Spin 1/2 Particle: Uncertainty Principle Explained

Molar
Messages
45
Reaction score
19
In my book (Griffiths) it is said :

A particle is in ↑ state.
The z-component of the particle's spin angular momentum [Sz] is h bar/2.
The x- component of the particle's spin angular momentum [Sx] can be either h bar/2 or
-h bar /2
.

He says this is for uncertainty principle...that both Sz and Sx can't have definite value.
This is where i am having difficulties.

I mean it is always strictly like this that z component would give certain values and uncertainty would follow
x-component...?
or just because we have measured z component first...ie, if we had measured x-component first then we would
have the value h bar /2 for x- component and the uncertainty principle would act on z-component...??
or because spin is always defined along Z axis...?

thanks...
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Molar said:
or just because we have measured z component first...ie, if we had measured x-component first then we would
have the value h bar /2 for x- component and the uncertainty principle would act on z-component...??
Right.

The particle had to have been prepared in the state with respect to the z-axis. It could have been any axis--they just like to pick on the z-axis for some reason.
 
  • Like
Likes Molar and bhobba
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...

Similar threads

Back
Top