Beginner: uncertainty principle?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle (HUP), exploring its validity, implications, and underlying mathematical principles. Participants engage in both conceptual and technical explanations, with some focusing on the philosophical aspects of why the principle holds true.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants suggest that the uncertainty principle is a fundamental aspect of quantum mechanics, arising from the interaction of light with particles, which affects their measurable properties.
  • Others argue that the principle is not universally applicable and depends on whether two observables commute, with the relationship being defined through Fourier transforms.
  • A participant presents a mathematical formulation of the generalized uncertainty principle, highlighting the commutation relations between observables.
  • There are requests for proofs and clarifications regarding the mathematical aspects, particularly concerning the conditions under which the uncertainty principle applies.
  • Some participants express confusion about the implications of degeneracy in the context of the uncertainty principle and the treatment of derivatives of the delta function.
  • One participant offers an analogy comparing the uncertainty principle to music, suggesting that certain properties cannot be precisely defined simultaneously.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a mix of agreement and disagreement regarding the conditions under which the uncertainty principle applies, with some emphasizing its limitations and others defending its foundational role in quantum mechanics. The discussion remains unresolved on several technical points and interpretations.

Contextual Notes

Participants note the importance of commutation relations and the conditions of non-degeneracy, but these aspects remain partially clarified. The discussion includes unresolved mathematical steps and varying interpretations of the principle's implications.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be useful for newcomers to physics, particularly those interested in quantum mechanics, the mathematical foundations of the uncertainty principle, and its philosophical implications.

frankypoo
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
I'm a newcomer to physics (know of any good beginner forums?) and was wondering why the uncertainty principle is true.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Because when you shine light on a particle to see it, you are using at least one quantum. This quantum will affect the particle in a way we can't predict, therefore limiting the knowledge one can have of a particle's position and velocity.
 
This is one of those things that is the way it is, because that is the way it is. Why is it that way? Don't know. It just is. Physics cannot address why, we can only observe and analize.

Philosophers talk about why, not Physicists.
 
Originally posted by frankypoo
I'm a newcomer to physics (know of any good beginner forums?) and was wondering why the uncertainty principle is true.

first of all, the uncertainty principle isn t always true. knowing when it is true and when it is not goes a long way towards explaining why it is true (when it is)

whenever two observables do not commute, then they obey the Heisenberg uncertainty relationship.

when the observables do not commute, they can be shown to be Fourier transforms of one another, and Fourier transforms exchange narrow signals for wide signals.

therefore, if one signal is wide, the other one has to be narrow, because they do not commute.
 
Last edited:


Originally posted by lethe
when the observables do not commute, they can be shown to be Fourier transforms of one another, ...
Wow, I've never heard that before. Are you over-generalizing for the sake of clarity, or is this absolutely true? Can you give a simple proof?
 
It's called the generalized uncertainty principle and for two observables [itex]q[/itex] and [itex]r[/itex] can be stated as :

[tex]\Delta q \Delta r \geq \frac{1}{2}|\langle[\hat{Q},\hat{R}]\rangle|[/tex]
 


Originally posted by turin
Can you give a simple proof?

sure, i can give a proof. here we go:

suppose i have two self adjoint observables A, and B with continuous spectra satisfying the following commutation relation:
[tex] [A,B]=i[/tex]

let a and a' be eigenvalues for A, and b be an eigenvalue for B.

[tex] <a'|[A,B]|a>=(a'-a)<a'|B|a>=i\delta(a'-a)[/tex]
but also:
[tex] <b|B=b<b|[/tex]
so
[tex] <b|B|a>=b<b|a>[/tex]

putting these together yields:
[tex] \begin{multline*}<br /> <b|B|a>=\int da'<b|a'><a'|B|a>\\<br /> =-i\int da'<b|a'>\delta'(a'-a)=i\frac{d}{da}<b|a><br /> \end{multline*}[/tex]
solving this differential equation yields:
[tex] <b|a>=e^{-iab}[/tex]
finally, take a generic state in the Hilbert space, [itex]|\psi>[/itex]:

[tex] <b|\psi>=\int da<b|a><a|\psi>=\int da \ e^{-iab}<a|\psi>[/tex]

and so they are Fourier transforms
 
Last edited:


Originally posted by Ambitwistor
I think Lethe really meant two observables which obey canonical commutation relations, i.e. [itex][\hat{A},\hat{B}] = i\hbar[/itex], at least concerning the Fourier transform bit
yes, very good. what i said is only true for variables obeying canonical commutation relations.
 


Thanks a lot lethe; that was excellent!




Originally posted by lethe
... observables A, and B with continuous spectra ...
Does this condition contain a condition of non-degeneracy? I guess it doesn't matter since you are taking the derivative of the delta function (something I thought you would've frowned upon, though)?



Originally posted by lethe
yes, very good. what i said is only true for variables obeying canonical commutation relations.
This was the main part of my confusion.
 
Last edited:
  • #10


Originally posted by turin

Does this condition contain a condition of non-degeneracy? I guess it doesn't matter since you are taking the derivative of the delta function (something I thought you would've frowned upon, though)?

this makes no assumptions about degeneracy.

derivatives of the delta function(al) are perfectly well defined.
 
  • #11
Back to the beginning post...

IMHO, the best way to understand HUP is to picture the analogy of a piece of music. What HUP says is essentially that certain pairs of properties are like the frequency and time of this music. Since frequency is based on repeated oscillations over time, it makes no sense to talk of the music having an exact frequency at an exact time - there is always a minimal degree of uncertainty.

PF is a good forum, beginner or not. :wink:
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
4K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K