Particle in a box and Heisenberg Uncertainty principle paradox?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the implications of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle in the context of a particle confined in a one-dimensional box. Participants explore the relationship between position and momentum uncertainties and the apparent paradox that arises when attempting to measure momentum with high precision while the particle remains confined.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant outlines a scenario involving a particle in a box, calculating uncertainties in position and momentum based on the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.
  • The same participant expresses confusion over a contradiction that arises when attempting to measure momentum with perfect accuracy, suggesting that there may be an error in their reasoning or formulas used.
  • Another participant references a paper that may provide insight into the issue, though it is noted to be advanced for the original poster.
  • A different participant proposes a simpler explanation, stating that measuring momentum with high accuracy would require an apparatus larger than the box, which would compromise the confinement of the particle and increase position uncertainty.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the resolution of the paradox. There are competing views regarding the implications of measurement and uncertainty in quantum mechanics, with some suggesting advanced concepts while others offer more intuitive explanations.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the original poster's self-identified lack of familiarity with advanced quantum mechanics concepts, which may affect their understanding of the discussion. The reliance on specific formulas and assumptions about measurement techniques also introduces potential ambiguities.

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.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
957
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K