Understanding the Uncertainty Principle

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the Uncertainty Principle in quantum mechanics, specifically focusing on the concept of minimum-uncertainty states, their characteristics, and implications for energy levels. Participants explore theoretical aspects, mathematical formulations, and interpretations of the principle.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant expresses confusion regarding the statement that the position-space wavefunction of a minimum-uncertainty state is a Gaussian and questions the meaning of minimum uncertainty in relation to energy levels.
  • Another participant clarifies that a minimum-uncertainty state is characterized by the product of uncertainties in position and momentum being equal to ##\hbar/2##, and notes that while not every minimum-uncertainty state is a Gaussian, Gaussians are indeed minimum-uncertainty states.
  • A third participant states that there is no uncertainty in energy for stationary states, as energy is precisely defined in those cases.
  • A detailed mathematical proof of the uncertainty principle is provided, illustrating the relationship between self-adjoint operators and the conditions for minimal uncertainty states.
  • The proof concludes with a derivation showing that Gaussian wave functions represent states of minimal uncertainty, where the product of uncertainties equals ##1/2##.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants exhibit a mix of agreement and disagreement. While there is some consensus on the definition of minimum-uncertainty states and their Gaussian nature, there are differing interpretations regarding the implications for energy uncertainty and the clarity of the mathematical proof.

Contextual Notes

Some participants note the lack of mathematical proof or diagrams in initial statements, which may contribute to confusion. The discussion also highlights the dependence on definitions and the specific context of stationary states in quantum mechanics.

majormuss
Messages
124
Reaction score
4
Hi everybody,
I was reading about the Uncertainty principle and I came across the statement:
"the position-space wavefunction of a minimum-uncertainty state is a Gaussian. Indeed, because it’s a minimum-uncertainty state, its momentum-space wavefunction is also a Gaussian."
Unfortunately it was stated without any mathematical proof or diagrams so I am a bit puzzled! Also,
what does it mean exactly that:
"The first energy level of a system is minimum uncertainty."
My guess it that it means for lower energies the uncertainty in the energy is minimum. However, due to the quantized nature of the energy levels, how is it possible to be uncertain about the energy of a particle?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
A minimum-uncertainty state is one in which ##\sigma_x \sigma_p = \frac{\hbar}{2}##, where ##\sigma_x## is the uncertainty in position and ##\sigma_p## is the uncertainty in momentum. ##\hbar /2## is the smallest possible value for the product of uncertainties in position and momentum, by the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.

I don't know if every minimum-uncertainty state is a gaussian, but it is certainly true that gaussians are minimum-uncertainty states. To show this, do problem 1.14 in Griffiths, Introduction to Quantum mechanics.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: entropy1
The minimum uncertainty refers to the product: σxσp=ℏ/2, as stated above by Lucas SV. There is no uncertainty in energy in a stationary state, as the energy is known exactly.
 
One proof of the uncertainy principle for two observables represented by self-adjoint operators ##\hat{A}## and ##\hat{B}## goes as follows: Let ##\lambda \in \mathbb{R}##. Now we use that the quadratic polynomial
$$P(\lambda)=\langle (\hat{A}+\mathrm{i} \lambda \hat{B}) \psi| (\hat{A}+\mathrm{i} \lambda \hat{B}) \psi \rangle \geq 0.$$
It's ##=0## if and only if (for some value of ##\lambda##)
$$(\hat{A}+\mathrm{i} \lambda \hat{B}) |\psi \rangle=0. \qquad (*)$$
Without loss of generality we can assume that
$$\langle A \rangle=\langle{B} \rangle=0,$$
because otherwise we can consider the observables ##\hat{A}-\langle A \rangle \hat{1}## and ##\hat{B}-\langle B \rangle \hat{1}##. Now due to the self-adjointness of the operators and since ##\lambda \in \mathbb{R}## by assumption, we have
$$P(\lambda)=\langle \psi|(\hat{A}-\mathrm{i} \lambda \hat{B})(\hat{A} + \mathrm{i} \lambda \hat{B})|\psi \rangle=
\langle \psi |\hat{A}^2 + \lambda \hat{B}^2+\mathrm{i} \lambda [\hat{A},\hat{B} ]|\psi \rangle.$$
Since this polyonmial is ##\geq 0## always, it has either exactly one real root, and then for this root (*) is valid or it has two complex conjugate roots. This implies that always
$$\langle A^2 \rangle \langle B^2 \rangle \geq \frac{1}{4} \langle \mathrm{i} [\hat{A},\hat{B} ] \rangle.$$
This is the uncertainty relation.

Now (*) is the condition for the state to be of "minimal uncertainty", i.e., that the equality sign holds in the uncertainty relation. Now take ##\hat{A}=\hat{p}## and ##\hat{B}=\hat{x}##. Now we use the position representation of the space ket and check the solution for (*), given any ##\lambda \in \mathbb{R}##:
$$(\hat{p}+\mathrm{i} \lambda \hat{x})\psi(x)=0 \; \Rightarrow \; \mathrm{i} (-\partial_x + \lambda x) \psi(x)=0.$$
Here and in the following I use natural units, where ##\hbar=1##. The above equation means
$$\psi'(x)=-\lambda x \psi(x)$$
with the solution
$$\psi(x)=A \exp \left (-\frac{\lambda}{2} x^2 \right ).$$
In order that ##\psi \in L^2(\mathbb{R})## we must have ##\lambda>0##. So for any ##\lambda>0## the above Gaussian wave function represents a state of "minimal uncertainty", i.e., for which
$$\Delta x \Delta p=\frac{1}{2}.$$
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: majormuss, Jilang and Lucas SV

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
855
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
4K