Illustrated Physics
physics, drawn
Concept

De broglie wavelength — where it appears

Planck's constant divided by a particle's momentum, the length at which its wave nature becomes visible in interference. It is 10⁻³⁴ metres for a thrown ball and a tenth of a nanometre for a slow electron, which is why one diffracts off a crystal and the other does not.

Named by 4 essays across 3 fields — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.

The dip that decides it. Two equally bright points seen through a circular aperture, their Airy patterns added, at 0.7, 1, 1.6 times the Rayleigh separation. Below each is the depth of the dip between the peaks, measured off the drawn sum: 0.0%, 26.5%, 91.6%. At exactly the Rayleigh separation the dip is 26.5% — the criterion is a convention about how much of a dip a detector can see, not a threshold anything crosses. Below it the two peaks merge into one and the pair is gone; above it the answer was never in doubt.

How far apart two things have to be

An instrument's ability to tell two things apart is not set by the quality of its glass. It is set by the width of the hole light comes through, by a factor that is the first zero of a Bessel function — and the threshold everyone quotes is a convention laid over a computed dip of 26.5 per cent.

optics · Diffraction Two costs, and the width that balances them. The energy of a particle in a harmonic well against how tightly its wavefunction is squeezed, in units of ħω and of the width that minimises the total. Two terms compete. Squeezing the particle into a smaller region raises its kinetic energy, because the uncertainty relation makes a narrow position spread a wide momentum spread and momentum is squared in the energy; that term rises as the inverse square of the width and goes to infinity as the particle is localised. Letting it spread out raises its potential energy, since the well gets steeper away from the bottom; that term rises as the square of the width. The sum has a minimum at a width of 1.0000 in these units, where the total is 0.5000 ħω and the two terms are equal at a quarter each. That number is exactly the true ground-state energy of a quantum harmonic oscillator, obtained here with nothing but the uncertainty relation and a minimisation. What the figure shows and the formula does not is why there is a floor at all: it is not that the particle happens to keep moving, but that every way of stopping it costs more than it saves.

The motion that cannot be stopped

A particle in a well cannot sit at the bottom of it. Squeezing it into a smaller region costs kinetic energy faster than it saves potential energy, so there is a width that minimises the total — and the minimum is not zero. Helium never freezes because of it.

quantum · Uncertainty 14 decades of fluid, and a floor none of them reaches. The ratio of viscosity to entropy density for 8 substances, in units of the proposed lower bound, on a logarithmic axis. The quantity is a viscosity divided by how much entropy a cubic metre of the substance holds, and it has the dimensions of Planck's constant over Boltzmann's — so a bound on it is a statement with no material properties in it at all. The span here is a factor of 1.6e+14, from pitch at 20 °C at the top to the quark–gluon plasma at the bottom, which sits a factor of 1.6 above the floor. The values marked as computed are worked out from a viscosity and a tabulated entropy; the rest are quoted from the compilations, because a minimum along an isobar is an inference from many measurements rather than a single one.

Whether a fluid can be made arbitrarily thin

Viscosity has no units anybody would call fundamental, and nothing obviously stops it being as small as you like. Divide it by the entropy in a cubic metre and the units become Planck's constant over Boltzmann's — and a conjecture from 2005 says that ratio has a floor. Across fourteen decades of ordinary fluid nothing has been measured below it, the closest thing to it is the hottest matter ever made, and a kinetic-theory argument reaches the same number from the opposite direction.

fluids · Viscosity No beam is narrow enough and wide enough at once. Three lengths at the far end of a Stern-Gerlach magnet 10 centimetres long with a gradient of 1000 tesla a metre, against the width of the beam entering it, for an electron at 100 electronvolts. The spin splitting is a horizontal line at 2.9e-6 metres: it does not depend on the beam's width. The Lorentz blurring rises in proportion to the width, because the field a particle sees depends on where in the beam it is, and the divergence-free condition ties a gradient in one component to a gradient in another. It overtakes the splitting at 1.0e-9 metres. Narrower than that and diffraction has already spread the beam by 3.9e-3 metres, which is larger still. There is no width at which the splitting is the largest of the three, and the magnet's length and gradient cancel out of the comparison entirely — so no magnet helps.

The experiment that defines spin and cannot be done on it

A Stern–Gerlach magnet separates magnetic moments and is how spin was discovered. It cannot be made to work on a free electron, and the obstruction is not the apparatus: the field gradient that splits the beam also deflects the charge by an amount that varies across it, and the ratio of the splitting to that blurring comes out as the de Broglie wavelength over the beam width — with the magnet's length and gradient cancelling exactly.

quantum · Spin

Named alongside it

The objects these essays reach for when they reach for this one.

Uncertainty principleAiry patternAngular resolutionApertureBeamBohr magnetonBoundComplementarityConjectureDiffractionDiffraction limitDimensional analysis

All concepts