Uncertainty of a Gaussian wavepacket

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the uncertainty of a Gaussian wavepacket, specifically addressing the relationship between the uncertainties in position and momentum, denoted as σx and σp. Participants explore the implications of different sources regarding the uncertainty principle, debating whether the product σxσp equals ħ or ħ/2. The conversation includes mathematical reasoning and attempts to clarify the Fourier transform of the Gaussian wavepacket.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants assert that the uncertainty principle should be σxσp ≥ ħ/2, while others reference sources suggesting σxσp = ħ, leading to confusion.
  • One participant claims that certain equations in a referenced source contradict each other and expresses skepticism about the reliability of that source.
  • Another participant suggests that the Fourier transform of the Gaussian wavepacket is not normalized and that correcting this normalization should yield consistent results.
  • There is a proposal that the correct Fourier transform should resemble the original Gaussian form with variables switched, but the normalization of the transform is questioned.
  • Participants engage in clarifying the mathematical expressions involved, with some seeking verification of their calculations.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the correct interpretation of the uncertainty principle as it relates to the Gaussian wavepacket. Multiple competing views remain regarding the correct formulation of the uncertainty relationship and the normalization of the Fourier transform.

Contextual Notes

There are unresolved issues regarding the normalization of the Fourier transform and potential typos in referenced equations, which may affect the conclusions drawn from the discussion.

Isaac0427
Insights Author
Gold Member
Messages
718
Reaction score
163
Hi,

I know that a Gaussian wavepacket has minimum uncertainty. The issue is, some sources are telling me that σxσp=ħ and others are telling me that σxσp=ħ/2. I am really confused. I think the latter is correct due to what I have been taught about the uncertainty principle, but then I don't understand what sources like the following are telling me:
http://oer.physics.manchester.ac.uk/QM/Notes/jsmath/Notesse39.html (see equation 10.17)

However, my own math (to my understanding) gives me a result similar to the link above. Working this out on my own, this is how I understand it:
A normalized Gaussian, where ##\left<x\right>=0## with a standard deviation ##\sigma_x## is
$$\psi (x) = \frac{1}{\sigma_x \sqrt{\pi}}e^{-x^2/2\sigma_x^2}$$
It's Fourier transform is
$$\tilde{\psi} (k) = \frac{\sigma_x}{\sqrt{\pi}}e^{-k^2\sigma_x^2/2}=\frac{1}{\sigma_k\sqrt{\pi}}e^{-k^2/2\sigma_k^2}$$
where the uncertainty in k is
$$\sigma_k=\frac{1}{\sigma_x}$$

This seems to yield
$$\sigma_x\sigma_k=1$$
or
$$\sigma_x\sigma_p=\hbar$$
Since the Gaussian minimizes uncertainty, the uncertainty principle would thus be
$$\sigma_x\sigma_p\geq \hbar$$
as the linked article suggests. To my knowledge, however, the uncertainty principle is
$$\sigma_x\sigma_p\geq\frac{\hbar}{2}$$
What is going on here?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Isaac0427 said:
I think the latter is correct
True
Isaac0427 said:
but then I don't understand what sources like the following are telling me:
http://oer.physics.manchester.ac.uk/QM/Notes/jsmath/Notesse39.html (see equation 10.17)
Equation 10.13 is correct, but 10.17 cannot be (they contradict!). I don't think that site is very reliable and accurate. I spotted other typos there too. May be try doing the math instead of trusting it.
 
Stavros Kiri said:
May be try doing the math instead of trusting it.
Right-- I edited that into the original post. Could you tell me what I did wrong there?
 
Looking back at the link, I think I found the mistake. Equation 10.21 is the key and is correct (yields Δp = ħ/σ√2), but equations 10.17 and 10.22 are both wrong (typo).

Do you still want me to check your Fourier transform method?
 
Last edited:
Stavros Kiri said:
Do you still want me to check your Fourier tranforms?
If you could, as I still don't know what I did wrong there.
 
Ok. I think that although the original gaussian is correct and normalized, the Fourier transform isn't normalized. When you normalize it you should get the same form as the original (just x and k switched, I think) and the correct result ...
 
Stavros Kiri said:
Ok. I think that although the original gaussian is correct and normalized, the Fourier transform isn't normalized. When you normalize it you should get the same form as the original (just x and k switched, I think) and the correct result ...
What would the correct result be (i.e. the correct transform)?
 
Isaac0427 said:
A normalized Gaussian, where ##\left<x\right>=0## with a standard deviation ##\sigma_x## is
$$\psi (x) = \frac{1}{\sigma_x \sqrt{\pi}}e^{-x^2/2\sigma_x^2}$$
It's Fourier transform is
Just switch x and k. Just noticed you have it there:
Isaac0427 said:
It's Fourier transform is
$$\tilde{\psi} (k) = \frac{\sigma_x}{\sqrt{\pi}}e^{-k^2\sigma_x^2/2}=\frac{1}{\sigma_k\sqrt{\pi}}e^{-k^2/2\sigma_k^2}$$

But the first part of this last double equation seems to be wrong. How did you get it? Is that equation normalized? The second part is.
 
Last edited:
Hang on. I am fixing the quotes.
 
  • #10
Isaac0427 said:
A normalized Gaussian, where ##\left<x\right>=0## with a standard deviation ##\sigma_x## is
$$\psi (x) = \frac{1}{\sigma_x \sqrt{\pi}}e^{-x^2/2\sigma_x^2}$$
It's Fourier transform is
$$\tilde{\psi} (k) = \frac{\sigma_x}{\sqrt{\pi}}e^{-k^2\sigma_x^2/2}=\frac{1}{\sigma_k\sqrt{\pi}}e^{-k^2/2\sigma_k^2}$$
 
  • #11
All fixed. Just see and reply to #8 above.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
856
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K