Heisenberg Uncertainty in wavelength and position

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around demonstrating the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle in the context of wavelength and position, specifically the inequality ΔλΔx > λ²/4π. Participants emphasize the need for detailed work in problem-solving to identify errors, particularly regarding the incorrect assumption that Δp = h/Δλ follows directly from p = h/λ. Clarification is sought on the relationship between small changes in wavelength and momentum, highlighting that a small change in wavelength can lead to a significant change in momentum. A worked solution is provided by one participant, but the intuitive understanding of the relationship remains a point of confusion. The conversation underscores the importance of careful mathematical treatment in quantum mechanics.
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: 1,023
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: 1,160
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...)
 
Back
Top