Solutions of schrodinger equation contradicts HUP

In summary, the HUP does not preclude states with definite momentum (so-called momentum eigenstates). It simply states that the particle then has equal probability of being anywhere within the well. Thus, we know specifically the momentum of the particle.
  • #1
Maharshi Roy
25
1
By solving the schrodinger equation, we get atmost two solutions for wavefunctions with definite wavenumber and definite wavelength. Thus, we know specifically the momentum of the particle. But this is contradicted by HUP. Please explain.
I would appreciate an explanation in the context of a particle in a box.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
The HUP does not preclude states with definite momentum (so-called momentum eigenstates). It simply states that the particle then has equal probability of being anywhere within the well.
 
  • #3
Maharshi Roy said:
Thus, we know specifically the momentum of the particle.

The particle-in-a-box energy eigenfunctions do not have definite momentum. To see this clearly, calculate the momentum-space wave function for e.g. the ground state, using $$\phi(p) = \int_a^b {e^{-ipx/\hbar} \psi(x)\,dx}$$ where a and b are the "walls" of the box; and then the momentum probability distribution ##\phi^*(p)\phi(p)##.

Going further, you can calculate ##\Delta x = \sqrt{\langle x^2 \rangle - \langle x \rangle^2}## and ##\Delta p = \sqrt{\langle p^2 \rangle - \langle p \rangle^2}## and then their product. If you do this correctly, the width of the box should cancel out, and you will get a multiple of ##\hbar## that is greater than ##0.5\hbar## in keeping with the HUP.
 
Last edited:
  • #4
jtbell said:
The particle-in-a-box energy eigenfunctions do not have definite momentum. To see this clearly, calculate the momentum-space wave function for e.g. the ground state, using $$\phi(p) = \int_a^b {e^{-ipx/\hbar} \psi(x)\,dx}$$ where a and b are the "walls" of the box; and then the momentum probability distribution ##\phi^*(p)\phi(p)##.

Going further, you can calculate ##\Delta x = \sqrt{\langle x^2 \rangle - \langle x \rangle^2}## and ##\Delta p = \sqrt{\langle p^2 \rangle - \langle p \rangle^2}## and then their product. If you do this correctly, the width of the box should cancel out, and you will get a multiple of ##\hbar## that is greater than ##0.5\hbar## in keeping with the HUP.
For particle in a box, we have a specific wavenumber = n*(pi)/L. This corresponds to a momentum. Actually, what is this momentum? It is not of course the average momentum of all the contributing sinusoids (fourier transform components), because the expectation value of momentum in the particle in a box case is 0. So, what is the explanation of this momentum?
 
  • #5
No! For a particle in a box with rigid boundary conditions (i.e., the box with infinitely high potential walls, which already shows that this is an artificial example to begin with) there doesn't even exist a momentum observable.

This can be easily shown as follows: The momentum operator is, by definition via Noether's theorem, the operator that generates spatial translations. Let's look at the 1-dimensional box for simplicity. From this definition of momentum it follows that
[tex]\hat{p}=-\mathrm{i} \partial_x.[/tex]
The eigenvalue problem reads
[tex]\hat{p} u_p(x)=-\mathrm{i} \partial_x u_p(x)=p u_p(x).[/tex]
It follows that
[tex]u_p(x)=N(p) \exp(\mathrm{i} p x).[/tex]
However, the Hilbert space of wave functions of the finite box is given by the functions that vanish at the boundaries of the box, e.g., the interval [itex](-L/2,L/2)[/itex].

This boundary condition is not fulfilled by any of the putative eigenfunctions and thus there is no essentially self-adjoint momentum operator on this Hilbert space, and thus there is no momentum observable in the usual sense.

The whole thing is different for the Hamiltonian, which you formally define as
[tex]\hat{H}=\frac{\hat{p}^2}{2m}=-\frac{1}{2m} \partial_x^2.[/tex]
The eigenfunctions are
[tex]\hat{H} u_E(x)=-\frac{1}{2m} \partial_x^2 u_E(x)=E u_E(x).[/tex]
This leads to the solutions
[tex]u_E(x)=N(E) [\exp(\mathrm{i} k x)+B \exp(-\mathrm{i} k x)],[/tex]
where [itex]k=\sqrt{2m E}[/itex].

Now we can fulfill the boundary conditions:
[tex]\exp(\mathrm{i} k L/2)+B \exp(-\mathrm{i} k L/2)=0,[/tex]
[tex]\exp(-\mathrm{i} k L/2) + B \exp(\mathrm{i} k L/2)=0.[/tex]
From the first equation you get
[tex]B=\exp(2 \mathrm{i} k L/2)=\exp(\mathrm{i} k L)[/tex]
and from the second
[tex]B=\exp(-\mathrm{i} k L)[/tex]
This means
[tex]\exp(2\mathrm{i} k L)=1.[/tex]
This determines the possible values of [itex]k[/itex] by the condition
[tex]2 k L=2 \pi n \; \Rightarrow \; k=\pi n/L,[/tex]
where [itex]n \in \mathbb{Z}[/itex].

Now for each [itex]n \in \mathbb{Z}[/itex] you can solve for [itex]B[/itex] using one of the equations. This gives
[tex]B_n=(-1)^n.[/tex]
Thus you have
[tex]u_E(x)=N(E) [\exp(\mathrm{i} \pi n x/L)+(-1)^n \exp(-\mathrm{i} \pi n x/L)].[/tex]
Now switching from a given [itex]n \in \mathbb{N}[/itex] to [itex]-n[/itex] leads to the same solution (up to a sign, which is insignificant, because it's just a phase factor). Thus you have to take only [itex]n \in \{0,1,2,3,\ldots\}[/itex].

These solutions are a complete orthogonal set in [itex]L^2[(-L/2,L/2)][/itex], because it's just
[tex]u_n(x)=\begin{cases}
N_n \cos(\pi n x/L) & \text{for} \quad n \quad \text{even},\\
N_n \sin(\pi n x/L) & \text{for} \quad n \quad \text{odd}.
\end{cases}
[/tex]
The normalization constant is given by
[tex]\int_{-L/2}^{L/2} |u_n(x)|^2=1 \; \Rightarrow \;N_0=1/\sqrt{L}, \quad N_n=\sqrt{2}{L} \quad \text{for} \quad n \in \{1,2,\ldots\}.[/tex]
The well-known theorems about Fourier series thus tell you that indeed this is a complete set of orthonormal function, because obviously
[tex]\langle u_n|u_{n'} \rangle=\delta_{nn'}[/tex]
with the so chosen normlization constants.
 
Last edited:
  • #6
Maharshi Roy said:
For particle in a box, we have a specific wavenumber = n*(pi)/L. This corresponds to a momentum.

However, this is the unique and definite (magnitude of) momentum of the particle only if this is a monochromatic wave that extends to infinity in both directions. Two infinitely-long monochromatic waves with equal wavelength and frequency, traveling in opposite directions, would produce a standing wave with momentum +p and -p, which we might represent as the sum of two Dirac delta functions in momentum space. This standing wave also extends to infinity in both directions.

To get a particle-in-a-box wavefunction, we have to "chop off" this infinitely-long standing wave at two of the nodes. In terms of a superposition of infinitely-long waves, we have to add more waves with a variety of wavelengths, chosen such as to cancel the original waves outside the box. This is where the "extra" momentum values come from, for the particle-in-a-box.
 
Last edited:

Related to Solutions of schrodinger equation contradicts HUP

What is the Schrodinger equation?

The Schrodinger equation is a mathematical equation that describes the behavior of quantum mechanical systems. It was developed by Austrian physicist Erwin Schrodinger in 1926 and is a fundamental equation in quantum mechanics.

What is the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle (HUP)?

The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is a fundamental principle in quantum mechanics that states that it is impossible to simultaneously know the exact position and momentum of a particle. This means that the more precisely we know the position of a particle, the less precisely we can know its momentum and vice versa.

How do the solutions of the Schrodinger equation contradict the HUP?

The solutions of the Schrodinger equation describe the wave-like behavior of particles in quantum mechanics. However, the HUP states that it is impossible to know both the position and momentum of a particle at the same time. This means that the solutions of the Schrodinger equation violate the HUP as they allow for the simultaneous knowledge of both the position and momentum of a particle.

How do scientists reconcile the contradiction between the Schrodinger equation and the HUP?

Scientists have proposed various interpretations and approaches to reconcile the contradiction between the Schrodinger equation and the HUP. This includes the Copenhagen interpretation, which states that the contradictory nature of the two principles is an inherent property of quantum mechanics, and the wave-particle duality concept, which suggests that particles exhibit both wave-like and particle-like behavior.

What are the implications of the contradiction between the Schrodinger equation and the HUP?

The contradiction between the Schrodinger equation and the HUP has significant implications for our understanding of the behavior of particles at the quantum level. It challenges our traditional understanding of cause and effect, as well as the notion of a definite, predictable reality. It also has practical implications for technologies such as quantum computing and cryptography, which rely on the principles of quantum mechanics.

Similar threads

  • Quantum Physics
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
6
Views
803
  • Quantum Physics
5
Replies
143
Views
6K
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
11
Views
1K
Replies
6
Views
852
Replies
9
Views
752
Replies
12
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
2K
Back
Top