Particle-in-a-box and the uncertainty principle

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the particle-in-a-box model in quantum mechanics, specifically addressing the implications of the uncertainty principle in relation to the defined energies and momenta of a particle confined within a box. Participants explore the mathematical relationships and conceptual challenges associated with this model.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents the energy and momentum equations for a particle in a box and questions the implications of having definite momentum while being confined, suggesting a potential violation of the uncertainty principle.
  • Another participant suggests performing calculations to clarify the situation, implying that integrals are necessary to understand the relationships better.
  • A participant argues that while the momentum's magnitude can be defined, there is still uncertainty in its direction, which may resolve the apparent contradiction with the uncertainty principle.
  • Further discussion leads to a proposal that the uncertainty in momentum could be approximated as h/2L, although this is presented with caution regarding the assumptions made.
  • Another participant emphasizes the need to calculate the uncertainty in momentum correctly, indicating that it is not zero in the eigenstates of the particle-in-a-box.
  • One participant provides specific calculations for the uncertainties in momentum and position for the ground state, suggesting numerical values that contribute to the discussion.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the implications of the uncertainty principle in this context, with some asserting that there is a violation while others propose resolutions through further calculations and clarifications. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the exact nature of the uncertainties involved.

Contextual Notes

Participants acknowledge various assumptions and limitations in their calculations, such as the effects of boundary conditions and the role of potential energy, which may influence the derived uncertainties.

broegger
Messages
257
Reaction score
0
For a particle-in-a-box it can be shown that the possible energies are given by

[tex]E_n = \frac{n^2h^2}{8mL^2}[/tex]

where L is the length of the box. The corresponding momentum are given by:

[tex]p_n = \frac{nh}{2L}[/tex]

I don't think it's a problem that the energy has a definite value ([tex]\Delta E = 0[/tex]) since it is a stationary state ([tex]\Delta t = \infty[/tex]).

But how is it possible for the momentum to be definite ([tex]\Delta p = 0[/tex]) and, at the same time, the particle to be confined within the box ([tex]\Delta x < \infty[/tex]). Doesn't this violate the uncertainty principle [tex] <br /> \Delta x \Delta p_x \geq \frac{h}{2\pi}[/tex].
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Do the calculation and find out...it just takes a few integrals to find the answer.
 
By my understanding it does. We have [tex]\Delta x \approx L/2[/tex] and [tex]\Delta p_x = 0[/tex], and thus:

[tex]\Delta x \Delta p_x = (L/2) \cdot 0 = 0 \leq \frac{h}{2\pi}[/tex]

A violation! What is wrong with this??
 
What you write as p_x is in fact |p_x|.
Indeed, given the energy, the momentum can be to the left or to the right, so there is an uncertainty on p_x (even if there isn't on |p_x|).

cheers,
Patrick.
 
Oh, you're right.. So we have [tex]\Delta p_x \approx \frac{h}{2L}[/tex]?
 
broegger said:
Oh, you're right.. So we have [tex]\Delta p_x \approx \frac{h}{2L}[/tex]?

Without plunging into the calculation, I'd guess so. If (for n = 1), we can say that |p| = Sqrt[ 2 m E_1] = h/2L. This is of course a bit naive, because the particle is not really free, it undergoes an interaction at the walls. But it is "most of the time" free. So we'd think then that the corresponding momentum density function can be represented by two dirac pulses, one at -h/2L and one at h/2L. The average momentum being 0, this means that the standard deviation is h/2L for p_x.
But as I said, we've forgotten the role of the potential energy here. Indeed, the position representation of such a momentum double dirac function would be a sine or cosine, with period 2L. Well, this is exactly the ground state !
It is sin(x / (pi L) ) ! But wait... it is this function within the interval 0-L, but the wave function is 0 outside the interval, while the Fourier transform of our 2 dirac peaks would indicate sin(x/(pi L) ) function everywhere. So we have multiplied in the position space with a square window function (1 in the interval 0-L, 0 outside). This translates into a convolution with a sin(p)/p function in the momentum representation, which will smoothen out the dirac peaks and will probably change a bit the value of Delta-p_x.

At least, the above is my guess, I never worked it out myself.

cheers,
Patrick.
 
Integral calculation

Might I suggest you redo your calculations? The uncertainty is p is desinqrt as
sqrt ( <p^2> - <p>^2)

where <p^2> = (nh/(4L))^2 and ,p. = 0 so the uncertainty in the momentum is not zero in the eigenstates of the particle-in-a-box.

achemist
 
Integration typos

Hi, sorry for the typos. If you do the calculation for n=1 you will get
delta P = Pi hbar / L
delta x = .181 L
so indeed we get delta x * delta p = .181 Pi * hbar
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
4K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K