Understanding the Meaning of Infinity in Uncertainty Principle

  • Thread starter Thread starter spidey
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Uncertainty
spidey
Messages
213
Reaction score
0
for ∆x ∆p ≥ ћ / 2 ..if ∆p = 0, then ∆x is infinity..what is the meaning of this infinity?
does this mean it exist everywhere or it don't exist at all?
my thinking is ..if we say it exist everywhere, then we are certain of its position which itself contradicts with ∆x is infinity..moreover,something cannot exist everywhere since absolute is prohibited in relativity..so we are left with second option..am i correct?
can anyone give meaning of this infinity?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
spidey said:
for ∆x ∆p ≥ ћ / 2 ..if ∆p = 0, then ∆x is infinity..what is the meaning of this infinity?
does this mean it exist everywhere or it don't exist at all?
my thinking is ..if we say it exist everywhere, then we are certain of its position which itself contradicts with ∆x is infinity..moreover,something cannot exist everywhere since absolute is prohibited in relativity..so we are left with second option..am i correct?
can anyone give meaning of this infinity?

I think you are carrying the same misconception of the HUP that I've described many times before on here.

If the momentum uncertainty is zero, then it means two things:

1. the statistical spread in the measured position is so wide that the repeated measurement of the position gives you the conclusion that standard deviation is infinite.

2. your ability to predict the position of the next particle is zero since the particle can be anywhere.

Zz.
 
spidey said:
does this mean it exist everywhere or it don't exist at all?

QM (the mathematical formalism) does not address the question, "where does the particle 'really exist' before we observe/measure it?" That is the subject of interpretations of QM, of which there are several, and about which there is much heated debate in this forum and elsewhere.

As Zz notes, as far as QM is concerned (regardless of interpretation) the HUP is a statistical statement related to the probabilities that we will measure/observe various values for the particle's position or momentum, when we do measure/observe it.
 
ZapperZ said:
I think you are carrying the same misconception of the HUP that I've described many times before on here.

Zz.

sorry Zapperz..ever since Heisenberg given this, many layman are having uncertainties in the meaning of uncertainty principle..i am one of them:frown:..
 
Not an expert in QM. AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is quite different from the classical wave equation. The former is an equation for the dynamics of the state of a (quantum?) system, the latter is an equation for the dynamics of a (classical) degree of freedom. As a matter of fact, Schrödinger's equation is first order in time derivatives, while the classical wave equation is second order. But, AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is a wave equation; only its interpretation makes it non-classical...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. Towards the end of the first lecture for the Qiskit Global Summer School 2025, Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Olivia Lanes (Global Lead, Content and Education IBM) stated... Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/quantum-entanglement-is-a-kinematic-fact-not-a-dynamical-effect/ by @RUTA
Is it possible, and fruitful, to use certain conceptual and technical tools from effective field theory (coarse-graining/integrating-out, power-counting, matching, RG) to think about the relationship between the fundamental (quantum) and the emergent (classical), both to account for the quasi-autonomy of the classical level and to quantify residual quantum corrections? By “emergent,” I mean the following: after integrating out fast/irrelevant quantum degrees of freedom (high-energy modes...
Back
Top