Derivation of Uncertainty Princple

ChrisLM
Messages
9
Reaction score
0
Referrence to Modern Quantum Mechanics, J.J.Sakurai,
I found the "Generalized Uncertainty Principle" is that
<( s.d. of operator A)^2> <( s.d. of operator B)^2> >= 1/4 |<[A,B]>|^2 + 1/4 |<{s.d of A, s.d of B}>|^2

I hope it is not difficult to read, as I don't know how to type it formally.
I would like to ask why the inequality finally omitted the second (the anticommutator) term ?
Sakurai said it is because the second term can only make the inequality relation stronger.
I can't understand. Besides, I am a UG Year 1 students, but familiar to Dirac Notation as I am doing UG research on Quantum Information Theory. I hope anyone can explain it in a easy way ^^ Thank You
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The second term is always positive. Therefore if LHS >= First + Second, LHS >= First will always be true. And omitting the second term makes the uncertainty principle look "nicer".
 
Hi ChrisLM! :smile:

oooh, nicksauce :smile: has beat me to it!

anyway, have a geq: ≥, and try using the X2 tag just above the Reply box :wink:)
 
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. Towards the end of the first lecture for the Qiskit Global Summer School 2025, Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Olivia Lanes (Global Lead, Content and Education IBM) stated... Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/quantum-entanglement-is-a-kinematic-fact-not-a-dynamical-effect/ by @RUTA
If we release an electron around a positively charged sphere, the initial state of electron is a linear combination of Hydrogen-like states. According to quantum mechanics, evolution of time would not change this initial state because the potential is time independent. However, classically we expect the electron to collide with the sphere. So, it seems that the quantum and classics predict different behaviours!
Back
Top