Hi everybody.(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

I have a quick question regarding the relationship between the uncertainty principle and the measurement postulate. According to the former, the higher our certainty is about the position of a particle, the lower our certainty is regarding its momentum, and vice versa. This means that our uncertainty about the momentum would be maximum if we knew the position of the particle exactly. Now, according to the measurement postulate, if we made a measurement and found the particle at a particular position, the wave function will collapse into a delta function, which means that the probability distribution for the position of the particle is now just that delta function. Furthermore, we know that if we were to measure its position again a very short time after the first measurement, we are bound to find the particle at the same position (the wave function remains collapsed for some small amount of time).

But this is where I'm confused. If we know where the particle is now and that we are going to find it at the exact same position after some short Δt, doesn't this mean that the particle just hasn't moved at all and therefore its momentum must be zero? Clearly this can't be true, since that would mean we know both the position and the momentum exactly.

I would really appreciate clarifying comments!

**Physics Forums - The Fusion of Science and Community**

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

# The uncertainty principle and the measurement postulate

Loading...

Similar Threads - uncertainty principle measurement | Date |
---|---|

Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle clarification | Jun 22, 2015 |

Can we accurately measure the momentum of a particle? | Feb 21, 2015 |

Uncertainty principle & simultaneous measurement | Jun 12, 2014 |

Can heisenberg uncertainty principle be beaten by fast measurements? | Jan 11, 2014 |

Is Heisenberg uncertainty principle a problem of our measuring techniques? | Oct 10, 2011 |

**Physics Forums - The Fusion of Science and Community**