Heisenberg Uncertainty in wavelength and position

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on demonstrating the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle in the context of wavelength and position, specifically the inequality ##\Delta\lambda\Delta x > \frac{\lambda^2}{4\pi}##. Participants analyze the implications of de Broglie's equation ##p = \frac{h}{\lambda}## and clarify that the relationship does not directly imply ##\Delta p = \frac{h}{\Delta \lambda}##. The conversation emphasizes the importance of understanding the derivatives involved in these equations to grasp the underlying physics accurately.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of quantum mechanics principles
  • Familiarity with de Broglie's hypothesis
  • Knowledge of calculus, particularly derivatives
  • Basic grasp of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the derivation of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle
  • Learn about the implications of de Broglie's equation in quantum mechanics
  • Explore calculus concepts related to derivatives and their physical interpretations
  • Investigate the relationship between momentum and wavelength in quantum systems
USEFUL FOR

Students of quantum mechanics, physics educators, and anyone seeking to deepen their understanding of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle and its mathematical foundations.

Feynman.12
Messages
14
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



Show that ## \Delta\lambda\Delta\ x>lamdba^2/4*pi##

The Attempt at a Solution



When I substitute de Broglie's p=h/lambda I get the equation of

##\frac {\Delta\x}{\Delta\lambda} > 1/(4*pi )##
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You need to show more of your work. How are we supposed to tell where you went wrong if you only provide us with your final result? (I anyway have a pretty good idea of where you have gone wrong, but I want to see exactly what you did first.)
 
Orodruin said:
You need to show more of your work. How are we supposed to tell where you went wrong if you only provide us with your final result? (I anyway have a pretty good idea of where you have gone wrong, but I want to see exactly what you did first.)

Here is my working
 

Attachments

  • image.jpg
    image.jpg
    44.4 KB · Views: 1,041
The first row is not correct. ##p = h/\lambda## does not imply ##\Delta p = h/\Delta \lambda##. What is ##d\lambda/dp##?
 
Orodruin said:
The first row is not correct. ##p = h/\lambda## does not imply ##\Delta p = h/\Delta \lambda##. What is ##d\lambda/dp##?

I have attached a worked solution in which I came to the right answer so I believe it must be right. However, I still don't understand intuitively why ##p = h/\lambda## does not imply ##\Delta p = h/\Delta \lambda##
 

Attachments

  • image.jpg
    image.jpg
    41.8 KB · Views: 1,176
Feynman.12 said:
I have attached a worked solution in which I came to the right answer so I believe it must be right. However, I still don't understand intuitively why ##p = h/\lambda## does not imply ##\Delta p = h/\Delta \lambda##

Because it is a matter of how a small change in ##\lambda## changes ##p##. If you used your formula, a small change in ##\lambda## would give a huge change in ##p##.
 
Feynman.12 said:
I have attached a worked solution in which I came to the right answer so I believe it must be right. However, I still don't understand intuitively why ##p = h/\lambda## does not imply ##\Delta p = h/\Delta \lambda##
If ##\ \ y = {1\over x}\ \ ## then surely ##\ \ {dy\over dx} = -{1\over x^2}\ \ \Rightarrow \ \ dy = -{dx\over x^2}\ ## . Change d to ##\Delta## and voila !

(Sorry for barging in, Oro...)
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K