Uncertainty principle and uncertainty relations
- 356 Downloads
It is generally believed that the uncertainty relation Δq Δp≥1/2ħ, where Δq and Δp are standard deviations, is the precise mathematical expression of the uncertainty principle for position and momentum in quantum mechanics. We show that actually it is not possible to derive from this relation two central claims of the uncertainty principle, namely, the impossibility of an arbitrarily sharp specification of both position and momentum (as in the single-slit diffraction experiment), and the impossibility of the determination of the path of a particle in an interference experiment (such as the double-slit experiment).
The failure of the uncertainty relation to produce these results is not a question of the interpretation of the formalism; it is a mathematical fact which follows from general considerations about the widths of wave functions.
To express the uncertainty principle, one must distinguish two aspects of the spread of a wave function: its extent and its fine structure. We define the overall widthWΨ and the mean peak width wψ of a general wave function ψ and show that the productWΨwφ is bounded from below if φ is the Fourier transform of ψ. It is shown that this relation expresses the uncertainty principle as it is used in the single- and double-slit experiments.
KeywordsStandard Deviation Fourier Fourier Transform Wave Function General Wave
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.G. Beck and H. M. Nussenzveig,Nuovo Cimento 9, 1068 (1958).Google Scholar
- 2.D. C. Champeney,Fourier Transforms and Their Physical Applications (Academic Press, New York, 1973), pp. 140–142.Google Scholar
- 3.N. Bohr, inAlbert Einstein: Philosopher-Scientist, edited by P. A. Schilpp (The Open Court Publishing Co., La Salle, Illinois, 1970).Google Scholar
- 4.H. J. Landau and H. O. Pollak,Bell Syst. Tech. J. 40, 65 (1961).Google Scholar
- 5.I. I. Hirschmann,Am. J. Math. 79, 152 (1957).Google Scholar
- 6.M. Bauer and P. A. Mello,Ann. Phys. 111, 38 (1978).Google Scholar
- 7.J. F. Price,J. Math. Phys. 24, 1711 (1983).Google Scholar
- 8.N. Bohr,Nature 580, 121 (1928); M. Jammer,The Philosophy of Quantum Mechanics (Wiley, New York, 1974), p. 93.Google Scholar
- 9.J. Hilgevoord and J. B. M. Uffink,Phys. Lett. A 95, 474 (1983).Google Scholar