Uncertainty principle and angular momentum

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the uncertainty principle in quantum mechanics (QM), specifically relating to the relationships between position and momentum (\Delta{x}\Delta{p}) and energy and time (\Delta{E}\Delta{t}). It is established that while \Delta{x}\Delta{p} adheres to the uncertainty principle (\Delta{x}\Delta{p} <= h/2), \Delta{E}\Delta{t} does not derive from QM in the same manner due to the nature of energy and time as real-valued parameters. The key takeaway is that non-commuting Hermitian operators in QM cannot be simultaneously measured with arbitrary precision, leading to inherent uncertainty.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of quantum mechanics principles
  • Familiarity with Hermitian operators
  • Knowledge of commutation relations in quantum mechanics
  • Basic grasp of eigenvalues and eigenvectors
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the implications of non-commuting operators in quantum mechanics
  • Explore the mathematical framework of Hermitian operators
  • Research the role of eigenvalues in quantum measurements
  • Investigate the differences between classical and quantum uncertainty principles
USEFUL FOR

Students of physics, quantum mechanics researchers, and anyone interested in the foundational principles of uncertainty in quantum systems.

Upisoft
Messages
350
Reaction score
0
[itex]\Delta{x}\Delta{p}[/itex], [itex]\Delta{E}\Delta{t}[/itex] and particle spin all have units of angular momentum and have ability to be quit uncertain... Any idea if they have something in common (except the units of measurement)?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Upisoft said:
[itex]\Delta{x}\Delta{p}[/itex], [itex]\Delta{E}\Delta{t}[/itex] and particle spin all have units of angular momentum and have ability to be quit uncertain... Any idea if they have something in common (except the units of measurement)?

Before I try to answer the question, one correction is in order. Yes, the uncertainty principle states that [itex]\Delta{x}\Delta{p} <= h/2[/itex], but the same kind of statement does not come from QM (at least not directly) for [itex]\Delta{E}\Delta{t}[/itex]. This is because X and P are are operators in QM, but E and t are not. E and t are real valued parameters.

OK, back to the uncertainty: in QM, any two Hermitian operators which do not commute with each other cannot be simultaneously diagonalized. Translated into plain English, this says that the eigenvalues of the two operators cannot be measured with arbitrary precision without affecting the other's eigenvalues. All uncertainty relations in QM have this feature in common: there is an underlying non-zero commutator for the two operators in question. If on the other hand, you have two commuting operators, then you can measure both of them with arbitrary precision without affecting the other, and there is no corresponding uncertainty relation for them.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
794
  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
974
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K