Heisenberg Uncertainty in wavelength and position

Join the discussion
Registration is free. Ask a follow-up in this thread, or start your own.
6 replies · 4K views
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: 1,067
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: 1,206
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...)