- #1

- 4

- 0

This obviously is just a misinterpretation, but could someone tell me what am I doing wrong?

Thanks,

Humble.

You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

- Thread starter HumbleStudent
- Start date

- #1

- 4

- 0

This obviously is just a misinterpretation, but could someone tell me what am I doing wrong?

Thanks,

Humble.

- #2

- 2,112

- 18

- #3

- 4

- 0

- #4

- 2,112

- 18

I thought it was a basic postulate of quantum mechanics.

It is a basic postulate of QM, but nobody knows what it really means!

For example, I do not belive that anyone could measure a momentum of a single electron that is on a bound state in hydrogen. If it can be done, somebody may correct me.

Another matter is this: If a measurement accuracy isn't infinite, then the particle is not necessarely collapsing onto an eigenstate of a momentum, but instead onto a wavepacket that is localised around some value of momentum. So finding out a momentum of a particle does spread out its position, but not into inifities in reality.

But this means that such an experimental simple set up like measuring the momentum of a particle inside a box cannot be realised?

I don't dare to say it would be impossible. That is a quite theoretical set up. If in some real situation it can be done so that it avoids paradoxes, then it is probably possible

I mean, if you have a macroscopic box, and a particle wave packet bouncing there, then you probably can measure it's momentum there without problems. But if you instead use the box as an approximation of some microscopic system, then you encounter other kind of problems. That question is slightly too theoretical.

Last edited:

- #5

- 4

- 0

And forgot to say, many thanks for the explanation!

Share: