https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_06.html#Ch6-F2
[] [] []
[] [] []
< ^ >
A A A
[] [] []
TOC SUMRY
RECORDING
MATHJAX
LOADING PAGE...
Dear Reader,
There are several reasons you might be seeing this page. In order to
read the online edition of The Feynman Lectures on Physics,
javascript must be supported by your browser and enabled. If you have
have visited this website previously it's possible you may have a
mixture of incompatible files (.js, .css, and .html) in your browser
cache. If you use an ad blocker it may be preventing our pages from
downloading necessary resources. So, please try the following: make
sure javascript is enabled, clear your browser cache (at least of
files from feynmanlectures.caltech.edu), turn off your browser
extensions, and open this page:
https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_01.html
If it does not open, or only shows you this message again, then
please let us know:
* which browser you are using (including version #)
* which operating system you are using (including version #)
This type of problem is rare, and there's a good chance it can be
fixed if we have some clues about the cause. So, if you can, after
enabling javascript, clearing the cache and disabling extensions,
please open your browser's javascript console, load the page above,
and if this generates any messages (particularly errors or warnings)
on the console, then please make a copy (text or screenshot) of those
messages and send them with the above-listed information to the email
address given below.
By sending us information you will be helping not only yourself, but
others who may be having similar problems accessing the online
edition of The Feynman Lectures on Physics. Your time and
consideration are greatly appreciated.
Best regards,
Mike Gottlieb
mg@feynmanlectures.info
Editor, The Feynman Lectures on Physics New Millennium Edition
play stop
mute max volume
*
Update Required To play the media you will need to either update your
browser to a recent version or update your Flash plugin.
The recording of this lecture is missing from the Caltech Archives.
6[camera]Probability
(There was no summary for this lecture.)
"The true logic of this world is in the calculus of probabilities."
--James Clerk Maxwell
6-1Chance and likelihood
"Chance" is a word which is in common use in everyday living. The
radio reports speaking of tomorrow's weather may say: "There is a
sixty percent chance of rain." You might say: "There is a small
chance that I shall live to be one hundred years old." Scientists
also use the word chance. A seismologist may be interested in the
question: "What is the chance that there will be an earthquake of a
certain size in Southern California next year?" A physicist might ask
the question: "What is the chance that a particular geiger counter
will register twenty counts in the next ten seconds?" A politician or
statesman might be interested in the question: "What is the chance
that there will be a nuclear war within the next ten years?" You may
be interested in the chance that you will learn something from this
chapter.
By chance, we mean something like a guess. Why do we make guesses? We
make guesses when we wish to make a judgment but have incomplete
information or uncertain knowledge. We want to make a guess as to
what things are, or what things are likely to happen. Often we wish
to make a guess because we have to make a decision. For example:
Shall I take my raincoat with me tomorrow? For what earth movement
should I design a new building? Shall I build myself a fallout
shelter? Shall I change my stand in international negotiations? Shall
I go to class today?
Sometimes we make guesses because we wish, with our limited
knowledge, to say as much as we can about some situation. Really, any
generalization is in the nature of a guess. Any physical theory is a
kind of guesswork. There are good guesses and there are bad guesses.
The theory of probability is a system for making better guesses. The
language of probability allows us to speak quantitatively about some
situation which may be highly variable, but which does have some
consistent average behavior.
Let us consider the flipping of a coin. If the toss--and the coin--are
"honest," we have no way of knowing what to expect for the outcome of
any particular toss. Yet we would feel that in a large number of
tosses there should be about equal numbers of heads and tails. We
say: "The probability that a toss will land heads is $0.5$."
We speak of probability only for observations that we contemplate
being made in the future. By the "probability" of a particular
outcome of an observation we mean our estimate for the most likely
fraction of a number of repeated observations that will yield that
particular outcome. If we imagine repeating an observation--such as
looking at a freshly tossed coin--$N$ times, and if we call $N_A$ our
estimate of the most likely number of our observations that will give
some specified result $A$, say the result "heads," then by $P(A)$,
the probability of observing $A$, we mean \begin{equation} \label
{Eq:I:6:1} P(A)=N_A/N. \end{equation}
Our definition requires several comments. First of all, we may speak
of a probability of something happening only if the occurrence is a
possible outcome of some repeatable observation. It is not clear that
it would make any sense to ask: "What is the probability that there
is a ghost in that house?"
You may object that no situation is exactly repeatable. That is
right. Every different observation must at least be at a different
time or place. All we can say is that the "repeated" observations
should, for our intended purposes, appear to be equivalent. We should
assume, at least, that each observation was made from an equivalently
prepared situation, and especially with the same degree of ignorance
at the start. (If we sneak a look at an opponent's hand in a card
game, our estimate of our chances of winning are different than if we
do not!)
We should emphasize that $N$ and $N_A$ in Eq. (6.1) are not intended
to represent numbers based on actual observations. $N_A$ is our best
estimate of what would occur in $N$ imagined observations.
Probability depends, therefore, on our knowledge and on our ability
to make estimates. In effect, on our common sense! Fortunately, there
is a certain amount of agreement in the common sense of many things,
so that different people will make the same estimate. Probabilities
need not, however, be "absolute" numbers. Since they depend on our
ignorance, they may become different if our knowledge changes.
You may have noticed another rather "subjective" aspect of our
definition of probability. We have referred to $N_A$ as "our estimate
of the most likely number ..." We do not mean that we expect to observe
exactly $N_A$, but that we expect a number near $N_A$, and that the
number $N_A$ is more likely than any other number in the vicinity. If
we toss a coin, say, $30$ times, we should expect that the number of
heads would not be very likely to be exactly $15$, but rather only
some number near to $15$, say $12$, $13$, $14$, $15$, $16$, or $17$.
However, if we must choose, we would decide that $15$ heads is more
likely than any other number. We would write $P(\text{heads})=0.5$.
Why did we choose $15$ as more likely than any other number? We must
have argued with ourselves in the following manner: If the most
likely number of heads is $N_H$ in a total number of tosses $N$, then
the most likely number of tails $N_T$ is $(N-N_H)$. (We are assuming
that every toss gives either heads or tails, and no "other" result!)
But if the coin is "honest," there is no preference for heads or
tails. Until we have some reason to think the coin (or toss) is
dishonest, we must give equal likelihoods for heads and tails. So we
must set $N_T=N_H$. It follows that $N_T=$ $N_H=$ $N/2$, or $P(H)=$
$P(T)=$ $0.5$.
We can generalize our reasoning to any situation in which there are
$m$ different but "equivalent" (that is, equally likely) possible
results of an observation. If an observation can yield $m$ different
results, and we have reason to believe that any one of them is as
likely as any other, then the probability of a particular outcome $A$
is $P(A)=1/m$.
If there are seven different-colored balls in an opaque box and we
pick one out "at random" (that is, without looking), the probability
of getting a ball of a particular color is $\tfrac{1}{7}$. The
probability that a "blind draw" from a shuffled deck of $52$ cards
will show the ten of hearts is $\tfrac{1}{52}$. The probability of
throwing a double-one with dice is $\tfrac{1}{36}$.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
In Chapter 5 we described the size of a nucleus in terms of its
apparent area, or "cross section." When we did so we were really
talking about probabilities. When we shoot a high-energy particle at
a thin slab of material, there is some chance that it will pass right
through and some chance that it will hit a nucleus. (Since the
nucleus is so small that we cannot see it, we cannot aim right at a
nucleus. We must "shoot blind.") If there are $n$ atoms in our slab
and the nucleus of each atom has a cross-sectional area $\sigma$,
then the total area "shadowed" by the nuclei is $n\sigma$. In a large
number $N$ of random shots, we expect that the number of hits $N_C$
of some nucleus will be in the ratio to $N$ as the shadowed area is
to the total area of the slab: \begin{equation} \label{Eq:I:6:2} N_C/
N=n\sigma/A. \end{equation} We may say, therefore, that the
probability that any one projectile particle will suffer a collision
in passing through the slab is \begin{equation} \label{Eq:I:6:3} P_C=
\frac{n}{A}\,\sigma, \end{equation} where $n/A$ is the number of
atoms per unit area in our slab.
6-2Fluctuations
Fig. 6-1.Observed sequences of heads and tails in three games of
30 tosses each.
We would like now to use our ideas about probability to consider in
some greater detail the question: "How many heads do I really expect
to get if I toss a coin $N$ times?" Before answering the question,
however, let us look at what does happen in such an "experiment."
Figure 6-1 shows the results obtained in the first three "runs" of
such an experiment in which $N=30$. The sequences of "heads" and
"tails" are shown just as they were obtained. The first game gave
$11$ heads; the second also $11$; the third $16$. In three trials we
did not once get $15$ heads. Should we begin to suspect the coin? Or
were we wrong in thinking that the most likely number of "heads" in
such a game is $15$? Ninety-seven more runs were made to obtain a
total of $100$ experiments of $30$ tosses each. The results of the
experiments are given in Table 6-1.^1
Table 6-1Number of heads in successive trials of
30 tosses of a coin.
$11$ $16$ $17$ $15$ $17$ $16$ $19$ $18$ $15$ $13$
$11$ $17$ $17$ $12$ $20$ $23$ $11$ $16$ $17$ $14$
$16$ $12$ $15$ $10$ $18$ $17$ $13$ $15$ $14$ $15$
$16$ $12$ $11$ $22$ $12$ $20$ $12$ $15$ $16$ $12$
$16$ $10$ $15$ $13$ $14$ $16$ $15$ $16$ $13$ $18$ $100\text{
$14$ $14$ $13$ $16$ $15$ $19$ $21$ $14$ $12$ $15$ trials}$
$16$ $11$ $16$ $14$ $17$ $14$ $11$ $16$ $17$ $16$
$19$ $15$ $14$ $12$ $18$ $15$ $14$ $21$ $11$ $16$
$17$ $17$ $12$ $13$ $14$ $17$ $\phantom $13$ $19$ $13$
{1}9$
$14$ $12$ $15$ $17$ $14$ $10$ $17$ $17$ $12$ $11$
Looking at the numbers in Table 6-1, we see that most of the results
are "near" $15$, in that they are between $12$ and $18$. We can get a
better feeling for the details of these results if we plot a graph of
the distribution of the results. We count the number of games in
which a score of $k$ was obtained, and plot this number for each $k$.
Such a graph is shown in Fig. 6-2. A score of $15$ heads was obtained
in $13$ games. A score of $14$ heads was also obtained $13$ times.
Scores of $16$ and $17$ were each obtained more than $13$ times. Are
we to conclude that there is some bias toward heads? Was our "best
estimate" not good enough? Should we conclude now that the "most
likely" score for a run of $30$ tosses is really $16$ heads? But
wait! In all the games taken together, there were $3000$ tosses. And
the total number of heads obtained was $1493$. The fraction of tosses
that gave heads is $0.498$, very nearly, but slightly less than half.
We should certainly not assume that the probability of throwing heads
is greater than $0.5$! The fact that one particular set of
observations gave $16$ heads most often, is a fluctuation. We still
expect that the most likely number of heads is $15$.
Fig. 6-2.Summary of the results of 100 games of 30 tosses each. The
vertical bars show the number of games in which a score of $k$ heads
was obtained. The dashed curve shows the expected numbers of games
with the score $k$ obtained by a probability computation.
We may ask the question: "What is the probability that a game of
$30$ tosses will yield $15$ heads--or $16$, or any other number?" We
have said that in a game of one toss, the probability of obtaining
one head is $0.5$, and the probability of obtaining no head is $0.5$.
In a game of two tosses there are four possible outcomes: $HH$, $HT$,
$TH$, $TT$. Since each of these sequences is equally likely, we
conclude that (a) the probability of a score of two heads is $\tfrac
{1}{4}$, (b) the probability of a score of one head is $\tfrac{2}{4}
$, (c) the probability of a zero score is $\tfrac{1}{4}$. There are
two ways of obtaining one head, but only one of obtaining either zero
or two heads.
Consider now a game of $3$ tosses. The third toss is equally likely
to be heads or tails. There is only one way to obtain $3$ heads: we
must have obtained $2$ heads on the first two tosses, and then heads
on the last. There are, however, three ways of obtaining $2$ heads.
We could throw tails after having thrown two heads (one way) or we
could throw heads after throwing only one head in the first two
tosses (two ways). So for scores of $3$-$H$, $2$-$H$,
$1$-$H$, $0$-$H$ we have that the number of equally likely ways is
$1$, $3$, $3$, $1$, with a total of $8$ different possible sequences.
The probabilities are $\tfrac{1}{8}$, $\tfrac{3}{8}$, $\tfrac{3}{8}$,
$\tfrac{1}{8}$.
Fig. 6-3.A diagram for showing the number of ways a score of 0, 1, 2,
or 3 heads can be obtained in a game of 3 tosses.
Fig. 6-4.A diagram like that of Fig. 6-3, for a game of 6 tosses.
The argument we have been making can be summarized by a diagram like
that in Fig. 6-3. It is clear how the diagram should be continued for
games with a larger number of tosses. Figure 6-4 shows such a diagram
for a game of $6$ tosses. The number of "ways" to any point on the
diagram is just the number of different "paths" (sequences of heads
and tails) which can be taken from the starting point. The vertical
position gives us the total number of heads thrown. The set of
numbers which appears in such a diagram is known as Pascal's triangle
. The numbers are also known as the binomial coefficients, because
they also appear in the expansion of $(a+b)^n$. If we call $n$ the
number of tosses and $k$ the number of heads thrown, then the numbers
in the diagram are usually designated by the symbol $\tbinom{n}{k}$.
We may remark in passing that the binomial coefficients can also be
computed from \begin{equation} \label{Eq:I:6:4} \binom{n}{k}=\frac
{n!}{k!(n-k)!}, \end{equation} where $n!$, called "$n$-factorial,"
represents the product $(n)(n-1)(n-2)\dotsm(3)(2)(1)$.
We are now ready to compute the probability $P(k,n)$ of throwing
$k$ heads in $n$ tosses, using our definition Eq. (6.1). The total
number of possible sequences is $2^n$ (since there are $2$ outcomes
for each toss), and the number of ways of obtaining $k$ heads is $\
tbinom{n}{k}$, all equally likely, so we have \begin{equation} \label
{Eq:I:6:5} P(k,n)=\frac{\tbinom{n}{k}}{2^n}. \end{equation}
Since $P(k,n)$ is the fraction of games which we expect to yield
$k$ heads, then in $100$ games we should expect to find $k$ heads
$100\cdot P(k,n)$ times. The dashed curve in Fig. 6-2 passes through
the points computed from $100\cdot P(k,30)$. We see that we expect to
obtain a score of $15$ heads in $14$ or $15$ games, whereas this
score was observed in $13$ games. We expect a score of $16$ in $13$
or $14$ games, but we obtained that score in $15$ games. Such
fluctuations are "part of the game."
The method we have just used can be applied to the most general
situation in which there are only two possible outcomes of a single
observation. Let us designate the two outcomes by $W$ (for "win")
and $L$ (for "lose"). In the general case, the probability of $W$
or $L$ in a single event need not be equal. Let $p$ be the
probability of obtaining the result $W$. Then $q$, the probability
of $L$, is necessarily $(1-p)$. In a set of $n$ trials, the
probability $P(k,n)$ that $W$ will be obtained $k$ times is \begin
{equation} \label{Eq:I:6:6} P(k,n)=\tbinom{n}{k}p^kq^{n-k}. \end
{equation} This probability function is called the Bernoulli or,
also, the binomial probability.
6-3The random walk
There is another interesting problem in which the idea of probability
is required. It is the problem of the "random walk." In its simplest
version, we imagine a "game" in which a "player" starts at the
point $x=0$ and at each "move" is required to take a step either
forward (toward $+x$) or backward (toward $-x$). The choice is to be
made randomly, determined, for example, by the toss of a coin. How
shall we describe the resulting motion? In its general form the
problem is related to the motion of atoms (or other particles) in a
gas--called Brownian motion--and also to the combination of errors in
measurements. You will see that the random-walk problem is closely
related to the coin-tossing problem we have already discussed.
First, let us look at a few examples of a random walk. We may
characterize the walker's progress by the net distance $D_N$ traveled
in $N$ steps. We show in the graph of Fig. 6-5 three examples of the
path of a random walker. (We have used for the random sequence of
choices the results of the coin tosses shown in Fig. 6-1.)
Fig. 6-5.The progress made in a random walk. The horizontal
coordinate $N$ is the total number of steps taken; the vertical
coordinate $D_N$ is the net distance moved from the starting
position.
What can we say about such a motion? We might first ask: "How far
does he get on the average?" We must expect that his average progress
will be zero, since he is equally likely to go either forward or
backward. But we have the feeling that as $N$ increases, he is more
likely to have strayed farther from the starting point. We might,
therefore, ask what is his average distance travelled in absolute
value, that is, what is the average of $\abs{D}$. It is, however,
more convenient to deal with another measure of "progress," the
square of the distance: $D^2$ is positive for either positive or
negative motion, and is therefore a reasonable measure of such random
wandering.
We can show that the expected value of $D_N^2$ is just $N$, the
number of steps taken. By "expected value" we mean the probable value
(our best guess), which we can think of as the expected average
behavior in many repeated sequences. We represent such an expected
value by $\expval{D_N^2}$, and may refer to it also as the "mean
square distance." After one step, $D^2$ is always $+1$, so we have
certainly $\expval{D_1^2}=1$. (All distances will be measured in
terms of a unit of one step. We shall not continue to write the units
of distance.)
The expected value of $D_N^2$ for $N>1$ can be obtained from $D_{N-1}
$. If, after $(N-1)$ steps, we have $D_{N-1}$, then after $N$ steps
we have $D_N=D_{N-1}+1$ or $D_N=D_{N-1}-1$. For the squares, \begin
{equation} \label{Eq:I:6:7} D_N^2= \begin{cases} D_{N-1}^2+2D_{N-1}
+1,\\[2ex] \kern{3.7em}\textit{or}\\[2ex] D_{N-1}^2-2D_{N-1}+1. \end
{cases} \end{equation} In a number of independent sequences, we
expect to obtain each value one-half of the time, so our average
expectation is just the average of the two possible values. The
expected value of $D_N^2$ is then $D_{N-1}^2+1$. In general, we
should expect for $D_{N-1}^2$ its "expected value" $\expval{D_{N-1}^
2}$ (by definition!). So \begin{equation} \label{Eq:I:6:8} \expval
{D_N^2}=\expval{D_{N-1}^2}+1. \end{equation}
We have already shown that $\expval{D_1^2}=1$; it follows then that \
begin{equation} \label{Eq:I:6:9} \expval{D_N^2}=N, \end{equation} a
particularly simple result!
If we wish a number like a distance, rather than a distance squared,
to represent the "progress made away from the origin" in a random
walk, we can use the "root-mean-square distance" $D_{\text{rms}}$: \
begin{equation} \label{Eq:I:6:10} D_{\text{rms}}=\sqrt{\expval{D^2}}=
\sqrt{N}. \end{equation}
We have pointed out that the random walk is closely similar in its
mathematics to the coin-tossing game we considered at the beginning
of the chapter. If we imagine the direction of each step to be in
correspondence with the appearance of heads or tails in a coin toss,
then $D$ is just $N_H-N_T$, the difference in the number of heads and
tails. Since $N_H+N_T=N$, the total number of steps (and tosses), we
have $D=2N_H-N$. We have derived earlier an expression for the
expected distribution of $N_H$ (also called $k$) and obtained the
result of Eq. (6.5). Since $N$ is just a constant, we have the
corresponding distribution for $D$. (Since for every head more than
$N/2$ there is a tail "missing," we have the factor of $2$ between
$N_H$ and $D$.) The graph of Fig. 6-2 represents the distribution of
distances we might get in $30$ random steps (where $k=15$ is to be
read $D=0$; $k=16$, $D=2$; etc.).
The variation of $N_H$ from its expected value $N/2$ is \begin
{equation} \label{Eq:I:6:11} N_H-\frac{N}{2}=\frac{D}{2}. \end
{equation} The rms deviation is \begin{equation} \label{Eq:I:6:12} \
biggl(N_H-\frac{N}{2}\biggr)_{\text{rms}}=\tfrac{1}{2}\sqrt{N}. \end
{equation}
According to our result for $D_{\text{rms}}$, we expect that the
"typical" distance in $30$ steps ought to be $\sqrt{30} \approx 5.5$,
or a typical $k$ should be about $5.5/2 = 2.75$ units from $15$. We
see that the "width" of the curve in Fig. 6-2, measured from the
center, is just about $3$ units, in agreement with this result.
We are now in a position to consider a question we have avoided until
now. How shall we tell whether a coin is "honest" or "loaded"? We can
give now at least a partial answer. For an honest coin, we expect the
fraction of the times heads appears to be $0.5$, that is, \begin
{equation} \label{Eq:I:6:13} \frac{\expval{N_H}}{N}=0.5. \end
{equation} We also expect an actual $N_H$ to deviate from $N/2$ by
about $\sqrt{N}/2$, or the fraction to deviate by \begin{equation*} \
frac{1}{N}\,\frac{\sqrt{N}}{2}=\frac{1}{2\sqrt{N}}. \end{equation*}
The larger $N$ is, the closer we expect the fraction $N_H/N$ to be to
one-half.
Fig. 6-6.The fraction of the tosses that gave heads in a particular
sequence of $N$ tosses of a penny.
In Fig. 6-6 we have plotted the fraction $N_H/N$ for the coin tosses
reported earlier in this chapter. We see the tendency for the
fraction of heads to approach $0.5$ for large $N$. Unfortunately, for
any given run or combination of runs there is no guarantee that the
observed deviation will be even near the expected deviation. There is
always the finite chance that a large fluctuation--a long string of
heads or tails--will give an arbitrarily large deviation. All we can
say is that if the deviation is near the expected $1/2\sqrt{N}$ (say
within a factor of $2$ or $3$), we have no reason to suspect the
honesty of the coin. If it is much larger, we may be suspicious, but
cannot prove, that the coin is loaded (or that the tosser is
clever!).
We have also not considered how we should treat the case of a "coin"
or some similar "chancy" object (say a stone that always lands in
either of two positions) that we have good reason to believe should
have a different probability for heads and tails. We have defined $P
(H)=\expval{N_H}/N$. How shall we know what to expect for $N_H$? In
some cases, the best we can do is to observe the number of heads
obtained in large numbers of tosses. For want of anything better, we
must set $\expval{N_H}=N_H(\text{observed})$. (How could we expect
anything else?) We must understand, however, that in such a case a
different experiment, or a different observer, might conclude that $P
(H)$ was different. We would expect, however, that the various
answers should agree within the deviation $1/2\sqrt{N}$ [if $P(H)$ is
near one-half]. An experimental physicist usually says that an
"experimentally determined" probability has an "error," and writes \
begin{equation} \label{Eq:I:6:14} P(H)=\frac{N_H}{N}\pm\frac{1}{2\
sqrt{N}}. \end{equation} There is an implication in such an
expression that there is a "true" or "correct" probability which
could be computed if we knew enough, and that the observation may be
in "error" due to a fluctuation. There is, however, no way to make
such thinking logically consistent. It is probably better to realize
that the probability concept is in a sense subjective, that it is
always based on uncertain knowledge, and that its quantitative
evaluation is subject to change as we obtain more information.
6-4A probability distribution
Let us return now to the random walk and consider a modification of
it. Suppose that in addition to a random choice of the direction ($+$
or $-$) of each step, the length of each step also varied in some
unpredictable way, the only condition being that on the average the
step length was one unit. This case is more representative of
something like the thermal motion of a molecule in a gas. If we call
the length of a step $S$, then $S$ may have any value at all, but
most often will be "near" $1$. To be specific, we shall let $\expval
{S^2}=1$ or, equivalently, $S_{\text{rms}}=1$. Our derivation for $\
expval{D^2}$ would proceed as before except that Eq. (6.8) would be
changed now to read \begin{equation} \label{Eq:I:6:15} \expval{D_N^2}
=\expval{D_{N-1}^2}+\expval{S^2}=\expval{D_{N-1}^2}+1. \end{equation}
We have, as before, that \begin{equation} \label{Eq:I:6:16} \expval
{D_N^2}=N. \end{equation}
What would we expect now for the distribution of distances $D$? What
is, for example, the probability that $D=0$ after $30$ steps? The
answer is zero! The probability is zero that $D$ will be any
particular value, since there is no chance at all that the sum of the
backward steps (of varying lengths) would exactly equal the sum of
forward steps. We cannot plot a graph like that of Fig. 6-2.
We can, however, obtain a representation similar to that of Fig. 6-2,
if we ask, not what is the probability of obtaining $D$ exactly equal
to $0$, $1$, or $2$, but instead what is the probability of
obtaining $D$ near $0$, $1$, or $2$. Let us define $P(x,\Delta x)$ as
the probability that $D$ will lie in the interval $\Delta x$ located
at $x$ (say from $x$ to $x+\Delta x$). We expect that for small $\
Delta x$ the chance of $D$ landing in the interval is proportional
to $\Delta x$, the width of the interval. So we can write \begin
{equation} \label{Eq:I:6:17} P(x,\Delta x)=p(x)\,\Delta x. \end
{equation} The function $p(x)$ is called the probability density.
The form of $p(x)$ will depend on $N$, the number of steps taken, and
also on the distribution of individual step lengths. We cannot
demonstrate the proofs here, but for large $N$, $p(x)$ is the same
for all reasonable distributions in individual step lengths, and
depends only on $N$. We plot $p(x)$ for three values of $N$ in Fig.
6-7. You will notice that the "half-widths" (typical spread from $x=
0$) of these curves is $\sqrt{N}$, as we have shown it should be.
Fig. 6-7.The probability density for ending up at the distance $D$
from the starting place in a random walk of $N$ steps. ($D$ is
measured in units of the rms step length.)
You may notice also that the value of $p(x)$ near zero is inversely
proportional to $\sqrt{N}$. This comes about because the curves are
all of a similar shape and their areas under the curves must all be
equal. Since $p(x)\,\Delta x$ is the probability of finding $D$ in $\
Delta x$ when $\Delta x$ is small, we can determine the chance of
finding $D$ somewhere inside an arbitrary interval from $x_1$
to $x_2$, by cutting the interval in a number of small increments $\
Delta x$ and evaluating the sum of the terms $p(x)\,\Delta x$ for
each increment. The probability that $D$ lands somewhere between
$x_1$ and $x_2$, which we may write $P(x_1 < D < x_2)$, is equal to
the shaded area in Fig. 6-8. The smaller we take the increments $\
Delta x$, the more correct is our result. We can write, therefore, \
begin{equation} \label{Eq:I:6:18} P(x_1 < D < x_2)=\sum p(x)\,\Delta
x=\int_{x_1}^{x_2}p(x)\,dx. \end{equation} \begin{equation} \begin
{gathered} P(x_1 < D < x_2)=\sum p(x)\Delta x\\[1ex] =\int_{x_1}^
{x_2}p(x)\,dx. \end{gathered} \label{Eq:I:6:18} \end{equation}
Fig. 6-8.The probability that the distance $D$ traveled in a random
walk is between $x_1$ and $x_2$ is the area under the curve of $p(x)$
from $x_1$ to $x_2$.
The area under the whole curve is the probability that $D$ lands
somewhere (that is, has some value between $x=-\infty$ and $x=+\
infty$). That probability is surely $1$. We must have that \begin
{equation} \label{Eq:I:6:19} \int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}p(x)\,dx=1. \end
{equation} Since the curves in Fig. 6-7 get wider in proportion to $\
sqrt{N}$, their heights must be proportional to $1/\sqrt{N}$ to
maintain the total area equal to $1$.
The probability density function we have been describing is one that
is encountered most commonly. It is known as the normal or Gaussian
probability density. It has the mathematical form \begin{equation} \
label{Eq:I:6:20} p(x)=\frac{1}{\sigma\sqrt{2\pi}}\,e^{-x^2/2\sigma^
2}, \end{equation} where $\sigma$ is called the standard deviation
and is given, in our case, by $\sigma=\sqrt{N}$ or, if the rms step
size is different from $1$, by $\sigma=\sqrt{N}S_{\text{rms}}$.
We remarked earlier that the motion of a molecule, or of any
particle, in a gas is like a random walk. Suppose we open a bottle of
an organic compound and let some of its vapor escape into the air. If
there are air currents, so that the air is circulating, the currents
will also carry the vapor with them. But even in perfectly still air,
the vapor will gradually spread out--will diffuse--until it has
penetrated throughout the room. We might detect it by its color or
odor. The individual molecules of the organic vapor spread out in
still air because of the molecular motions caused by collisions with
other molecules. If we know the average "step" size, and the number
of steps taken per second, we can find the probability that one, or
several, molecules will be found at some distance from their starting
point after any particular passage of time. As time passes, more
steps are taken and the gas spreads out as in the successive curves
of Fig. 6-7. In a later chapter, we shall find out how the step sizes
and step frequencies are related to the temperature and pressure of a
gas.
Earlier, we said that the pressure of a gas is due to the molecules
bouncing against the walls of the container. When we come later to
make a more quantitative description, we will wish to know how fast
the molecules are going when they bounce, since the impact they make
will depend on that speed. We cannot, however, speak of the speed of
the molecules. It is necessary to use a probability description. A
molecule may have any speed, but some speeds are more likely than
others. We describe what is going on by saying that the probability
that any particular molecule will have a speed between $v$ and $v+\
Delta v$ is $p(v)\,\Delta v$, where $p(v)$, a probability density, is
a given function of the speed $v$. We shall see later how Maxwell,
using common sense and the ideas of probability, was able to find a
mathematical expression for $p(v)$. The form^2 of the function $p(v)$
is shown in Fig. 6-9. Velocities may have any value, but are most
likely to be near the most probable value $v_p$.
Fig. 6-9.The distribution of velocities of the molecules in a gas.
We often think of the curve of Fig. 6-9 in a somewhat different way.
If we consider the molecules in a typical container (with a volume
of, say, one liter), then there are a very large number $N$ of
molecules present ($N\approx10^{22}$). Since $p(v)\,\Delta v$ is the
probability that one molecule will have its velocity in $\Delta v$,
by our definition of probability we mean that the expected number $\
expval{\Delta N}$ to be found with a velocity in the interval $\Delta
v$ is given by \begin{equation} \label{Eq:I:6:21} \expval{\Delta N}=N
\,p(v)\,\Delta v. \end{equation} We call $N\,p(v)$ the "distribution
in velocity." The area under the curve between two velocities $v_1$
and $v_2$, for example the shaded area in Fig. 6-9, represents [for
the curve $N\,p(v)$] the expected number of molecules with velocities
between $v_1$ and $v_2$. Since with a gas we are usually dealing with
large numbers of molecules, we expect the deviations from the
expected numbers to be small (like $1/\sqrt{N}$), so we often neglect
to say the "expected" number, and say instead: "The number of
molecules with velocities between $v_1$ and $v_2$ is the area under
the curve." We should remember, however, that such statements are
always about probable numbers.
6-5The uncertainty principle
The ideas of probability are certainly useful in describing the
behavior of the $10^{22}$ or so molecules in a sample of a gas, for
it is clearly impractical even to attempt to write down the position
or velocity of each molecule. When probability was first applied to
such problems, it was considered to be a convenience--a way of dealing
with very complex situations. We now believe that the ideas of
probability are essential to a description of atomic happenings.
According to quantum mechanics, the mathematical theory of particles,
there is always some uncertainty in the specification of positions
and velocities. We can, at best, say that there is a certain
probability that any particle will have a position near some
coordinate $x$.
We can give a probability density $p_1(x)$, such that $p_1(x)\,\Delta
x$ is the probability that the particle will be found between $x$
and $x+\Delta x$. If the particle is reasonably well localized, say
near $x_0$, the function $p_1(x)$ might be given by the graph of
Fig. 6-10(a). Similarly, we must specify the velocity of the particle
by means of a probability density $p_2(v)$, with $p_2(v)\,\Delta v$
the probability that the velocity will be found between $v$ and $v+\
Delta v$.
Fig. 6-10.Probability densities for observation of the position and
velocity of a particle.
It is one of the fundamental results of quantum mechanics that the
two functions $p_1(x)$ and $p_2(v)$ cannot be chosen independently
and, in particular, cannot both be made arbitrarily narrow. If we
call the typical "width" of the $p_1(x)$ curve $[\Delta x]$, and that
of the $p_2(v)$ curve $[\Delta v]$ (as shown in the figure), nature
demands that the product of the two widths be at least as big as the
number $\hbar/2m$, where $m$ is the mass of the particle. We may
write this basic relationship as \begin{equation} \label{Eq:I:6:22}
[\Delta x]\cdot[\Delta v]\geq\hbar/2m. \end{equation} This equation
is a statement of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle that we
mentioned earlier.
Since the right-hand side of Eq. (6.22) is a constant, this equation
says that if we try to "pin down" a particle by forcing it to be at a
particular place, it ends up by having a high speed. Or if we try to
force it to go very slowly, or at a precise velocity, it "spreads
out" so that we do not know very well just where it is. Particles
behave in a funny way!
The uncertainty principle describes an inherent fuzziness that must
exist in any attempt to describe nature. Our most precise description
of nature must be in terms of probabilities. There are some people
who do not like this way of describing nature. They feel somehow that
if they could only tell what is really going on with a particle, they
could know its speed and position simultaneously. In the early days
of the development of quantum mechanics, Einstein was quite worried
about this problem. He used to shake his head and say, "But, surely
God does not throw dice in determining how electrons should go!" He
worried about that problem for a long time and he probably never
really reconciled himself to the fact that this is the best
description of nature that one can give. There are still one or two
physicists who are working on the problem who have an intuitive
conviction that it is possible somehow to describe the world in a
different way and that all of this uncertainty about the way things
are can be removed. No one has yet been successful.
The necessary uncertainty in our specification of the position of a
particle becomes most important when we wish to describe the
structure of atoms. In the hydrogen atom, which has a nucleus of one
proton with one electron outside of the nucleus, the uncertainty in
the position of the electron is as large as the atom itself! We
cannot, therefore, properly speak of the electron moving in some
"orbit" around the proton. The most we can say is that there is a
certain chance $p(r)\,\Delta V$, of observing the electron in an
element of volume $\Delta V$ at the distance $r$ from the proton. The
probability density $p(r)$ is given by quantum mechanics. For an
undisturbed hydrogen atom $p(r)=Ae^{-2r/a}$. The number $a$ is the
"typical" radius, where the function is decreasing rapidly. Since
there is a small probability of finding the electron at distances
from the nucleus much greater than $a$, we may think of $a$ as "the
radius of the atom," about $10^{-10}$ meter.
Fig. 6-11.A way of visualizing a hydrogen atom. The density
(whiteness) of the cloud represents the probability density for
observing the electron.
We can form an image of the hydrogen atom by imagining a "cloud"
whose density is proportional to the probability density for
observing the electron. A sample of such a cloud is shown in Fig.
6-11. Thus our best "picture" of a hydrogen atom is a nucleus
surrounded by an "electron cloud" (although we really mean a
"probability cloud"). The electron is there somewhere, but nature
permits us to know only the chance of finding it at any particular
place.
In its efforts to learn as much as possible about nature, modern
physics has found that certain things can never be "known" with
certainty. Much of our knowledge must always remain uncertain. The
most we can know is in terms of probabilities.
1. After the first three games, the experiment was actually done by
shaking $30$ pennies violently in a box and then counting the
number of heads that showed. -
2. Maxwell's expression is $p(v)=Cv^2e^{-av^2}$, where $a$ is a
constant related to the temperature and $C$ is chosen so that the
total probability is one. -
Copyright (c) 1963, 2006, 2013 by the California Institute of
Technology, Michael A. Gottlieb and Rudolf Pfeiffer