Does the Energy Uncertainty Principle Contradict Conservation of Energy?

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the reconciliation of the Energy Uncertainty Principle with the principle of conservation of energy, particularly in the context of quantum mechanics and the behavior of particles in confined spaces, such as a box.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking, Problem interpretation

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants explore the implications of the Energy Uncertainty Principle on the conservation of energy, questioning how a particle can possess energy without being excited. There are discussions about the conditions under which a particle can be considered to have zero energy and the assumptions made in quantum mechanics regarding particles in a box.

Discussion Status

The discussion is active with various interpretations being explored. Some participants provide insights into the nature of energy conservation and the assumptions involved in quantum mechanics, while others question the validity of external sources and their relevance to the topic at hand.

Contextual Notes

There is mention of specific scenarios, such as the infinite well problem, and the challenges of defining a particle's energy state when considering quantum mechanics. The conversation also touches on the implications of placing a particle in a box and the assumptions that must be made regarding its energy.

'AQF
Messages
33
Reaction score
0
How can the principle of conservation of energy be reconciled with the Energy Uncertainty Principal, by which a particle always has energy, even if not excited?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Simple: The law of conservation of energy does not forbid a particle having energy without being excited. It forbids a particle's energy from changing without being excited (or de-excited, as the case may be).
The law of conservation of energy doesn't say that [itex]E=0[/itex]. It says that [itex]\frac{dE}{dt}=0[/itex].
 
Still, if you place a particle with 0 energy in a box, and without giving it any energy, the Uncertainty Principal states that there will be some energy anyway. So how does Conservation of Energy hold in this case?
 
Are you referring to the infinite well problem? If that is the case then it makes no sense to consider the particle before it was placed in the box. That is because an infinite amount of work would have to be done to get the particle from the outside to the inside.

When you deal with the particle in the box problem, you tacitly assume that the particle was never outside the box.
 
If the particle was never outside the box, then how did it get its energy to begin with?
 
You simply assume that the energy always existed. That still doesn't violate conservation of energy, which only speaks of the rate of change of energy with respect to time.
 
AQF, part of the your problem is that you can't "put the particle into the box with zero energy." If a free particle had zero energy, you would have perfect knowledge of its momentum, which implies complete ignorance about its position. Since you don't know where it is, you can't put it in a box.
 
Thanks for your help.
 
  • #10
Technically, yes, the article is incorrect. Energy is always conserved. Got to go right now, I'll try to expand on this later.

Edit: There is a thread on this very point in the Quantum Physics section.
 
Last edited:
  • #11
[QUOTE='AQF]By your answers, is the information in http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae605.cfm
incorrect?[/QUOTE]

That article has nothing to do with the particle in a box, which I assume you are treating with quantum mechanics. The article on the other hand pertains to interactions that are mediated by gauge bosons, which are described by quantum field theory. This issue of virtual particles does not arise when external fields are represented by potentials.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
6K
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
1K
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
4K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K