Timeline for Minimum possible Kinetic Energy of a confined electron
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
5 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 7, 2012 at 17:22 | comment | added | David Z | @simplysimple you will learn about that when you take a class on Lagrangian and Hamiltonian mechanics (also known as "analytical mechanics" or sometimes "classical mechanics".) It's usually a sophomore-level class in a typical university physics curriculum. | |
| Nov 6, 2012 at 23:53 | comment | added | photon | Yes, plugging the uncertainty of the momentum into the equation for K did seem off. I hope to learn more about the Hamiltonian that I see so much of soon. | |
| Nov 1, 2012 at 17:26 | comment | added | David Z | @dmckee ok, one can indeed use HUP to find the expectation for RMS momentum, but I doubt that this is what people usually mean when they say "minimum," and in any case doing so would require a proper calculation of the expectation of RMS position. In my experience questions which expect this sort of solution are usually based on an incorrect understanding by the question's author of what HUP can and can't be used for - it is a commonly taught misconception. But of course it could be bad wording. | |
| Oct 31, 2012 at 23:56 | comment | added | dmckee --- ex-moderator kitten | Erp...yes. I neglected to pay attention to the "minimum" in the text of the question. Using the uncertainty relationship to find the expectation for the RMS momentum is acceptable because the system is bound (and therefore the mean is zero), but for the minimum, you obviously need to proceed along these lines. None-the-less the OP says that 40 is "correct", so the question may expect the HUP version and just be poorly worded. | |
| Oct 30, 2012 at 6:28 | history | answered | David Z | CC BY-SA 3.0 |