Why can we never determine both the exact location and velocity of a subatomic particle?

Answers to date simply give the principle a name or miss the mark entirely. Heisenberg's uncertainly principle a theorem related to be fundamental wave nature of matter assumed in Quantum Mechanics. It's easiest to understand qualitatively for the case of a free particle, but is generally true for bound particles too. In QM, the momentum p (mass times velocity) of a free particle is proportional to the wavelength L of the probability wave function describing the particle; p=hL, where h is a universal constant (name after Planck). If the particle's momentum were precisely determined (the probability of the particle having momentum p = some particular value is 1), then the wave function has the precise wavelength of a sine wave. Now, a sine wave has uniform amplitude for all locations in space, so we'd have no idea where the particle is - it's location is undetermined. In the other extreme, is location is determined precisely, the wave function is a delta function in space, which Fourier decomposes into all possible wavelengths with equal amplitude; so, we lose all info about momentum. In between the wave function is a wave packet with a finite spectrum of possible positions and momenta.

In order to observe something, you have to capture something bouncing off it, just like it is impossible to read in the dark, needing light for an outside source. The mere act of observing something takes something away from the object (the light that bounced off an object and entered your eye is no longer energy that is free to roam) so in the end, observing a system changes it ever so slightly. In the case of subatomic particles, this slight change is of the same order of magnitude as the energy that particle has, hence you can measure its energy (but by doing so, you would have taken away some of its energy and you then send it off to some other location that you cannot really mesaure precisely) or you measure its location preciseley (but by doing so, you would have given it some energy that adds up to the one it had, so you cannot know how much it had before you added to it through your observation).

Because the method used to observe the object, wether it is hit by a photon and seen by an "eye" or it hits a detector, causes a change in the velocity and the direction of the particle, thus making it impossible to know the old velocity and direction of the particle.

It is because of the uncertainty principle. It says that you cannot accuratrly measure the velocity and position of the particle at the some time. You can only know one or the other. This is because when you try to measure this the photons bounce off of the particle and causes it to move.

It's a result of the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle. The math tells us that's the way it is and if anyone understands it totally, they're a liar and it is not just a consequence of measurements. Crudely think of this. Let's say someone is running past you and you take a photo of them with a very fast shutter speed on a camera. Once you look at the picture you can tell where they were very accurately but you have no idea how fast they were running. On the other hand, if you take a picture of them with a 1 second exposure and have a ruler behind them, you can tell how far they went on the average in one second and calculate their speed but at any given instant you have no idea where they were. .They look like a blurry.I know it's a simplistic explanation but the best I know of. You can't know both speed and location precisely at the same time

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle

When you measure it's location, you have an idea of where it is at a precise moment in time and space.

When you measure speed, you are determining a rate over a range of time and space, but you can't define a position.

It's no different with a larger object. You can't define your own postion in space and time without defining the moment at which you determined it. One moment later, that position is no longer valid.

all of them -- electrons, protons and neutrons -- ascertain the chemical residences. Electrons are extremely significant because of the fact "greater" electrons contained in the outer shell create a "beneficial valence." The greater greater electrons, the greater reactive the element is. A scarcity of electrons contained in the outer shell is a "unfavourable valence," and, of direction, the greater desirable the lack the greater reactive that element is. If an element is lacking protons, it incredibly is inherently volatile. If an element has neutrons, then it incredibly is "heavier" (has "greater mass") the greater neutrons it has in it. The periodic table of the climate has an conventional weight of the common type of neutrons for each element on the earth. have you ever questioned how we ascertain that a rock right here on the earth comes from Mars? the common type of neutrons is distinctive than for an analogous element coming from earth! the sole different place contained in the universe the place the conventional "mass" equals that on the periodic chart is the Moon -- proving that the Moon and earth have been as quickly as one planet! As a familiar assertion, the bigger the element (the greater protons and electrons) then, additionally, the greater neutrons. yet that's no longer the case. Hafnium is lighter than Zirconium, because of the fact Hafnium, with greater protons and electrons, has an conventional of fewer neutrons. i comprehend you have waited all your existence to hearken to that. In all this talk, we've been speaking approximately components. Molecules are infinitely greater complicated. Carbon is an element as so is hydrogen, yet that does no longer inform you plenty appropriate to the mixtures of those 2 components, molecules spoke of as "hydrocarbons." there are 1000's of distinctive ones and that they have got distinctive shapes whether the formula is an analogous (those are spoke of as "isomers."). So the "chemical residences" of MOLECULES, itself the biggest component to learn in chemistry, is incredibly complicated and intensely complicated to simplify with any accuracy.