Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

B Pedagogy and HUP

  1. Jul 7, 2016 #1
    HUP was taught at least to me, as a brute fact that came into existence when my lecturer wrote it on the board...with chalk.

    I was fortunate enough to have already had some background in Fourier Transforms.

    When doing a basic course on SWE and the link between it and wave solutions, the HUP then seemed obvious and mundane.

    Many students however that had not already studied the FT went into philosophical crisis.

    The solution seems obvious;

    Do not mention the HUP until students have seen a lot of concrete examples of FT's in mundane applications.

    My slogan would be:

    FT's first.....then wave mechanics.....then the HUP.

    Thoughts?​
     
    Last edited: Jul 7, 2016
  2. jcsd
  3. Jul 8, 2016 #2

    Demystifier

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    I agree. :smile:
     
  4. Jul 8, 2016 #3

    vanhees71

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    2016 Award

    In my opinion you should not start teaching QM with wave mechanics but use the representation free approach with the advantage that you can discuss the most simple case of spin-1/2 observables (2D unitary vector space instead of the full separable infinite-dimensional Hilbert space). The HUP just follows from positive definiteness of the scalar product. It's not limited to conjugate pairs of observables and thus not limited to (generalized) Fourier transformations.
     
  5. Jul 8, 2016 #4

    A. Neumaier

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    2016 Award

    But it needs noncommuting oservables.
     
  6. Jul 8, 2016 #5

    jtbell

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Just to clarify: SWE = ?
     
  7. Jul 8, 2016 #6

    vanhees71

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    2016 Award

    I referred to the usual Heisenberg-Robertson uncertainty relation which holds for any pair of observables
    $$\Delta A \Delta B \geq \frac{1}{2} |\langle [\hat{A},\hat{B}] \rangle|.$$
    If the observables ##A## and ##B## are compatible, i.e., if the corresponding representing self-adjoint operators ##\hat{A}## and ##\hat{B}## commute, of course, there's no restriction by the uncertainty relation, i.e., you can prepare the system in states, where both observables have determined values (represented, e.g., by a common eigenvector of the operators).
     
  8. Jul 8, 2016 #7
    Schrödinger wave equation.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?
Draft saved Draft deleted



Similar Discussions: Pedagogy and HUP
  1. Confusing HUP (Replies: 2)

  2. HUP: Particles <=> ? (Replies: 2)

  3. Distance and the HUP (Replies: 0)

  4. Road map for QM pedagogy (Replies: 17)

Loading...