How Does the Infinite Potential Well Illustrate the Uncertainty Principle?

omri3012
Messages
60
Reaction score
0
infinite potential well and the uncertainty principle

the solution for Schroedinger equation in infinite potential well satisfy the following

energy levels:

5464deee159d922f51c081d408951169.png


where l is the width of the well.

E can't be zero since then \psi=0 so there isn't any particle in the well . i read in

a book that "there is a tight connection between this fact (E\neq0) and the

uncertainty principle", what exactly is the connection?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
I don't know what the author meant, but my guess would be:
- since the well has finite width, the uncertainty in position is always finite, i.e. \Delta X < \infty
- now, if you take time-independent Schroedinger equation H\Psi=E\Psi \Leftrightarrow \frac{\partial^2 \Psi}{\partial x^2}=\frac{-2mE}{\hbar^2}\Psi and put this into momentum uncertainty: \langle P^2 \rangle - \langle P \rangle^2 and calculate the integrals, you obtain that (\Delta P)^2 is something like \frac{-2mE}{\hbar^2}. So E=0 would violate uncertainty principle, since for E=0 \Delta P = 0, \Delta X < \infty
 
Last edited:
Thanks for your time, i really appreciate it.

but i didn't understand two things:

1. how can you assume that H\Psi=E\Psi?

2. why does \Delta X < \infty imply for contradiction in the uncertainty principle?
 
Ad. 1. When trying to determine possible energy values, we look first for a separated solution to the Schrodinger equation, i.e. solution of the form \psi (x, t) = \Psi (x) \phi (t). If the Hamiltonian H is time-independent, separation of variables proves that H\Psi = E\Psi for some constant E (look this part up in any textbook). Now we have to determine possible values of E, and the argument above show that we cannot have E=0. This is actually a bit of an overkill, since the equation \frac{\partial^2 \Psi}{\partial x^2}=0, along with boundary conditions \Psi (0)=\Psi(L)=0, gives \Psi = 0 instantly, but I guess this is what the author had in mind.

Ad. 2. The uncertainty principle says that \Delta X \Delta P \geq \frac{\hbar}{2}. For E=0 we get \Delta P=0 as well, so the uncertainty principle could be satisfied only if \Delta X = \infty. But the well has finite width, so position uncertainty is also finite.

Obviously, this is a very roundabout way of proving that E \neq 0.
 
Thanks,

now it's all clear
 
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
If we release an electron around a positively charged sphere, the initial state of electron is a linear combination of Hydrogen-like states. According to quantum mechanics, evolution of time would not change this initial state because the potential is time independent. However, classically we expect the electron to collide with the sphere. So, it seems that the quantum and classics predict different behaviours!
Back
Top