Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle

Quantum Mechanics A

Schrödinger Equation The most fundamental equation of quantum mechanics; given a Hamiltonian ${\mathcal {H}}$, it describes how a state $|\Psi \rangle$ evolves in time.

Physical Basis of Quantum Mechanics

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

Schrödinger Equation

Brief Derivation of Schrödinger Equation Relation Between the Wave Function and Probability Density Stationary States Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle Some Consequences of the Uncertainty Principle

Operators, Eigenfunctions, and Symmetry

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

Motion in One Dimension

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

Discrete Eigenvalues and Bound States

Harmonic Oscillator Spectrum and Eigenstates Analytical Method for Solving the Simple Harmonic Oscillator Coherent States Charged Particles in an Electromagnetic Field WKB Approximation

Time Evolution and the Pictures of Quantum Mechanics

The Heisenberg Picture: Equations of Motion for Operators The Interaction Picture The Virial Theorem

Angular Momentum

Commutation Relations Angular Momentum as a Generator of Rotations in 3D Spherical Coordinates Eigenvalue Quantization Orbital Angular Momentum Eigenfunctions

Central Forces

General Formalism Free Particle in Spherical Coordinates Spherical Well Isotropic Harmonic Oscillator Hydrogen Atom WKB in Spherical Coordinates

The Path Integral Formulation of Quantum Mechanics

Feynman Path Integrals The Free-Particle Propagator Propagator for the Harmonic Oscillator

Continuous Eigenvalues and Collision Theory

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:

$p={\frac {h}{\lambda }}={\frac {2\pi \hbar }{\lambda }}$

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

$\Delta x\,\Delta p\geq {\frac {\hbar }{2}}$

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 the wave function in terms of one of the pair, the result is the wave function in terms of the other. For example, as implied above, position and momentum are canonically conjugate variables:

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

A similar pair of transforms holds for the time-independent case:

$\phi (p)={\frac {1}{\sqrt {2\pi \hbar }}}\int _{-\infty }^{\infty }e^{-ipx/\hbar }\psi (x)\,dx;$ $\psi (x)={\frac {1}{\sqrt {2\pi \hbar }}}\int _{-\infty }^{\infty }e^{ipx/\hbar }\phi (p)\,dp$

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:

$\psi (x)={\frac {1}{\sqrt {\Delta x{\sqrt {2\pi }}}}}e^{-x^{2}/4(\Delta x)^{2}}$

If we go to momentum space, we will find that

$\phi (p)={\frac {1}{\sqrt {\Delta p{\sqrt {2\pi }}}}}e^{-p^{2}/4(\Delta p)^{2}},$

where

$\Delta x\,\Delta p={\frac {\hbar }{2}}.$

This is just the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle quoted above, with the standard deviations of the Gaussians (remember that the absolute value squared of these wave functions is the probability density) serving as the uncertainties and the inequality turned into an equality. While the relation obtained for Gaussian wave packets will not necessarily hold true in general, we will see later that the uncertainties will always be given by the standard deviations of the observables.

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.

The natural question to ask now is what the physical meaning of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. Suppose that 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 $p_{x}$. Whatever way we prepare the state of these systems, the dispersions obey these inequalities. These are intrinsic properties of the quantum description of the state of a particle; the uncertainty principle has nothing to do with the accuracy of the measurements. We will still see this relation hold even if each measurement is done with infinite precision. They also have nothing to do with the perturbation that a measurement causes to a system, inasmuch as each particle is measured only once.

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 momenta. If we prepare particles with a well-defined momentum, on the other hand, then they will be spread out in a large region of space.

Since we can no longer describe a particle as having both a definite position and a definite momentum at the same time, we see that classical mechanics no longer holds, since it relies on being able to specify a definite position and momentum for a given particle.

Some comments are in order.

A plane wave corresponds to the limit $\Delta p\rightarrow 0$. Then $\Delta x$ 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 $x$ and $p$ are so large that ${\frac {\hbar }{2}}$ 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 $\Delta x$ and $\Delta p$. 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