What is the Correct Form of the Uncertainty Principle?

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The correct form of the Uncertainty Principle is given by the equation \(\Delta x\Delta p_{x} \ge \frac{\hbar}{2}\), as confirmed by multiple sources including Wikipedia and a math instructor. The version presented in Young & Freedman's "University Physics," which states \(\Delta x\Delta p_{x} \ge \hbar\), is outdated and lacks the precision provided by the factor of 2. While some textbooks may present variations, the modern interpretation is a mathematically rigorous theorem that emphasizes the significance of this factor in quantum mechanics.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of quantum mechanics principles
  • Familiarity with the concept of Planck's constant (\(\hbar\))
  • Basic knowledge of mathematical inequalities in physics
  • Experience with textbook references in physics education
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the derivation of the Uncertainty Principle in quantum mechanics
  • Study the implications of the factor of 2 in quantum uncertainty
  • Explore different interpretations of quantum mechanics and their historical context
  • Examine the relationship between uncertainty and measurement in quantum systems
USEFUL FOR

Students of physics, educators teaching quantum mechanics, and researchers interested in the foundational principles of quantum theory.

Denver Dang
Messages
143
Reaction score
1
Hi...

I have a little question I've been wondering.
In my physics book (Young & Freedman - University Physics) the "Uncertainty Principle" is given as:

\[\Delta x\Delta {{p}_{x}}\ge \hbar \]

But on Wikipedia, and my math-instructor tells me the same, it's given by:

\[\Delta x\Delta {{p}_{x}}\ge \frac{\hbar }{2}\]

The difference being the division by 2.
So, what is the correct one ? And does it even mean anything at all ?
Because, by dividing by 2, aren't you able to determine one of the things even more precisely, or...?

Well, I'm a bit confused, so I hope anyone can tell me the truth :)Regards
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I am not sure about the truth being hbar/2 or hbar or hbar/4...

My perspective will be a little different here: It really doesn't matter.

That number is already very small and a factor of two or four at that scale doesn't really change much.

From a theoretical point of view, everything holds just as good; so that's why different authors are being a little sloppy about the exact uncertainty relationship.

I have been seeing different versions in different textbooks as well but I was ignoring the difference.
 
It's divided by 2. Your math instructor is right.
 
I agree with both xepma and sokrates. Post #8 here might clarify the situation a bit. Some of the arguments you could use to derive the older uncertainty principle might give you the "wrong" result by a factor of 2, but it doesn't matter since it's supposed to be an order-of-magnitude estimate anyway.

The modern uncertainty principle on the other hand, is a mathematical theorem, and it's about a different kind of uncertainty.
 
Huh. I've got a copy of Young & Freedman that someone left in my bookshelf (but who stole my copy of Landau-Lifschitz? Hardly a fair exchange!), and it doesn't have the uncertainty principle or any QM at all in it (just some relativity). Tenth edition. Seems they're up to Twelve now. Guess it might've been a typo in what was new material.
 
The inclusion of the factor 1/2 is correct. It arises from a rigorous derivation of the product of the 2 uncertainties.
 
Thanks :)
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K