Uncertainty relation: minimum value

fluxions
Messages
50
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


Show that the smallest possible uncertainty in the position of an electron whose speed is given by \beta = v/c is \Delta x_{min} = \frac{h}{4 \pi m_0 c}\sqrt{1-\beta^2}

The Attempt at a Solution


Since \Delta x \Delta p \geq \frac{\hbar}{2}, we see that \Delta x_{min} occurs when \Delta p has its greatest value.

Relativistically, \Delta p is:
\Delta p = \Delta ( \frac{m_0 v}{\sqrt{1 - \beta^2}}) = ... = (1-\beta^2)^{-3/2} m_0 \Delta vNow the greatest value of \Delta p occurs when \Delta v is c.

Hence
\Delta x_{min} = \frac{h}{4 \pi m_0 c} (1 - \beta^2)^{3/2}.

My exponent for gamma is incorrect. Where did I go wrong?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
fluxions said:
\Delta p = \Delta ( \frac{m_0 v}{\sqrt{1 - \beta^2}}) = ... = (1-\beta^2)^{-3/2} m_0 \Delta v

You can apply this only when \Delta v is very small. Here you set \Delta v = c, not small at all! In this case, v_{max}=c and v_{min}=0, which correspond to p = infinity (!) and p = 0 respectively. Obviously \Delta p = infinity, which results in \Delta x = 0, and that's not what we want. Therefore I think that we should reconsider the assumption that the electron may reach to v=c.

I don't get the needed result, but let me present my opinion and see if we can proceed from that. Assume that the electron is free electron (it's free from any potential field). Due to the law of energy conservation, its kinetic energy cannot increase, so v = const and thus |\vec{p}| = const.

However momentum \vec{p} may point to any direction, which leads to the fact that p_x varies. Since p=const, the largest uncertainty of p_x is: max(\Delta p_x) = 2p. Thus: min(\Delta x)=\frac{h}{4\pi m_o v}\sqrt{1-\beta^2}.
 
hikaru1221 said:
You can apply this only when \Delta v is very small. Here you set \Delta v = c, not small at all! In this case, v_{max}=c and v_{min}=0, which correspond to p = infinity (!) and p = 0 respectively. Obviously \Delta p = infinity, which results in \Delta x = 0, and that's not what we want. Therefore I think that we should reconsider the assumption that the electron may reach to v=c.

Oops. Yeah, my approximation is definitely not justified; I feel rather silly for using it.

[/QUOTE]
I don't get the needed result, but let me present my opinion and see if we can proceed from that. Assume that the electron is free electron (it's free from any potential field). Due to the law of energy conservation, its kinetic energy cannot increase, so v = const and thus |\vec{p}| = const.

However momentum \vec{p} may point to any direction, which leads to the fact that p_x varies. Since p=const, the largest uncertainty of p_x is: max(\Delta p_x) = 2p. Thus: min(\Delta x)=\frac{h}{4\pi m_o v}\sqrt{1-\beta^2}.[/QUOTE]

Ok, I agree with your analysis for the most part.max(\Delta p_x) = 2p holds for each value of p, hence v. We can take the max (supremum, actually, since v cannot equal c) of this max by sending v to c. This gives the desired result.
 
fluxions said:
Ok, I agree with your analysis for the most part.max(\Delta p_x) = 2p holds for each value of p, hence v. We can take the max (supremum, actually, since v cannot equal c) of this max by sending v to c. This gives the desired result.

That may be a good estimation :rolleyes:
 
Thread 'Need help understanding this figure on energy levels'
This figure is from "Introduction to Quantum Mechanics" by Griffiths (3rd edition). It is available to download. It is from page 142. I am hoping the usual people on this site will give me a hand understanding what is going on in the figure. After the equation (4.50) it says "It is customary to introduce the principal quantum number, ##n##, which simply orders the allowed energies, starting with 1 for the ground state. (see the figure)" I still don't understand the figure :( Here is...
Thread 'Understanding how to "tack on" the time wiggle factor'
The last problem I posted on QM made it into advanced homework help, that is why I am putting it here. I am sorry for any hassle imposed on the moderators by myself. Part (a) is quite easy. We get $$\sigma_1 = 2\lambda, \mathbf{v}_1 = \begin{pmatrix} 0 \\ 0 \\ 1 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_2 = \lambda, \mathbf{v}_2 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_3 = -\lambda, \mathbf{v}_3 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ -1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} $$ There are two ways...
Back
Top