Heisenberg Uncertainty in wavelength and position

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle as it relates to wavelength and position, specifically addressing the inequality involving changes in wavelength and position. Participants are examining the implications of de Broglie's relation between momentum and wavelength.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants are questioning the validity of the original poster's manipulation of the relationship between momentum and wavelength. There are requests for more detailed work to identify potential errors in reasoning.

Discussion Status

Some participants are providing feedback on the original poster's approach, suggesting that the relationship between changes in momentum and wavelength needs further clarification. There is an ongoing exploration of the assumptions underlying the mathematical expressions used.

Contextual Notes

Participants are discussing the implications of small changes in wavelength on momentum, indicating a need to understand the derivatives involved. There is a mention of a worked solution provided by the original poster, which they believe is correct, but there remains uncertainty about the underlying concepts.

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: 1,050
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: 1,186
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