See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/231117465

The Heisenberg uncertainty principle demonstrated with an electron

diffraction experiment

Article  in  European Journal of Physics · August 2010

DOI: 10.1088/0143-0807/31/5/027

CITATIONS READS

4 1,792

3 authors, including:

Loris Ferrari Andrea Migliori

University of Bologna Italian National Research Council
79 PUBLICATIONS   294 CITATIONS    274 PUBLICATIONS   4,802 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Weakly interacting bosons gases (beyond Bogoliubov theory) - Thermal anomalies in hydrogenated metals View project

Electron holography study of silicon voids View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Loris Ferrari on 13 March 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Home Search Collections Journals About Contact us My IOPscience

The Heisenberg uncertainty principle demonstrated with an electron diffraction experiment

This article has been downloaded from IOPscience. Please scroll down to see the full text article.

2010 Eur. J. Phys. 31 1287

(http://iopscience.iop.org/0143-0807/31/5/027)

View the table of contents for this issue, or go to the journal homepage for more

Download details:
IP Address: 137.204.49.215
The article was downloaded on 16/03/2012 at 17:01

Please note that terms and conditions apply.

IOP PUBLISHING EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICS
Eur. J. Phys. 31 (2010) 1287–1293 doi:10.1088/0143-0807/31/5/027

The Heisenberg uncertainty principle

demonstrated with an electron
diffraction experiment
Giorgio Matteucci1,3 , Loris Ferrari1 and Andrea Migliori2
1 Department of Physics, University of Bologna, and CNISM, V/le B Pichat, 6/2,
I 40127 Bologna, Italy
2 CNR-IMM Sezione di Bologna, via Gobetti 101, I-40129 Bologna, Italy

E-mail: loris.ferrari@unibo.it, giorgio.matteucci@unibo.it and migliori@bo.imm.cnr.it

Received 7 May 2010, in final form 23 June 2010

Published 31 August 2010
Online at stacks.iop.org/EJP/31/1287

Abstract
An experiment analogous to the classical diffraction of light from a circular
aperture has been realized with electrons. The results are used to introduce
undergraduate students to the wave behaviour of electrons. The diffraction
fringes produced by the circular aperture are compared to those predicted by
quantum mechanics and are exploited to present and discuss the Heisenberg
uncertainty principle.

1. Introduction

The famous Heisenberg’s ‘thought experiment’ of measuring the position of an electron by

photon scattering, the so-called Heisenberg microscope [1], leads to the most current form of
the Heisenberg principle:
!p!x ! h̄/2, (1)
where !x and !p are the position and the momentum uncertainties (along a given direction)
and h̄ is the Planck constant4 . A direct test of the uncertainty relation (1) has been done by
combining a Moessbauer experiment with a measurement of a nuclear lifetime [2]. A different
version of the Heisenberg microscope has been suggested, in terms of electron scattering on
atoms, which is argued to give a chance to the Heisenberg thought experiment to become a real
experiment [3]. It is worthy to stress that Heisenberg did not develop his considerations taking
into account the wave-like behaviour of electrons, but the particle-like nature of light. In view
of the wave–particle duality, other thought experiments derive equation (1) by considering the
3 Author to whom any correspondence should be addressed.
4 In particular, the true uncertainty principle, as deduced from the formalism of quantum mechanics, is far more
involved than as expressed by equation (1), see for instance [16].

0143-0807/10/051287+07$30.00 !
c 2010 IOP Publishing Ltd Printed in the UK & the USA 1287
1288 G Matteucci et al

diffraction of an electron passing through a slit [4, 5]. As far as we know, an experiment on
electron diffraction from a single circular aperture, specifically intended to verify equation (1),
has not yet been reported. Many experiments revealing the wave behaviour of electrons have
been realized in various ways. For historical reasons, the paradigmatic examples reported in
textbooks of quantum physics to reveal the existence of matter waves are the experiments of
Davisson and Germer, and Thompson. Subsequently, other electron interference experiments
have been made using (i) an opaque obstacle [6]; (ii) wave front and amplitude beam splitting
devices (for a review see [7]); an electrostatic biprism [8, 9] or allowing a beam of electrons,
neutrons and large molecules passing through a single-slit or a two-slit device (see [10–14]
and references therein). In the last decade, the development of electron microscopes equipped
with electron sources with a lateral coherence larger than 10 µm has allowed the realization
of diffraction experiments with the use of commercially available thin foil apertures.
The aim of the present paper is twofold. We will show that an electron microscope,
equipped with a commercial digital data analyser, can be used to obtain excellent original
electron diffraction patterns from a circular slit together with the corresponding numerical
values of the intensity distribution. The measured values of the intensity are plotted in a
graphic and compared to the theoretical patterns obtained by wave optics modelling. The
comparison shows clearly the correspondence between the measured diffraction peaks and
those predicted by quantum theory, i.e. by considering the wave-like nature of electrons.
Moreover, our diffraction experiment is exploited to introduce students to the meaning of the
Heisenberg uncertainty principle in the form of equation (1). In practice, our results make
it possible to transform the ‘thought experiment’ suggested in various textbooks and articles
(see for instance [4, 5] and references therein) into real evidence of experience.

2. Diffraction of electrons from a circular aperture

Our experiment with electrons is analogous to the more familiar optical diffraction experiment
which uses a laser, a circular aperture and a detector. Figure 1(a) shows schematically the
elements of our experiment with electrons. Let us consider a parallel electron beam (EB)
that impinges on the circular aperture A of diameter D = 10 µm. The electrons that pass the
slit propagate through a vacuum region to the final viewing screen (VS) where a Fraunhofer
diffraction pattern is formed. The A-to-VS distance L is named the camera length. If the
electron wavelength is very small, λ = 0.0025 nm, the first minimum in the diffraction pattern
forms at an angle θ ≈ λ/D = 10−7 rad. The resolution of the detector is about 25 µm so that
the first minimum in the diffraction pattern is observable, at a distance r1 from the optical axis,
provided the camera length is at least L ≈ r1 D/λ = 100 m. This is an impracticable distance.
Hence, the realization of our experiment requires an electron-optical bench equipped with
lenses to enlarge the diffraction pattern and, at the same time, reduce L.
The optical bench consists of a commercially available transmission electron microscope
FEI Tecnai F20 operating at 200 kV accelerating voltage and equipped with a Schottky field
emission source. The basic elements are schematically shown in figure 1(b). Electrons are
emitted by the source S and strike on the condenser lens system C that forms a parallel EB
on the circular aperture A inserted at the specimen level. An electron-optical arrangement,
referred to as low angle diffraction mode, is adopted. The current of the objective lens Ob is
lowered, consequently the lens focal distance is increased and the image plane moves down
the optical axis. The experimental condition is tuned in order to have the diffraction pattern of
the aperture in the selected area plane. The projector lens system (PLS) is used to enlarge the
diffraction image by a factor of about 50 times onto the final VS. The corresponding camera
length can be changed in the range from 100 to 3000 m and its calibrated value is read directly
The Heisenberg uncertainty principle demonstrated with an electron diffraction experiment 1289

(a) (b)

Figure 1. (a) Electron diffraction from a circular aperture; (b) electron optical arrangement used
for the realization of the experiment of (a).

on a microscope display. The final pattern is recorded by a charge coupled device (CCD)
camera detector placed just below the VS plane and observed directly in a PC monitor.

3. Comparison between theoretical and experimental data

Figure 2 shows the experimental diffraction pattern obtained with the electron optical
arrangement of figure 1(b), with a camera length of 2440 m.
The resemblance between the present image and one obtained as the Fraunhofer diffraction
of light from a circular aperture is quite impressive. The high-intensity central disk is
surrounded by a dark ring that corresponds to the first zero of the intensity distribution as
schematically shown in figure 1. A number of higher order maxima and minima are revealed
at larger angles from the optical axis.
As shown in figure 1(a), the screen is perpendicular to the initial electron wave vector
(directed
! along the z-axis) and placed at a distance L from the circular aperture. Let
r = x 2 + y 2 be the distance of a point from the optical axis on the VS plane. Following
standard quantum mechanics considerations, the radial intensity function I (r) is proportional
to the square modulus |$(#r , L)|2 of the electron wavefunction on the screen. The quantum
theoretical calculation of |$(#r , L)|2 is a standard issue [15]. The simplest case corresponds
to the so-called Fraunhofer conditions:

D $ %; D $ L; λ $ D, (2)

% being the distance of the slit from the electron source, and λ = 2π/k being the de Broglie
electron wavelength. Under conditions (2), one has

J12 (k Rr/L)
|$(#r , L)|2 = C0 , (3a)
(kRr/L)4
1290 G Matteucci et al

Figure 2. Fraunhofer diffraction pattern at a circular hole (diameter 10 µm).

where J1 (ξ ) is the first-order Bessel function, R = D/2 is the slit radius and C0 is an
appropriate normalization constant. By using equation (3a) the calculated radial intensity is

J12 (kRr/L)
Icalc (r) = C1 |$(#r , L)|2 = C2 . (3b)
(kRr/L)4

In the present experiment, conditions (2) are certainly satisfied, since D = 10−5 m and
λ = 2.51 × 10−12 m, while, by acting on the lens Ob+PLS and C systems of figure 1(b), L and
% are selected to be of the order of thousand of metres and millimetres, respectively. It must
be emphasized that L is greatly enlarged, with respect to figure 1(a), to record the diffraction
image details well above the spatial resolution limit of the detector.
The diffraction pattern of figure 2 can be transformed, via a data analyser, in the measured
radial intensity Iexp (r) to be compared with equation (3b), the only free parameter being
the constant C2 . From equation (3b) it is expected that the intensity of the peaks decreases
rapidly with r (∝ r −4 ). Figure 3(a) shows the comparison between theoretical and measured
data relative to the central peak. Since the intensities of the maxima decrease rapidly, to
emphasize the comparison between the calculated and experimental intensity distribution, it
is convenient to display the results in different figures, each referring to a few consecutive
peaks. Figures 3(b) and (c) refer to peaks 2, 3 and 4, 5, 6, 7 respectively. The constant C2
has been fitted to the central peak data that correspond to 80% of the total signal intensity;
figure 3(a). The arbitrary scale for the intensity assigns the value 1 to the (measured) height of
the central peak. The main result emerging from the preceding analysis is the almost perfect
correspondence of the positions of the diffraction maxima and minima. Since this aspect is
the signature of the wave-like behaviour of the electrons, direct and quantitative evidence of
the quantum theoretical predictions is obtained. The height of the peaks and the depth of the
The Heisenberg uncertainty principle demonstrated with an electron diffraction experiment 1291

(a) (b)

(c)

Figure 3. Comparison of the measured (points with error bars) and calculated (solid line) intensity
distribution of the diffraction pattern of figure 2, as a function of the distance from the centre of
the aperture, expressed in µm: (a) central peak; (b) peaks 2 and 3; (c) peaks 4, 5, 6 and 7. The
arbitrary scale for the intensities has been chosen so that the measured value of the central peak
intensity corresponds to 1. Note the drastic decrease of the intensity in (b) and (c).

minima, however, are not reproduced with the same precision because the experimental data
look systematically higher than the calculated curve.
This problem is related both to the residual thermal noise and to the high intensity of
the central maximum with respect to the diffraction rings. The CCD of the Gatan 794 SSC
is cooled by an electronic Peltier device in order to reduce the thermally generated electrons
(dark currents). The dark current can be subtracted, but the resulting noise, proportional to
square root of the dark current itself, cannot be eliminated. Moreover, the potential well of
a CCD pixel can only hold a limited number of electrons. When this is exceeded, electrons
spill into the adjacent wells and create the so-called blooming effect. For this reason the high
intensity of a zero-order peak produces an additional background contribution. The sum of
these spurious effects yields a background signal that seems to be proportional to the average
intensity and thereby decreases as r −4 .
As mentioned above, the measured positions rn (n = 1, 2, . . . ) of the minima are exactly
reproduced by the zeros ξn of the function J1 (ξ ), on setting rn = ξn L/(kR) = ξn λL/(π D) in
equation (3b), with D = 10−5 m, λ = 2.51 × 10−12 m and L = 2.44 × 103 m.
Let us now discuss the Heisenberg uncertainty principle in view of the experimental
results mentioned above. This provides the link between the wave-like behaviour and the
particle-like behaviour of electrons in terms of the quantum indeterminacy.
! When an electron,
considered as a particle, crosses the circular slit, its distance r = x 2 + y 2 from the optical
axis is undetermined by the quantity

!r ≈ R. (4a)
1292 G Matteucci et al

Subsequently, the electron flights freely through the vacuum and impinges on the screen.
The diffraction pattern, obtained by a number of electrons, is caused by the spreading of
the momentum direction when the electrons cross the aperture. As a result, electrons are
distributed at diffusion angles θ about the z-axis (assumed as the direction of the electron
before crossing the slit). The first minimum, r1 = 750 µ, corresponding to ξ1 = 3.83,
is assumed as the half width of the central peak; figure 3(a). Since more than 80%
of the intensity is concentrated in the central peak, to a fair approximation, r1 gives an
estimate of the spreading angle !θ ≈ !(sin θ ) = r1 /L. Since the momentum modulus
p ≈ |pz | is conserved, the x- and y-components of the momentum are px ≈ p sin θ cos ϕ
and px ≈ p sin θ sin ϕ, respectively, ϕ being the polar angle in the VS plane. Hence, the
uncertainties !px ≈ p !θ cos ϕ, !py ≈ p !θ sin ϕ yield
"
!p = !px2 + !py2 ≈ p!θ = p r1 /L, (4b)

for the uncertainty of the radial component of the momentum. Combining equations (4a) and
(4b), we obtain !p!r ≈ p r1 R/L in which all the entries are known experimentally. The
numerical result !p!r ≈ 4 × 10−34 J s is about four times h̄ and quite consistent with the
Heisenberg uncertainty principle.

4. Conclusions

An original diffraction experiment from a circular aperture has been presented to show the wave
nature of electrons and in particular to elucidate the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. Today,
this experiment is realizable in any electron microscope facility since it requires a standard
electron microscope equipped with a high coherent source and a commercially available thin
foil aperture. Due to the good control of the input parameters, in particular the wavelength
of electrons, a quantitative evaluation of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle in the form
of equation (1) is directly performed. A very important pedagogical aspect of the present
experiment is that our electron beam is considered, to a reasonable approximation, to be made
up of single electrons travelling at regular intervals of time from the gun to the detector. An
electron at a time passes through the circular aperture and the diffraction pattern of figure 2,
from which the uncertainty relation has been deduced, results from the accumulation on the
detector of a large number of successive single electrons. Hence, the resulting diffraction
pattern is not influenced by any electron–electron correlation. This shows that the wave
behaviour of particles does not result from a collective phenomenon, but is an individual
property as assumed by the principles of quantum mechanics.

References

[1] Mehra J and Rechenberg H 1982 The Historical Development of Quantum Mechanics vol 6 (New York:
Springer) p 154
[2] DeYoung P A, Jolivette P L and Rouze N 1993 Experimental verification of the Heisenberg uncertainty
principle—an advanced undergraduate laboratory Am. J. Phys. 61 560–3
[3] Williams G B 1984 Compton scattering and Heisenberg’s microscope revisited Am. J. Phys. 52 425–30
[4] Messiah A 1970 Quantum Mechanics vol 1 (Amsterdam: North Holland) pp 142–3
[5] Helm H and Gilbert J 1985 Thought experiments and physics education—part 1 Phys. Educ. 20 125–31
[6] Matteucci G, Castaneda R, Serna S, Medina F and Garcia-Sucerquia J 2010 Discovering the puzzling behaviour
of electrons with the Grimaldi–Young experiment Eur. J. Phys. 31 347–56
[7] Matteucci G, Migliori A, Medina F and Castaneda R 2009 An experiment on the particle–wave nature of
electrons Eur. J. Phys. 30 217–26
[8] Moellenstedt G and Dueker H 1956 Beobachtungen und Messungen an Biprisma-Interferenzen mit
Elektronenwellen Z. Phys. 145 377–97
 The Heisenberg uncertainty principle demonstrated with an electron diffraction experiment 1293

[9] Faget J 1961 Interferences de ondes electroniques: application a une methode de microscopie electronique
interferentielle Revue Opt. 40 347–81
[10] Matteucci G 1990 Electron wavelike behavior: a historical and experimental introduction Am. J. Phys.
58 1143–7
[11] Gaehler R and Zeilinger A 1991 Wave-optical experiments with very cold neutrons Am. J. Phys. 59 316–24
[12] Arndt M, Nalrz O, Vos-Andreae J, Keller C, Van Der Zouw G and Zeilinger A 1999 Wave–particle duality of
C60 molecules Nature 401 680–2
[13] Matteucci G 2005 Electron holography used to realize Young’s double-hole experiment together with the
mapping of magnetic fields Eur. J. Phys. 26 481–9
[14] Jonsson C 1974 Electron diffraction at multiple slits Am. J. Phys. 42 4–11
[15] Hawkes P W and Kasper E 1994 Wave Optics vol 3 (New York: Academic) pp 1281–7
[16] Hilgevoord J and Uffink J B 1985 More certainty about the uncertainty principle Eur. J. Phys. 6 165–70

View publication stats