Course : Modern Physics

Lecturer : Muhammad Aswin Rangkuti, [Link]

PAPER

“Heisenberg Uncertainty and Wavefunction”

Arranged By:

Eri Santi (4173121014)

Ruth Sondang (4173121049)

Margaretha (41731210)

PHYSICS DEPARTMENT

FACULTY MATHEMATICS AND NATURAL SCIENCE

STATE UNIVERSITY OF MEDAN

2019
 PREFACE

First of all, let me give thanks to Allah SWT, for giving His grace and health to us, so
as to be able to complete this Paper of Heisenberg Uncertainty and Wave Function. This
Paper was made to fulfill one of the courses of Modern Physics.

This Paper is structured in the hope of adding to our knowledge and insights. But I
realize that this Paper is still far from perfection.

If in this Paper there are flaws and errors, I apologize that in fact the man must have
been wrong. Finally, I hope that this Paper can provide insight and knowledge for those who
need it in the future.

Medan, November 2019

Author
 CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

1.1. Background

In the period 1924–25, Werner Heisenberg, the son of a professor of Greek and Latin
at the University of Munich, invented a complete theory of quantum mechanics called matrix
mechanics. This theory overcame some of the problems with the Bohr theory of the atom,
such as the postulate of “unobservable” electron orbits. Heisenberg’s formulation was based
primarily on measurable quantities such as the transition probabilities for electronic jumps
between quantum states. Because transition probabilities depend on the initial and final states,
Heisenberg’s mechanics used variables labeled by two subscripts.

Although at first Heisenberg presented his theory in the form of non commuting
algebra, Max Born quickly realized that this theory could be more elegantly described by
matrices. Consequently, Born, Heisenberg, and Pascual Jordan soon worked out a
comprehensive theory of matrix mechanics. Although the matrix formulation was quite
elegant, it attracted little attention outside of a small group of gifted physicists because it was
difficult to apply in specific cases, involved mathematics unfamiliar to most physicists, and
was based on rather vague physical concepts.

The currently held view is that a particle is described by a function  (x, y, z, t)

2
called the wavefunction. The quantity *   represents the probability per unit volume
of finding the particle at a time t in a small volume of space centered on (x, y, z). For now all
2
we require is the idea that the probability of finding a particle is directly proportional to 

1.2. Pupose

The purpose of writing this paper is to fulfill the Routine Task of the course Modern
Physics.
 CHAPTER II

DISCUSSION

2.1. Heisenberg Uncertainty

Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle is one of the most celebrated results of quantum

mechanics and states that one (often, but not always) cannot know all things about a particle
(as it is defined by it’s wave function) at the same time. This principle is mathematically
manifested as non-commuting operators.

A. Introduction

Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle states that there is inherent uncertainty in the act of
measuring a variable of a particle. Commonly applied to the position and momentum of a
particle, the principle states that the more precisely the position is known the more uncertain
the momentum is and vice versa. This is contrary to classical Newtonian physics which holds
all variables of particles to be measurable to an arbitrary uncertainty given good enough
equipment. The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is a fundamental theory in quantum
mechanics that defines why a scientist cannot measure multiple quantum variables
simultaneously. Until the dawn of quantum mechanics, it was held as a fact that all variables
of an object could be known to exact precision simultaneously for a given moment.
Newtonian physics placed no limits on how better procedures and techniques could reduce
measurement uncertainty so that it was conceivable that with proper care and accuracy all
information could be defined. Heisenberg made the bold proposition that there is a lower
limit to this precision making our knowledge of a particle inherently uncertain.

More specifically, if one knows the precise momentum of the particle, it is impossible
to know the precise position, and vice versa. This relationship also applies to energy and
time, in that one cannot measure the precise energy of a system in a finite amount of time.
Uncertainties in the products of “conjugate pairs” (momentum/position) and (energy/time)
were defined by Heisenberg as having a minimum value corresponding to Planck’s constant
divided by 4π4π. More clearly:

ΔpΔx≥h4π(1)(1)ΔpΔx≥h4π
ΔtΔE≥h4π(2)(2)ΔtΔE≥h4π

Where ΔΔ refers to the uncertainty in that variable and h is Planck's constant.

Aside from the mathematical definitions, one can make sense of this by imagining
that the more carefully one tries to measure position, the more disruption there is to the
system, resulting in changes in momentum. For example compare the effect that measuring
the position has on the momentum of an electron versus a tennis ball. Let’s say to measure
these objects, light is required in the form of photon particles. These photon particles have a
measurable mass and velocity, and come into contact with the electron and tennis ball in
order to achieve a value in their position. As two objects collide with their respective
momenta (p=m*v), they impart theses momenta onto each other.
 When the photon contacts the electron, a portion of its momentum is transferred and
the electron will now move relative to this value depending on the ratio of their mass. The
larger tennis ball when measured will have a transfer of momentum from the photons as well,
but the effect will be lessened because its mass is several orders of magnitude larger than the
photon. To give a more practical description, picture a tank and a bicycle colliding with one
another, the tank portraying the tennis ball and the bicycle that of the photon. The sheer mass
of the tank although it may be traveling at a much slower speed will increase its momentum
much higher than that of the bicycle in effect forcing the bicycle in the opposite direction.
The final result of measuring an object’s position leads to a change in its momentum and vice
versa.

All Quantum behavior follows this principle and it is important in determining

spectral line widths, as the uncertainty in energy of a system corresponds to a line width seen
in regions of the light spectrum explored in Spectroscopy.

B. What does it mean?

It is hard to imagine not being able to know exactly where a particle is at a given
moment. It seems intuitive that if a particle exists in space, then we can point to where it is;
however, the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle clearly shows otherwise. This is because of
the wave-like nature of a particle. A particle is spread out over space so that there simply is
not a precise location that it occupies, but instead occupies a range of positions. Similarly, the
momentum cannot be precisely known since a particle consists of a packet of waves, each of
which have their own momentum so that at best it can be said that a particle has a range of
momentum.

Figure 11: A wave packet in space

Let's consider if quantum variables could be measured exactly. A wave that has a
perfectly measurable position is collapsed onto a single point with an indefinite wavelength
and therefore indefinite momentum according to de Broglie's equation. Similarly, a wave with
a perfectly measurable momentum has a wavelength that oscillates over all space infinitely
and therefore has an indefinite position.

You could do the same thought experiment with energy and time. To precisely
measure a wave's energy would take an infinite amount of time while measuring a wave's
exact instance in space would require to be collapsed onto a single moment which would
have indefinite energy.
C. Consequences

The Heisenberg Principle has large bearing on practiced science and how experiments
are designed. Consider measuring the momentum or position of a particle. To create a
measurement, an interaction with the particle must occur that will alter it's other variables.
For example, in order to measure the position of an electron there must be a collision between
the electron and another particle such as a photon. This will impart some of the second
particle's momentum onto the electron being measured and thereby altering it. A more
accurate measurement of the electron's position would require a particle with a smaller
wavelength, and therefore be more energetic, but then this would alter the momentum even
more during collision. An experiment designed to determine momentum would have a similar
effect on position. Consequently, experiments can only gather information about a single
variable at a time with any amount of accuracy.

2.2. Wave Function
The wave function of matter.  Ψ (r, t) is different from the mechanical wave function and

also   electromagnetic   waves,   ψ   (r,   t)   are   complex   functions   and   are   used   for   calculates   the

probability of finding a particle at a particular moment in a small volume in space. Quantity

express the probability of the union of the volume of finding particles at time t at a
2
*  

small volume in space centered at (x, y, z).

A. Electron diffraction in terms ψ

The parallel electron beam is directed at a double slit lattice whose gap width is smaller

than gap between slits D 
 The electron detector is able to detect every electron that comes to it, functions This

detector is for counting discrete particles localized in space every time. If the detector counts

electrons, electrons in different positions vary in the range for a long time, a wave interference

pattern will be found every minute or probability of the arrival of electrons on the screen. The

interference pattern is not only appears when multiple electron beams are fired at once, even

though   they   are   electrons   fired   one   one   until   it   reaches   the   same   number   as   the   number   of

electrons shot at once.

The minimum intensity occurs when the optical path difference between the two beams is

equal to half wavelength 

D sinφ = ½ λ

According to de Broglie's postulate the electron beam will have a wavelength

λ = h / p

for the price of a small angle maka then 

sinφ = φ =

From this equation it appears that dual nature (dualism) of the electrons clearly visible in

this experiment. Although the electron is detected as particles at a spot are localized at a very fast
time,   the   probability  of  the   electron   arriving  at  that  spot  is  determined  by the  invention  the

intensity of the interference of two waves of matter. 

What happens if one of the gaps is closed during the experiment ?. In this case it turns out

a symmetrical curve peaks are obtained around the opening gap.

Iψ 1 I = ψ 1*ψ 1 where ψ 1 is the wave function of matter from electrons passing through gap 1
2

Iψ 2 I = ψ 2*ψ 2 where ψ 2 is the wave function of matter from electrons passing through gap 2
2

Now if in the experiment gap 1 is closed for half the irradiation time while gap 2 is

opened, then at half time the remaining gap 2 is closed while gap 1 is opened, the pattern of

chopped   per   minute   will   be   very   different   from   the   pattern   when   both   gaps   opened.   The

maximum probability of electron arrival at  φ = 0 becomes no there is. The interference pattern

disappears and the result of accumulation is a sum simple from the pattern of the results of each.

results as shown in the following image .
 From the picture the result is easy to understand and makes more sense compared to the

effect interference when both gaps are opened. When only one gap is opened, we know that

electrons have a locality and an individuality same in the gap, as we measure in the detector,

because obviously the electrons move through slits one and two. So the total must be analyzed as

the number of electrons coming from gap 1, Iψ1 I  and electrons coming from gap 2, Iψ 2 I  .
2 2

When second the gap is opened, then we only assume that electrons move through gap 1

or gap 2, and that the chopped per minute is stated by   Iψ1 I2+ Iψ  2 I Obviously we know that the

2  .   

results   of   both   experiments   are   contradictory.   Our   assumption   is   that   electrons   are   electrons

localized and go through only one of the gaps. To determine the probability of the electron being

detected, the screen is the same as the quantity Iψ   1 +  ψ  2 I  , because the two waves of matter

2

when it comes out of each slit not in phase, there will be a difference in optical path when the two

waves arriveat the same point on the screen. Based on the phasor diagram
 |ψ | 2 = Iψ 1 + ψ 2 I 2 = Iψ1 I 2 + Iψ 2 I 2 +2 ψ 1 ψ 1 cosФ
The third term is the interference term that predicts the pattern actual interference is
observed.
 REFERENCES

Serway, Raymond A., Clement, [Link]., Curt, A. Moyer., 2005., New York : Thomson
Learning.

[Link]
lemental_Modules_(Physical_and_Theoretical_Chemistry)/Quantum_Mechanics/02._Fundamental_
Concepts_of_Quantum_Mechanics/Heisenberg's_Uncertainty_Principle