2
$\begingroup$

If I have three general observables, $\hat{C}$, $\hat{H}$, and $\hat{L}$, and the commutation relation between $\hat{C}$ and $\hat{H}$ is given by,

$$ [\hat{C}, \hat{H}] = \hbar \hat{L} $$

At the moment, assume nothing about the observables. Since the general uncertainty principle is given (in Griffiths QM) as:

$$ \sigma_A^2\sigma_B^2 \geq \left( \frac{1}{2i}\langle [\hat{A}, \hat{B}] \rangle \right)^2 $$

Then,

\begin{align} \sigma_C^2\sigma_H^2 &\geq \left( \frac{1}{2i}\langle [\hat{C}, \hat{H}] \rangle \right)^2\\ \sigma_C\sigma_H &\geq \frac{1}{2i}\langle [\hat{C}, \hat{H}] \rangle = \frac{\hbar}{2i}\langle \hat{L}\rangle \end{align}

Now suppose that I make an observation of $\hat{C}$ with no uncertainty. Since I know nothing about $\hat{L}$, nor its expectation value, can I say whether I can determine $\hat{H}$ with no uncertainty?

Suppose $\hat{L}$ is location, the same as the traditional position operator. The commutation relation implies that in general $\hat{C}$ and $\hat{H}$ do not commute, yet surely $\langle\hat{L}\rangle$ can be zero, and so,

$$ \sigma_C\sigma_H = 0 $$

Which means that I can know $\hat{H}$ with no uncertainty. Is this a contradiction? Does the commutation relation described even make sense?

$\endgroup$
4
$\begingroup$

Yes the uncertainty relation does make sense and is correct in all cases. However it is of quite limited usefulness, if $L$ is not just a commuting number (as it is for momentum and position), because then the right hand side will depend on the state and does therefore not imply a fixed threshold. For $\sigma_C$ to be zero, you'll have to be in a very specific set of states and then the relation then simply implies, that for that set of states, $\left< L \right>$ will have to be zero as well.

Another point, where you have to be careful with your argumentation, is if you do consider operators with a continuous spectrum such as momentum and position: Those do not have proper eigenstates (that is, eigenstates that lie in the Hilbert space of normalizable states), so there is no state with $\sigma_x = 0$, however, if you select a series of states such that $\sigma_x \to 0$, then for that sequence of states you will always have $\sigma_p \to \infty$ in such a way, that for all points in the sequence $\sigma_x \sigma_p \ge \frac 1 2 \hbar$, and in this sense the inequality also holds in the limit.

$\endgroup$
2
$\begingroup$

This commutation relation does make sense. I guess you are inspired by the commutation relation of the angular momentum, and taking it makes a clear example:

The components of the angular momentum follow the commutation relation

$$[L_x, L_y] = i \hbar L_z $$

If we were to configure a quantum system in such a way that the expected value $\langle L_z \rangle = 0$, given a measure of one of the components, e.g. $L_x$, as $L^2$ can be determined in a compatible way with $L_x$, you could find $L_y$ via $L^2 = L_x^2 +L_y^2 $, and since the system was constructed to have $L_z = 0$ there is no further uncertainty than that of the measurement.

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.