Particle in a box and Heisenberg Uncertainty principle paradox?

Boorglar
Messages
210
Reaction score
10
Say you have a particle in a one-dimensional box of length L.
The particle can only have momentum values of the form
p_{n} = \frac{nh}{2L} according to the De Broglie standing wave condition.

Now say I don't measure the position of the particle, but I know for certain that it is in the box. Then the uncertainty in the position is Δx = \frac{L}{2}.
Therefore, the uncertainty of the momentum is Δp ≥ \frac{h}{\pi L} (where I used Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle that Δx Δp ≥ \frac{h}{2π}.

Now, suppose my instruments are good enough so that their only limit is that set by Heisenberg. Then Δp = \frac{h}{\pi L}. But then, suppose I measured a momentum of \frac{2h}{2L}. Then the uncertainty of my momentum measurement is less than the distance to the next integer-multiple momentum value. Therefore I know, for sure, that the momentum is exactly 2h/(2L) since assuming otherwise would mean accepting values in-between, contradicting quantization. But then the uncertainty is 0, contradicting Heisenberg.

I reach a contradiction. I assume Quantum mechanics are correct, so there must be a mistake in my reasoning. But I don't see it. Can you show me?My only guess, for now, is that one of the formulas I used are not exactly correct, and a more advanced course in QM will explain it better. (By the way, I'm only in a college-level course so I don't know much about QM formalism)
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Hello!

Thank you for the article. I read the abstract and introduction and it does seem to answer the question, but it is way too advanced for me (I have no idea what a "self adjoint operator" is).
 
There is a simpler, less mathematical way to answer your question. As long as the particle is confined within the box, the point is that you simply can NOT measure the momentum with perfect accuracy. To measure the momentum with such a good accuracy you would need an apparatus bigger than the box, which would destroy confinement of the particle within the box. As a result, the uncertainty of the position would become bigger than the size of the box.
 
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!
According to recent podcast between Jacob Barandes and Sean Carroll, Barandes claims that putting a sensitive qubit near one of the slits of a double slit interference experiment is sufficient to break the interference pattern. Here are his words from the official transcript: Is that true? Caveats I see: The qubit is a quantum object, so if the particle was in a superposition of up and down, the qubit can be in a superposition too. Measuring the qubit in an orthogonal direction might...
Back
Top