Understanding proof for Heisenberg uncertainty

TheCanadian
Messages
361
Reaction score
13
I've uploaded a proof of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle from Konishi's QM. I just don't quite understand one part: what is the significance of the discriminant being less than or equal to 0? Wouldn't this just result in ## \alpha = R \pm iZ ##? Why would this be desired in this proof?
 

Attachments

  • Screen Shot 2016-01-17 at 11.19.11 AM.png
    Screen Shot 2016-01-17 at 11.19.11 AM.png
    25.9 KB · Views: 476
Physics news on Phys.org
TheCanadian said:
I've uploaded a proof of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle from Konishi's QM. I just don't quite understand one part: what is the significance of the discriminant being less than or equal to 0? Wouldn't this just result in ## \alpha = R \pm iZ ##? Why would this be desired in this proof?
He finds an inequality that must hold for all real ##\alpha##.
Simplified, it says: ##{\alpha}^{2}+b\alpha +c \geq 0##
The discriminant of the equation ##{\alpha}^{2}+b\alpha +c = 0## is ##D=b²-4c##.
If ##D>0##, the equation will have two different real roots, ##r_1## and ##r_2##, so you get ##{\alpha}^{2}+b\alpha +c=(\alpha-r_1)(\alpha-r_2) \geq 0## (still for all real ##\alpha##).
But this can't be true for values of ##\alpha## lying between the two roots. Therefore ##D \leq 0##.
 
Last edited:
If I made no mistake just set ##α = ħ / (2<(P-P_0)^2>)##.
 
TheCanadian said:
I've uploaded a proof of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle from Konishi's QM. I just don't quite understand one part: what is the significance of the discriminant being less than or equal to 0? Wouldn't this just result in ## \alpha = R \pm iZ ##? Why would this be desired in this proof?

I'm not sure about the discriminate, but the equation he derives, true for any \alpha, is:

A - B \alpha + C \alpha^2 \geq 0

where A = \langle (Q - Q_0)^2 \rangle, B = \hbar, and C = \langle (P- P_0)^2 \rangle

So if it's true for every \alpha, then in particular, it's true when \alpha = \frac{B}{2C}. Plugging this into the inequality gives:
A - \frac{B^2}{2C} + \frac{B^2}{4C} \geq 0

Which implies AC - \frac{B^2}{4} \geq 0, or \sqrt{A}\sqrt{C} \geq \frac{B}{2}

Going back to the definitions of A, B and C gives us the uncertainty principle:

\Delta Q \Delta P \geq \frac{\hbar}{2}

where \Delta Q = \sqrt{\langle (Q - Q_0)^2 \rangle} and \Delta P = \sqrt{\langle (P - P_0)^2 \rangle}
 
Samy_A said:
He finds an inequality that must hold for all real ##\alpha##.
Simplified, it says: ##{\alpha}^{2}+b\alpha +c \geq 0##
The discriminant of the equation ##{\alpha}^{2}+b\alpha +c = 0## is ##D=b²-4c##.
If ##D>0##, the equation will have two different real roots, ##r_1## and ##r_2##, so you get ##{\alpha}^{2}+b\alpha +c=(\alpha-r_1)(\alpha-r_2) \geq 0## (still for all real ##\alpha##).
But this can't be true for values of ##\alpha## lying between the two roots. Therefore ##D \leq 0##.

Okay, that makes sense since if it's between the two roots then the inequality is not satisfied. But if the discriminant is less than 0, then isn't ## \alpha## now complex and thus not real? Therefore the initial assumption that ## \alpha## is real for the inequality doesn't stand?
 
TheCanadian said:
Okay, that makes sense since if it's between the two roots then the inequality is not satisfied. But if the discriminant is less than 0, then isn't ## \alpha## now complex and thus not real? Therefore the initial assumption that ## \alpha## is real for the inequality doesn't stand?
The inequality holds for all real ##\alpha##. That leads to the condition that the discriminant must be 0 or less. He doesn't care about non-real roots of the equation. Sure they will exist if the discriminant is less than 0, but the inequality has been derived for real ##\alpha##.
 
Last edited:
TheCanadian said:
Okay, that makes sense since if it's between the two roots then the inequality is not satisfied. But if the discriminant is less than 0, then isn't ## \alpha## now complex and thus not real?

No, in the original derivation, \alpha is just declared to be an arbitrary real number. It's not the solution to the equation \alpha^2 + b \alpha + c = 0 (which would be complex if b^2 - 4c &lt; 0).
 
  • Like
Likes TheCanadian
Back
Top