE.....

- 4 years, 11 months ago

u are smarter than i

- 4 years, 11 months ago

@arjun, in your profile \quote"Introducing time as the fourth coordinate axis... It can be given the shape of a SPHERE such that it envelopes the other three coordinates... But I don't know how to develop this idea..." Try this:http://www.superstringtheory.com/ Or this:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory Hope this helps :) the universe might have 4 or 10 or 11 or more dimensions... There are really new books on string theory u can check out also, very cool

- 4 years, 11 months ago

I think arjun's argument makes a lot of sense :) nice postulate

- 4 years, 11 months ago

@BOB thanks for accepting my statement.... Hope others will also understand it soon...... And also, thanks for your link... May be that will help to frame a new dimension... ;-D

- 4 years, 11 months ago

yes :)

- 4 years, 11 months ago

OK.... I ve got the real reason and now I know that I was wrong.... For a ball or infact, any other macroscopic object there is no question for a wave....... And for those who thought I was correct can contact me at arjun_mehra97@ymail.com

- 4 years, 11 months ago

I agree with Daniel, the De Broglie wavelength, though a correct theory ,it doesn't give the full picture. But Schrodinger's Wave functions gives us the wavelength, amplitude, momentum & position (All within the limits of The Uncertainty Principle). The amplitude gives the probability of finding a particle at that interval. The magnitude of the wavelength gives the uncertainty in position .i.e how spread out the amplitude is.This is the accepted way of interpreting the wave function. If it has very short wavelength then it means its position is extremely precise and not stretched out. And the long amplitude means that the probability of finding the particle at that point is extremely large. So nothing can happen to the particle's dimensions.

- 4 years, 11 months ago

secondly the wavelength of the ball is very less as compared to the dimensions of the ball so we cant seeany wave form.....

- 4 years, 11 months ago

if the amplitude will be greater than the dimension of the particle and the particle will have that much sufficient speed and direction than it will form a wave

- 4 years, 11 months ago

So does that mean that you agree with me...... '' A ball appears to be moving in straight line due to it's short amplitude....''

- 4 years, 11 months ago

Please look at my diagram, the ball in it is having a very small wavelength but a high amplitude... Thus, giving a hint of wave.........

- 4 years, 11 months ago

according to heisenberg uncertainity principle :position and gthe momentum of a particle cant be determined at the same time ...as the ball moves we rae able to trace the path or can know the position any time so wavelength which is very less cant be determined by just seeing it we cant see its wave form

- 4 years, 11 months ago

But please consider my point that more than wavelength, it depends on the amplitude... If I increase the amplitude by any means, then the ball will appear to be stretched...... Secondly, please do not insert Heisenberg here because you are using it for a PATH OF A PARTICLE, which is not correct.... Actually, it applies to a PARTICLE, NOT A DISTANCE.......

- 4 years, 11 months ago

oh yes u are right ,,,i am saying that the ball is acting like a big particle .and dont consider its path .....

- 4 years, 11 months ago

Heisenberg's Principle is for microscopic objects only..... Secondly, that is what I am questioning....... I agree that it's wavelength is short but that is not the exact reason why we cannot see it's wave form.... It is because it's amplitude is very short.....

- 4 years, 11 months ago

How can you identify a wave? You have to measure its wavelength and when you know the length of the wave then you can say that the particle completes its one oscillation when the wave has covered a distance equal to its wavelength. But what if the wavelength of the particle is negligible, i.e. the wave doesn't have any length? You can't know the distance it travels in one oscillation. Further, a wave without any wavelength cannot exist in nature and this is why we say that a macroscopic object doesn't perform wave motion.

- 4 years, 11 months ago

It is not that a macroscopic particle doesn't move in a wave form.... Secondly, I am not saying that the wavelength is 0. Further, a small wavelength will nullify only the horizontal wave nature... It will not affect the vertical wave motion.......... Suppose, by any means I increase the amplitude, then it will appear to be stretched. Thus, somewhat reflecting it's wave nature......

- 4 years, 11 months ago

Firstly you have to understand that what is a wave? A wave is formed when energy transfer take place through particles of the medium without actual displacement of particles. So if a single particle vibrate up and down at a place with large amplitude than it doesn't form a wave. A single electron forms a wave while moving because that single electron is not present at a single point of space in its orbit, but it is present at every point of space in its orbit at the same time. So, the oscillation of that single electron is transferred to the same (image)electron in front of it, and further in a similar way to form a wave.

- 4 years, 11 months ago

Are you saying that an electron, a particle, is present everywhere in the space.... This is equivalent to saying that a ball is present everywhere in the cricket field at the same time...... You can yourself understand that it is quite doubtful..... And this concept has no relation with the above discussion..... Please stick to my statement.....

- 4 years, 11 months ago

''So if a single particle vibrate up and down at a place with large amplitude than it doesn't form a wave.'' Does that mean that ripples in water are not waves????? That's again quite doubtful...

- 4 years, 11 months ago

physics is not as simple as we put it in few words ok please

- 4 years, 5 months ago

Also, light has a limited speed. The wavelength of macroscopic particles are very, very, very small that there is hardly any possibility that we can see that particle stretched. In the case of smaller particles, like the electron, we can see it moving in a wave clearly.

- 4 years, 7 months ago

What you have postulated was very appreciable. But, diffraction and interference experiments have shown us that the change in wavelength was an approximation, but they have noticed that their wavelength was getting smaller and smaller. That means, their wavelength was getting small as their momentum increases.

But, you have paved way for an another approach by me... What about thinking that as their wavelength increases, the amplitude decreases because they have a mass... so the wavelength increases and due to the conservation of energy(because waves carry energy), the amplitude decreases.

- 4 years, 7 months ago

PLEASE BE LIBERAL TO THINK ABOUT IT............... TRY TO LEAVE THE PREVIOUS CONCEPTIONS............

- 4 years, 11 months ago

may be u r right . :D

- 4 years, 11 months ago