Dispersion relation and group velocity

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the relationship between group velocity and the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, specifically exploring a proposed derivation that connects the two concepts. Participants examine the validity of dividing inequalities derived from the uncertainty principle and the implications of such operations.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant proposes a derivation linking group velocity and the uncertainty principle, suggesting that the dispersion relation for a free particle can be expressed as \(\frac{dE}{dp} \gtrsim v\).
  • Another participant challenges the validity of dividing the two forms of the uncertainty principle, arguing that such operations can lead to false statements.
  • A later reply seeks clarification on the reasoning behind the inability to divide the inequalities, indicating a desire for deeper understanding.
  • Further explanation is provided about the differences in handling equations versus inequalities, emphasizing that dividing by different quantities can alter the original relations.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the validity of the proposed derivation. There is disagreement regarding the mathematical manipulation of inequalities derived from the uncertainty principle.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the potential misapplication of mathematical operations on inequalities and the lack of rigorous derivation in the initial proposal. The discussion does not resolve the validity of the proposed relationship between group velocity and the uncertainty principle.

Cygni
Messages
38
Reaction score
0
Hello there PF readers,

The group velocity for example of electron waves is given by the derivative of the dispersion relation: \frac{dE}{dp}=v (this is for free electrons) ^{1}. Now the Heisenberg's uncertainty principle has two forms, one for position and momentum and the other for energy and time, namely:

\Delta x\Delta p \gtrsim h [1] ^{2}

\Delta E\Delta t \gtrsim h [2] ^{2}

(note these are approximate relations)

Dividing [2] nd expression from the [1] st gives:

\frac{\Delta E}{\Delta p}\frac{\Delta t}{\Delta x} \gtrsim 1

By letting the limits of the time and position changes tend to infinitesimally small values i.e. t\rightarrow 0 and x\rightarrow 0 we get the differential form:

\frac{dE}{dp}\frac{dt}{dx} \gtrsim 1

but \frac{dx}{dt} = v

Hence

\frac{dE}{dp} \gtrsim v which is the dispersion relation for a free particle.

I realize this may not be the most rigorous derivation, and it may be just a crackpottery as a result of my daydreaming. However, if there is any significance to this, I would like to hear an explanation to it. I could not find anything remotely close to this on the quantum book that I have which is by Alastair I. M. Rae.

Any input would be greatly appreciated,

Kind regards,

Cygni.

References:

(1) Experimental Physics, Modern Methods by R.A. Dunlap page 15.
(2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You can't simply divide those two relations, the result can also be a false statement, for example:

2>1

and

1.5>1.

If you divide the second by the first, you end up at

0.75>1,

which is obviously false.
 
Thanks for your reply, Polyrhythmic,

I understand the reasoning behind the example you have showed, which is fine, it proves easily that I'm wrong. But could you elaborate more on why one can't simply divide those two relations?

Thanks in advance,

Kind regards,

Cygni.
 
Well, when you divide two equations, you divide on both sides by the same quantity, it therefore remains a true statement. When you do that with inequalities, you're dividing both sides by different quantities, altering the original relation, leading to possibly wrong statements.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
6K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K