Why don't we use the Schrodinger Uncertainty Principle?

  • #1
483
31
I have read that the Schrodinger Uncertainty Principle is an extension of Heisenberg's. So, why don't we use the Schrodinger Uncertainty Principle instead of Heisenberg's?
Thanks!
 

Answers and Replies

  • #2
blue_leaf77
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
2,629
784
  • #4
dextercioby
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Insights Author
13,024
579
The only reasonable answer to the posed question is that:
1. Textbook writers are traditionalist.
2. Robertson's formulation is simpler, thus better suitable for a textbook written for a greater audience.
 
  • #5
483
31
The only reasonable answer to the posed question is that:
1. Textbook writers are traditionalist.
2. Robertson's formulation is simpler, thus better suitable for a textbook written for a greater audience.
Which one do researchers use?
 
  • #6
dextercioby
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Insights Author
13,024
579
I wouln't know, I ain't one. :wink:But this is well-established physics since 1929 anyway.
 
  • #7
483
31
I wouln't know, I ain't one. :wink:But this is well-established physics since 1929 anyway.
oh, ok. So, this also affects [x,p]=ihbar?
 
  • #8
35,269
11,543
Which one do researchers use?
Most of the time: none. The uncertainty principle alone is rarely sufficient to determine what happens, and if you use the more powerful tools of quantum mechanics the uncertainty principle is satisfied automatically.
 
  • #9
blue_leaf77
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
2,629
784
this also affects [x,p]=ihbar?
That's a fundamental commutation relation, so it will not change. In fact this relation affects the particular form of the uncertainty relation involving position and momentum.
 
  • #10
blue_leaf77
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
2,629
784
I have read that the Schrodinger Uncertainty Principle is an extension of Heisenberg's. So, why don't we use the Schrodinger Uncertainty Principle instead of Heisenberg's?
Thanks!
I think it's just a matter of convenience. The general form of the uncertainty principle is like ##(\Delta A \Delta B)^2 \geq C_1 + C_2## where ##C_1## and ##C_2## are real, positive numbers. Now, these two unequalities are true ##(\Delta A \Delta B)^2 \geq C_1## and ##(\Delta A \Delta B)^2 \geq C_2##. Most people, however, choose to use the commutator as the minimum value because I think in most cases, it has special simple form for a given pair of noncommuting observables.
 
  • Like
Likes Joker93
  • #11
George Jones
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,414
1,054
I like what Griffiths wrote in his elementary particles book,"When you hear a physicist invoke the uncertainty principle, keep a hand on your wallet."
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71, Joker93 and Demystifier
  • #12
483
31
That's a fundamental commutation relation, so it will not change. In fact this relation affects the particular form of the uncertainty relation involving position and momentum.
So, does it affect Δx*Δp>=hbar/2?
 
  • #13
blue_leaf77
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
2,629
784
So, does it affect Δx*Δp>=hbar/2?
In your question, what affects what?
 
  • #14
483
31
In your question, what affects what?
We get that inequality for the product of the uncertainty of the momentum and position from the standard inequality(Heisenberg's inequality). Is it more correct to use the other inequality?
 
  • #15
blue_leaf77
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
2,629
784
Is it more correct to use the other inequality?
The other inequality, which is more general, was derived without omitting anything (or at least it omits less frequent than the simpler Heisenberg inequality). This means, the general uncertainty principle is always automatically satisfied for any state. Since it is always satisfied, getting rid of one the terms in the lower bound of the inequality will not affect its validity.
 
  • #16
483
31
The other inequality, which is more general, was derived without omitting anything (or at least it omits less frequent than the simpler Heisenberg inequality). This means, the general uncertainty principle is always automatically satisfied for any state. Since it is always satisfied, getting rid of one the terms in the lower bound of the inequality will not affect its validity.
So, why even consider using the more general inequality if the standard inequality gives a lower bound?
 
  • #17
blue_leaf77
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
2,629
784
general inequality
Which one are you terming as "general", the Schroedinger's or Heisenberg's uncertainty?
 
  • #18
atyy
Science Advisor
14,321
2,552
So, why even consider using the more general inequality if the standard inequality gives a lower bound?
Don't worry about the inequality, it is not (that) important. As blue_leaf77 said in post #9, the key point is the commutation relation which is fundamental, and from which all the inequalities can be derived. All the inequalities are more or less variations of each other.
 
  • Like
Likes Joker93
  • #19
483
31
Which one are you terming as "general", the Schroedinger's or Heisenberg's uncertainty?
I think the more general is Schroedinger's. I am referring to Heisenberg's as the standard one! :D
 
  • #20
blue_leaf77
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
2,629
784
The general/Schroedinger inequality is what one ended up when deriving the lower bound for ##(\Delta A \Delta B)^2##, i.e. it's the true lower bound. As I have tried to illustrate in post #10, the general uncertainty principle has the form ##(\Delta A \Delta B)^2 \geq C_1 + C_2## with ##C_1## and ##C_2## being positive semi-definite. Knowing this, one can say ##(\Delta A \Delta B)^2## is always bigger than either ##C_1## or ##C_2## separately. In other words, both
$$
(\sigma_A \sigma_b)^2 \geq \left( \frac{1}{2} \langle \{A,B\}\rangle - \langle A \rangle \langle B \rangle \right)^2
$$
and
$$
(\sigma_A \sigma_b)^2 \geq \left( \frac{1}{2i}\langle[A,B]\rangle \right)^2
$$
are true. But IMO, people tend to prefer using the second one because a commutator usually has simpler form than an anti-commutator Take for example, the momentum and position operators. Their commutator is a constant while their anti-commutator ... I don't know myself, may be it doesn't have a state-independent form.
 

Related Threads on Why don't we use the Schrodinger Uncertainty Principle?

  • Last Post
Replies
5
Views
821
  • Last Post
3
Replies
70
Views
4K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
423
Replies
3
Views
772
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
29
Views
5K
Replies
3
Views
787
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
9
Views
2K
Top