Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle: Difference between revisions

From PhyWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 8: Line 8:
<math>\Delta x\,\Delta p \geq \frac{\hbar}{2}</math>  
<math>\Delta x\,\Delta p \geq \frac{\hbar}{2}</math>  


Similar uncertainty relations exist for other non-commuting observables; we will discuss such relations, as well as give a formal proof of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, in a later section.
Similar uncertainty relations exist for other non-commuting observables; we will discuss such relations, as well as give a formal proof of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, in [[Commutation Relations and Simultaneous Eigenvalues#Generalized Uncertainty Relation|a later section]].


Canonically conjugated variables are those which are related by the Fourier Transform. More specifically, they are variables that when you take the Fourier Transform of a function that is dependent on one, you get a function that depends on the other. For example, position and momentum are canonically conjugated variables:
Two variables are said to be canonically conjugate if they are related by a Fourier transform. More specifically, they are variables such that, when one takes the Fourier transform of a function that is dependent on one, they obtain a function that depends on the other. For example, as implied above, position and momentum are canonically conjugate variables:


<math>\Phi(p,t) = \frac{1}{2\pi\hbar}\int^{+\infty}_{-\infty}e^{\frac{-ipx}{\hbar}}\Psi(x,t)\,dx;</math>
<math>\Phi(p,t) = \frac{1}{2\pi\hbar}\int^{\infty}_{-\infty}e^{-ipx/\hbar}\Psi(x,t)\,dx;</math>
<math>\Psi(x,t) = \frac{1}{2\pi\hbar}\int^{+\infty}_{-\infty}e^{\frac{ipx}{\hbar}}\Phi(p,t)\,dp.</math>
<math>\Psi(x,t) = \frac{1}{2\pi\hbar}\int^{\infty}_{-\infty}e^{ipx/\hbar}\Phi(p,t)\,dp.</math>


Another example of canonically conjugated variables are energy and time.  
Another such pair of canonically conjugate variables is that of energy and time. It is precisely this relationship that leads to the uncertainty principle.  We may see this by considering a Gaussian wave packet in position space:
It is precisely this relationship that leads to the uncertainty principle. The reader has probably noticed that the relation above – i.e. <math>\Delta A\,\Delta B = \hbar </math> – is not the familiar uncertainty principle we all know, the one where <math>\hbar </math> is divided by two. It turns out that the above relation is more general; we only get the more familiar version when the wave-packet is Gaussian.


So, here is a true physical constraint on a wave packet. If we compress it in one variable, it expands in the other! If it is compressed in position (i.e., localized) then it must must be spread out in wavelength. If it is compressed in momentum, it is spread out in space.
<math>\Psi(x,t)=\frac{1}{\Delta x\sqrt{2\pi}}e^{-x^2/2(\Delta x)^2}e^{-i\omega t}</math>
 
If we go to momentum space, we
 
We thus have a true physical constraint on a wave packet - if we compress it in one variable, it expands in the other! If it is compressed in position (i.e., localized) then it must must be spread out in wavelength. Similarly, if it is compressed in momentum, it is spread out in space.
    
    
So now let's see what is the physical meaning of Heisenberg’s inequalities?
So now let's see what is the physical meaning of Heisenberg’s inequalities?


1. Suppose we prepare N systems in the same state. For half of them, we measure their positions x; for the other half, we measure their momenta <math>p_{x}</math>. Whatever way we prepare the state of these systems, the dispersions obey these inequalities.
1. Suppose we prepare <math>N</math> systems in the same state. For half of them, we measure their positions x; for the other half, we measure their momenta <math>p_{x}</math>. Whatever way we prepare the state of these systems, the dispersions obey these inequalities.


2. These are intrinsic properties of the quantum description of the state of a particle.
2. These are intrinsic properties of the quantum description of the state of a particle.
Line 40: Line 43:
constraint. This is the case for macroscopic systems. Another possibility is that the accuracy of the measuring devices is such that one cannot detect
constraint. This is the case for macroscopic systems. Another possibility is that the accuracy of the measuring devices is such that one cannot detect
the quantum dispersions <math>\Delta x</math> and <math>\Delta p</math>.
the quantum dispersions <math>\Delta x</math> and <math>\Delta p</math>.
See also
[[Commutation Relations and Simultaneous Eigenvalues#Generalized Uncertainty Relation|Generalized Uncertainty Relation]]
A worked problem showing the uncertainty in the position of different objects over the lifetime of the universe: [[Phy5645/uncertainty relations problem1|Problem 1]]
A worked problem showing the uncertainty in the position of different objects over the lifetime of the universe: [[Phy5645/uncertainty relations problem1|Problem 1]]



Revision as of 11:28, 5 April 2013

Quantum Mechanics A
SchrodEq.png
Schrödinger Equation
The most fundamental equation of quantum mechanics; given a Hamiltonian , it describes how a state evolves in time.
Basic Concepts and Theory of Motion
UV Catastrophe (Black-Body Radiation)
Photoelectric Effect
Stability of Matter
Double Slit Experiment
Stern-Gerlach Experiment
The Principle of Complementarity
The Correspondence Principle
The Philosophy of Quantum Theory
Brief Derivation of Schrödinger Equation
Relation Between the Wave Function and Probability Density
Stationary States
Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle
Some Consequences of the Uncertainty Principle
Linear Vector Spaces and Operators
Commutation Relations and Simultaneous Eigenvalues
The Schrödinger Equation in Dirac Notation
Transformations of Operators and Symmetry
Time Evolution of Expectation Values and Ehrenfest's Theorem
One-Dimensional Bound States
Oscillation Theorem
The Dirac Delta Function Potential
Scattering States, Transmission and Reflection
Motion in a Periodic Potential
Summary of One-Dimensional Systems
Harmonic Oscillator Spectrum and Eigenstates
Analytical Method for Solving the Simple Harmonic Oscillator
Coherent States
Charged Particles in an Electromagnetic Field
WKB Approximation
The Heisenberg Picture: Equations of Motion for Operators
The Interaction Picture
The Virial Theorem
Commutation Relations
Angular Momentum as a Generator of Rotations in 3D
Spherical Coordinates
Eigenvalue Quantization
Orbital Angular Momentum Eigenfunctions
General Formalism
Free Particle in Spherical Coordinates
Spherical Well
Isotropic Harmonic Oscillator
Hydrogen Atom
WKB in Spherical Coordinates
Feynman Path Integrals
The Free-Particle Propagator
Propagator for the Harmonic Oscillator
Differential Cross Section and the Green's Function Formulation of Scattering
Central Potential Scattering and Phase Shifts
Coulomb Potential Scattering

Consider a long string which contains a wave that moves with a fairly well-defined wavelength across the whole length of the string. The question, "Where is the wave?", does not seem to make much sense, since it is spread throughout the length of string. A quick snap of the wrist and the string produces a small bump-like wave which has a well defined position. Now the question, "What is the wavelength?", does not make sense, since there is no well defined period. This example illisturates the limitation on measuring the wavelength and the position simultaneously. Relating the wavelength to momentum yields the de Broglie equation, which is applicable to any wave phenomenon, including the wave equation:

The above discussion suggests that there is a relation between the uncertainty in position of a particle and that of the canonically conjugate momentum . This relation is known as the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle:

Similar uncertainty relations exist for other non-commuting observables; we will discuss such relations, as well as give a formal proof of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, in a later section.

Two variables are said to be canonically conjugate if they are related by a Fourier transform. More specifically, they are variables such that, when one takes the Fourier transform of a function that is dependent on one, they obtain a function that depends on the other. For example, as implied above, position and momentum are canonically conjugate variables:

Another such pair of canonically conjugate variables is that of energy and time. It is precisely this relationship that leads to the uncertainty principle. We may see this by considering a Gaussian wave packet in position space:

If we go to momentum space, we

We thus have a true physical constraint on a wave packet - if we compress it in one variable, it expands in the other! If it is compressed in position (i.e., localized) then it must must be spread out in wavelength. Similarly, if it is compressed in momentum, it is spread out in space.

So now let's see what is the physical meaning of Heisenberg’s inequalities?

1. Suppose we prepare systems in the same state. For half of them, we measure their positions x; for the other half, we measure their momenta . Whatever way we prepare the state of these systems, the dispersions obey these inequalities.

2. These are intrinsic properties of the quantum description of the state of a particle.

3. Heisenberg uncertainty relations have nothing to do with the accuracy of measurements. Each measurement is done with as great an accuracy as one wishes. They have nothing to do with the perturbation that a measurement causes to a system, inasmuch as each particle is measured only once.

4. In other words, the position and momentum of a particle are defined numerically only within limits that obey these inequalities. There exists some “fuzziness” in the numerical definition of these two physical quantities. If we prepare particles all at the same point, they will have very different velocities. If we prepare particles with a well-defined velocity, then they will be spread out in a large region of space.

5. Newton’s starting point must be abandoned. One cannot speak simultaneously of x and p. The starting point of classical mechanics is destroyed. Some comments are in order.

A plane wave corresponds to the limit . Then is infinite. In an interference experiment, the beam, which is well defined in momentum, is spread out in position. The atoms pass through both slits at the same time.We cannot “aim” at one of the slits and observe interferences.

The classical limit (i.e. how does this relate to classical physics) can be seen in a variety of ways that are more or less equivalent. One possibility is that the orders of magnitude of and are so large that is not a realistic constraint. This is the case for macroscopic systems. Another possibility is that the accuracy of the measuring devices is such that one cannot detect the quantum dispersions and . A worked problem showing the uncertainty in the position of different objects over the lifetime of the universe: Problem 1

A problem about how to find kinetic energy of a particle, a nucleon specifically, using the uncertanity principle : Problem 2

Another problem verifying Uncertainty relation: Problem 3