Unusual uncertainty relations question

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter liometopum
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Relations Uncertainty
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the uncertainty relations in quantum mechanics, specifically focusing on the relationships between position and energy, as well as position and time. Participants explore theoretical aspects, derivations, and personal calculations related to these uncertainty principles.

Discussion Character

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

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants assert that uncertainty relations arise from the commutation relations between canonically conjugate operators, such as position and momentum.
  • One participant claims there is no uncertainty relation for position and time, as time is not an observable and lacks a corresponding operator.
  • Another participant argues that a time-energy relation exists, although its validity is debated, and references multiple derivations of it.
  • Participants discuss the dependence of the uncertainty principle for position and energy on the specific Hamiltonian of the system.
  • One participant shares their own calculations for time-position and energy-position uncertainty, presenting specific numerical values.
  • Another participant suggests rearranging uncertainty equations to derive a relationship involving ΔE/ΔT, which they relate to the Planck Power.
  • There is mention of the uncertainty principle for two observables and the expectation value of the operator C, emphasizing that it depends on the state of the system.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the existence and interpretation of uncertainty relations involving time and energy, as well as the relationship between position and energy. The discussion remains unresolved with multiple competing perspectives presented.

Contextual Notes

Participants note that the uncertainty relations depend on the specific Hamiltonian used, and there are unresolved mathematical steps in deriving these relations. The discussion also highlights the lack of consensus on the validity of certain uncertainty relations.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to those studying quantum mechanics, particularly in understanding uncertainty relations and their implications in various physical systems.

liometopum
Messages
126
Reaction score
24
What are the uncertainty relations for the following:

1. position and energy?

2. position and time?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The uncertainty relations come about from the commutation relations between canonically conjugate operators such as position and momentum.

The operator corresponding to energy is the Hamiltonian, which is specified in terms of canonically conjugate operators. So you would need to specify the Hamiltonian, derive the commutation relation, then derive an uncertainty principle.

There is no uncertainty relation for position and time, because time is not an observable, and there is no operator corresponding to time.

Once you have the commutation relation, the related uncertainty principle is given by Eq 4.46 of http://www.eng.fsu.edu/~dommelen/quantum/style_a/commute.html#SECTION07353000000000000000 .
 
Last edited:
Thanks atyy. But a time-energy relation exists, although its "realness" is debated: http://www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/uncertainty.html

So if a time-energy relation can be stated as h-bar/2 (there are several, at least, independent derivations of it), then I am thinking someone has done this with time and.position.

But what about position and energy? I have values and am looking to check them.
 
In the Heisenberg picture, the Heisenberg equation of motion for the (time-dependent) position operator ##X(t)## is given by ##\frac{dX(t)}{dt} = i[H,X(t)]##; then ##V := \frac{dX(t)}{dt}## is called the velocity operator. The exact form of ##V## will depend on the form of ##H##. For example for a free particle we have ##[H,X] = -i\frac{P}{m}## as you would expect.
 
liometopum said:
But what about position and energy? I have values and am looking to check them.

I don't know it off the top of my head. It depends on the system, because the Hamiltonian or energy operator differs from system to system. I indicated how you can derive it in my previous post.

Edit: Check out WannabeNewton's post above.
 
liometopum said:
But what about position and energy? I have values and am looking to check them.
The uncertainty principle for two observables A and B is ΔAΔB ≥ |<C>| with C = [A,B]. You cannot expect |<C>| to yield a general value like hbar/2 for arbitrary A and B because it is the expectation value of the operator C and thus depends on the state of the system.

A state-independent value libe hbar/2 can be given only in the case of conjugated variables like position and momentum because there, C is proportional to the identity operator, so its expectation value doesn't depend on the state.

/edit: For uncertainty relations involving time see wikipedia and the corresponding paper by Mandelstam and Tamm.
 
Last edited:
Let me just share what I calculated, using my own method:

Time-position uncertainty
ΔT×Δx= (Gℏ)/(c⁴) = 8.7114×10⁻⁷⁹ m s

Energy-position uncertainty:
ΔE×Δx=(cℏ)/2= 1.58076×10⁻²⁶ J m
 
Oh yes, as a method of checking, if we rearrange the two uncertainty equations so that Δx=(cℏ)/(2ΔE) and Δx= (Gℏ)/(c⁴ΔT), set them equal and do the math, we get: ΔE/ΔT=c⁵/2G.
That expression, ΔE/ΔT, is one-half the Planck Power.
 
liometopum said:
Let me just share what I calculated, using my own method:

Time-position uncertainty
ΔT×Δx= (Gℏ)/(c⁴) = 8.7114×10⁻⁷⁹ m s

Energy-position uncertainty:
ΔE×Δx=(cℏ)/2= 1.58076×10⁻²⁶ J m


What Hamiltonian are you referring to?
 
  • #10
I did not use a standard QM approach. I developed my own method.
 
  • #11
Closed, pending moderation.

Zz.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
947
  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
2K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K