Energy-Time Uncertainty Relation

harjyot
Messages
42
Reaction score
0
I was trying to Go from the uncertainty principle to its energy-time counter part. i know the maths is a bit off,but the idea is correct?

dx=position
p=momentum
e=energy
\upsilon=frequency
\lambda=wavelength
c=velocity of electromagnetic radiations
dt=time

now ,
\lambda=h/p....(i)
c=\upsilon.\lambda....(ii)

e=h.\upsilon
e=(h.c)/\lambda

replacing \lambda's value here from (i)

e=(h.c)/(h/p)
e=c.p

now c = velocity of light , it can be written as dx/dt
e= (dx/dt).p
multiplying by dt on both sides

e.dt=(dx/dt).dt.p
e.dt=dx.p

Therefore frome this relation if we straight away incorporate this in place of the
σx.σp≥h/4π

cannot we get
σe.σt≥4π
 
Physics news on Phys.org
harjyot said:
I was trying to Go from the uncertainty principle to its energy-time counter part. i know the maths is a bit off,but the idea is correct?

dx=position
p=momentum
e=energy
\upsilon=frequency
\lambda=wavelength
c=velocity of electromagnetic radiations
dt=time

now ,
\lambda=h/p....(i)
c=\upsilon.\lambda....(ii)

e=h.\upsilon
e=(h.c)/\lambda

replacing \lambda's value here from (i)

e=(h.c)/(h/p)
e=c.p

now c = velocity of light , it can be written as dx/dt
e= (dx/dt).p
multiplying by dt on both sides

e.dt=(dx/dt).dt.p
e.dt=dx.p

Therefore frome this relation if we straight away incorporate this in place of the
σx.σp≥h/4π

cannot we get
σe.σt≥4π

Your derivation only works symbolically (and is a good way to convince youself of the idea), as some of the equations above are meaningful only in a narrow range of applications. The uncertainty principle for position-momentum has a rigorous definition and proof (which is caused by the non-commutative relation of X and P operator), but not the energy-time relation. A better explanation for the energy-time uncertainty I've seen is from Shankar's Principles of Quantum Mechanics, this is due to the fact that particles' life time is only finite (at least on the one end), thus its Fourier transform into the frequency domain fails to peak at a single frequency, instead will be spreaded - causing the uncertainty in energy measurement.
 
Not an expert in QM. AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is quite different from the classical wave equation. The former is an equation for the dynamics of the state of a (quantum?) system, the latter is an equation for the dynamics of a (classical) degree of freedom. As a matter of fact, Schrödinger's equation is first order in time derivatives, while the classical wave equation is second order. But, AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is a wave equation; only its interpretation makes it non-classical...
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
Is it possible, and fruitful, to use certain conceptual and technical tools from effective field theory (coarse-graining/integrating-out, power-counting, matching, RG) to think about the relationship between the fundamental (quantum) and the emergent (classical), both to account for the quasi-autonomy of the classical level and to quantify residual quantum corrections? By “emergent,” I mean the following: after integrating out fast/irrelevant quantum degrees of freedom (high-energy modes...
Back
Top