home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!gatech!mailer.cc.fsu.edu!sun13!ds8.scri.fsu.edu!jac
- From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
- Newsgroups: sci.physics
- Subject: Re: Uncertainty Principle
- Message-ID: <10598@sun13.scri.fsu.edu>
- Date: 5 Sep 92 02:17:13 GMT
- References: <1992Sep4.170847.235@prim> <5273@tuegate.tue.nl>
- Sender: news@sun13.scri.fsu.edu
- Reply-To: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
- Organization: SCRI, Florida State University
- Lines: 32
-
- In article <5273@tuegate.tue.nl> johan@blade.stack.urc.tue.nl (Johan Wevers) writes:
- >I thought that this was the first way the UP was derived, but it is not
- >correct. The UP in essential for the wave formalism from the QM. The
-
- but it does not require the wave formalism for its derivation, since
- the non-commutation of conjugate variables also appeared in the
- Heisenberg matrix method (to his puzzlement till this got sorted
- out in one of Dirac's nice papers).
-
- >From the formalism of QM, you can derive the Robertson equation:
- >
- >\Delta A \Delta B \geq \frac{1}{2}|<[A,B]>|
- >
- >where \Delta A = \sqrt{<A^2>-<A>^2} is the standard deviation in the
- >probability distribution of the observable A, [A,B]=AB-BA is the
- >comutator of A and B. ....
-
- >The only thing the UP says is that two probability distributions from
- >two non-cummuting observables can't become both arbitrarly narrow.
-
- Exactly. And conjugate variables do not commute.
-
- The mathematics speaks. The various explanations involving scattering
- wavelengths and measurement and so forth are pedagogical tools. They
- are not wrong (since the results follow from QM) but they are not
- necessary parts of an explanation.
-
- --
- J. A. Carr | "The New Frontier of which I
- jac@gw.scri.fsu.edu | speak is not a set of promises
- Florida State University B-186 | -- it is a set of challenges."
- Supercomputer Computations Research Institute | John F. Kennedy (15 July 60)
-