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
 
Not an expert in QM. AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is quite different from the classical wave equation. The former is an equation for the dynamics of the state of a (quantum?) system, the latter is an equation for the dynamics of a (classical) degree of freedom. As a matter of fact, Schrödinger's equation is first order in time derivatives, while the classical wave equation is second order. But, AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is a wave equation; only its interpretation makes it non-classical...
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
Is it possible, and fruitful, to use certain conceptual and technical tools from effective field theory (coarse-graining/integrating-out, power-counting, matching, RG) to think about the relationship between the fundamental (quantum) and the emergent (classical), both to account for the quasi-autonomy of the classical level and to quantify residual quantum corrections? By “emergent,” I mean the following: after integrating out fast/irrelevant quantum degrees of freedom (high-energy modes...
Back
Top