Validity of Mathematical Proof of Uncertainty Principle

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the validity of a mathematical proof of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle as presented in a partial differential equations textbook. Participants explore the proof's steps, particularly the application of the Cauchy-Schwartz inequality and Parseval's equality, while questioning specific mathematical assertions within the proof.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents a proof of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle using the Cauchy-Schwartz inequality and Fourier transforms, but expresses uncertainty about a specific step involving the equality of integrals.
  • Another participant provides a link to a different version of the proof, indicating that there are multiple approaches to this topic.
  • A third participant questions the assertion that the integral of |ip F(p)|^2 equals the square of the expectation value of momentum, suggesting a need for clarification on the application of expectation values in quantum mechanics.
  • Several participants request book recommendations for quantum mechanics, indicating a desire for further study on the topic.
  • One participant admonishes others for straying off-topic by asking unrelated questions, emphasizing the importance of staying focused on the discussion at hand.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the validity of specific steps in the proof, particularly regarding the equality of certain integrals. There is no consensus on the correctness of the proof or the mathematical assertions made within it.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight potential limitations in understanding the proof, particularly regarding the assumptions made in applying Parseval's equality and the definitions of expectation values in quantum mechanics.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be useful for those studying quantum mechanics, particularly individuals interested in the mathematical foundations of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle and its proofs.

phreak
Messages
133
Reaction score
1
I saw a rather easy proof of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle in a PDE textbook the other day, but I'm not sure if it's correct. The proof goes as following:

Note that [tex]\left| \int xf(x) f'(x) \right| \le \left[ \int |xf(x)|^2 dx \right]^{1/2} \left[ \int |f'(x)|^2 dx \right]^{1/2}[/tex], by the Cauchy-Schwartz inequality. Now, the Fourier transform of df/dx is ipF(p), so along with Parseval's Equality, the right side of the above equation equals:

[tex]\overline{x} \cdot \left[ \int |ipF(p)|^2 \frac{dp}{2\pi} \right]^{1/2} = \overline{x} \cdot \overline{p}.[/tex]

Integrating the left side by parts, we then get that it is 1/2, so that [tex]\overline{x} \cdot \overline{p} \ge 1/2[/tex].

Now, here is my problem with this proof. I don't understand why [tex]\int |ip F(p)|^2 \frac{dp}{2\pi} = \overline{p}^2[/tex]. Using Parseval's equality, this would be fine if the Fourier transform of xf(x) is kF(k), but as far as I know this isn't true. Can anyone point me in the right direction?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
phreak said:
I don't understand why [tex]\int |ip F(p)|^2 \frac{dp}{2\pi} = \overline{p}^2[/tex].

Whatever the observable O, if [itex]\psi(o)[/itex] is the wave function in the representation defined by O (that means, [itex]\psi(o)[/itex] is the amplitude of O having the value o), and whatever the function f(o), the expectation value of f(o) is


[tex]\int f(o)|\psi(o)|^2 do = \overline{f(o)}[/tex]


Apply this to o=p and f(o)=o2.
 
can anybody here please suggest me a book for quantum mechanics.(i'm good at math)
 
@phreak
can please give the name of the book you reffered.
 
Thank you for your comments.

Josyulasharma: The book this is from is 'Partial Differential Equations' by Walter Strauss.
 
Josyulasharma said:
can anybody here please suggest me a book for quantum mechanics.(i'm good at math)

i) don't ask unrelated questions to the thread, i.e don't get off topic.

ii) We have science book sub forum here, look around an you'll find it.

iii) when you do find it, please search for old threads, this question has been asked 100000 times before,
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K