3

According to me, an object gains relativistic mass as it approaches the speed of light, and $$\Delta x \Delta p \ge\frac {\hbar}{2}$$ So objects with speeds close to $c$, should show less uncertainty in position because an object with a small de broglie wavelength is less likely to spread.

$$\lambda = \frac{h}{m_0v}\sqrt{1-\frac{v^2}{c^2}}$$ $$\sqrt{1-\frac{v^2}{c^2}} \rightarrow 0$$ $$\lambda \rightarrow 0$$

Shouldn't $\Delta x \rightarrow 0$ too?

In short does the uncertainty principle hold true if $\Delta p$ is relativistic? Or it only takes non-relativistic mass into the account but is still correct even at speeds close to $c $?

Tim Crosby
  • 1,323
  • 11
  • 18

1 Answers1

2

The point is that the "$p$" in $\Delta p$ may not have the properties that you think it has because $$p= \frac{m_0 v}{\sqrt{1 - v^2/c^2}} $$ where $v$ is the coordinate velocity $dx/dt$ and $m_0$ the rest mass of the particle. Notice that when $v\to c$ then $p \to \infty$!!

This $p$ is what is conserved in collisions and thus has a meaning for dynamics, unlike the kinematic velocity $v$. In other words, if you do not know $p$ well, you do not know e.g. outcomes of collision experiments well, and that applies even if this corresponds to a very small uncertainty in velocity $\Delta v$.

Now of course, if you reduce $\Delta x$ greatly, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle tells you that $\Delta p > \hbar/(2\Delta x)$. Since $p$ can attain any value in $(-\infty,\infty)$ without violating relativity (see above), there is no conflict.

Void
  • 19,926
  • 1
  • 34
  • 81
  • I didn't say that both theories conflict each other, I I don' understand, if the De Broglie wavelength of an object $\approx 0$ does it imply that $\Delta x \approx 0$ – Tim Crosby Jul 10 '20 at 12:35
  • @TimCrosby The De Broglie wavelength is the wavelength of a particle with sharp $p$ and thus completely delocalized position. The quasi-classical link between De Broglie wavelength and the Heisenberg uncertainty principle can be made by considering that you are "probing" the particle with a secondary particle-wave with momentum $P$. This causes a momentum disturbance to the primary particle $\Delta p \sim P$ and determines its position up to half the wavelength of the probing particle $\Delta x \sim \lambda_{\rm DB}/2 \sim \hbar/(2P)$. – Void Jul 10 '20 at 13:09
  • Then why do macroscopic objects show negligible uncertainty in position and momentum?, I thought that their De Broglie wavelength being so small that it almost looked like one spike.was the reason :( – Tim Crosby Jul 10 '20 at 13:30
  • 2
    @TimCrosby Macroscopic objects show small relative uncertainty of momentum compared to their total momentum $\delta p/p \ll 1$, and tiny relative uncertainty compared to their size $R$, $\delta x/R \ll 1$. This is absolutely no problem as long as $pR \gg \hbar$. The absolute uncertainties will actually always be way larger than the quantum limit in any real experimental context! – Void Jul 10 '20 at 14:11
  • Ty for giving me the correct idea – Tim Crosby Jul 10 '20 at 14:29