tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3493437990574291998.post7412468925748689389..comments2023-10-15T05:04:21.811-04:00Comments on The Mind of Dr. Pion: Race PhotographyDoctor Pionhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12513786840852469648noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3493437990574291998.post-44576133407551193412008-05-03T10:49:00.000-04:002008-05-03T10:49:00.000-04:00Thanks for that idea! Feel free to use these pict...Thanks for that idea! Feel free to use these pictures in your class. <BR/><BR/>The analogy is not that much of a stretch, actually, since neither picture really tells you both x and v. The car may be sharp in the first picture, but we don't know where it is (the track is blurred). The track may be sharp in the second picture, but we don't know where the car is (at the center?). <BR/><BR/>Both remain true as shutter speed increases, although we might not notice the problem. I should think about using this in a discussion of why we always measure average velocity in the lab. <BR/><BR/>BTW, do you know that a more literal translation is Heisenberg's Unfocused Principle?Doctor Pionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12513786840852469648noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3493437990574291998.post-77373736400568290992008-04-30T20:57:00.000-04:002008-04-30T20:57:00.000-04:00I actually use photos like this when teaching the ...I actually use photos like this when teaching the Uncertainty Principle to my liberal arts students. Yes it's in imperfect analogy for all sorts of reasons (and I tell them that) but it gets the point across that position and velocity are complimentary quantities. In one picture you can tell exactly where the car is, and in the other, if you know the shutter speed, you can tell how fast it's going. But you can't take a picture that tells you both exactly.<BR/><BR/>Yeah, it's a stretch.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com