Quantum Physics Foundations: The Uncertainty Principle and Incompatible Properties

1) Spreads in position and momentum from localized wave packets

In quantum mechanics, a particle’s state can be “localized” in space without being a single point. A localized state is better pictured as a wave packet: a bump-like wave pattern that is concentrated around some region. Two quantitative ideas matter here:

• Spread in position (often written as Δx): how wide the packet is in space.
• Spread in momentum (often written as Δp): how wide the range of momenta is in that same state.

You can understand the uncertainty principle by a simple “Fourier-style” reasoning in words: making a wave packet narrow in space requires combining many different wavelengths. Different wavelengths correspond to different momenta. So, a narrow position distribution implies a broad momentum distribution.

Wave-packet sketch (in words)

Imagine building a localized bump by adding many sine-like waves:

• If you add only a single wavelength, you get an extended wave that never localizes: it stretches across space. That corresponds to a very well-defined momentum but very uncertain position.
• If you add a range of wavelengths, the waves can interfere to create a localized bump in one region and cancel elsewhere. The more tightly you want the bump localized, the broader the range of wavelengths you must include. That corresponds to a larger spread in momentum.

Extended wave (narrow momentum spread, wide position spread):  ~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~ (goes on)  Localized packet (narrow position spread, wide momentum spread):  ......./\.......    (a bump) ....../  \......

This is the core tradeoff: localization in x costs you spread in p. The uncertainty principle summarizes this tradeoff as a lower bound:

Δx Δp ≥ &hbar/2

Continue in our app.

• Listen to the audio with the screen off.
• Earn a certificate upon completion.
• Over 5000 courses for you to explore!

Or continue reading below...

Download the app

You do not need the derivation to use it: it states that no state can make both spreads arbitrarily small at the same time.

Step-by-step: “narrower packet” implies “more momentum components”

• Step 1: Decide you want a state concentrated into a smaller region of space (smaller Δx).
• Step 2: To create a sharper bump, you must superpose waves with noticeably different wavelengths so they can cancel outside the region.
• Step 3: Different wavelengths mean different wave numbers k, and momentum is proportional to k (roughly p = &hbar k).
• Step 4: Therefore, the state necessarily contains a wider range of momenta (larger Δp).

2) Uncertainty is not mainly instrument error

It is tempting to read “uncertainty” as “our measuring device isn’t good enough.” That is not the main point. The uncertainty principle is about the spread of outcomes that is built into a given prepared state.

Even with an ideal measurement device:

• If the state has a wide position distribution, repeated position measurements on identically prepared systems will yield a wide range of positions.
• If the state has a wide momentum distribution, repeated momentum measurements on identically prepared systems will yield a wide range of momenta.

So Δx and Δp are not “errors” of a single measurement; they are statistical spreads of outcomes across many trials for the same preparation.

State preparation viewpoint

Think of a preparation procedure as a recipe: “prepare the particle in this wave packet.” The uncertainty principle says: no recipe can produce a state with both arbitrarily sharp position and arbitrarily sharp momentum. This is a constraint on what states exist, not just on what devices can read.

3) Incompatible observables via “order of operations matters”

Position and momentum are examples of incompatible properties. A practical way to grasp incompatibility is: the order of operations matters when you perform measurement sequences.

Consider two measurement procedures:

• Sequence A: measure position, then measure momentum.
• Sequence B: measure momentum, then measure position.

If the properties were compatible in the strong sense, the statistics of the second measurement would not depend on whether you performed the first. For position and momentum, it does: the first measurement changes the state in a way that affects the distribution of outcomes for the second.

Qualitative commutation idea (no heavy math)

In quantum theory, incompatibility is captured by the idea that the “measurement actions” do not commute: doing one and then the other is not equivalent to reversing the order. You can think of this like two operations on a system that don’t lead to the same final state when swapped.

For position x and momentum p, the non-commuting nature is what underlies the bound Δx Δp ≥ &hbar/2. You do not need to compute commutators here; the key conceptual message is:

• Compatible: order doesn’t matter (or doesn’t change the relevant statistics).
• Incompatible: order matters; sharpening one property unavoidably broadens the other in the state.

4) Worked conceptual example: narrowing a slit increases momentum spread (diffraction)

A classic way to see the uncertainty tradeoff is a particle passing through a slit. Treat the slit as a preparation device: it prepares a state localized in the transverse direction (say, x across the slit).

Setup

• A beam travels forward (call that direction z).
• The slit has width a in the sideways direction x.
• Right after the slit, the particle’s transverse position is confined roughly to the slit opening: Δx is on the order of a.

Step-by-step reasoning

• Step 1 (localization): Make the slit narrower. This reduces the range of possible transverse positions: smaller Δx.
• Step 2 (momentum spread): A smaller Δx implies a larger Δp_x (transverse momentum spread) by the uncertainty principle.
• Step 3 (angles): Transverse momentum corresponds to deflection angle. Larger spread in p_x means the outgoing directions are more spread out.
• Step 4 (observable pattern): On a distant screen, a larger angular spread produces a broader diffraction pattern.

So narrowing the slit does two linked things:

• It prepares a more localized transverse position distribution.
• It necessarily produces a wider distribution of transverse momenta, which shows up as stronger diffraction (more spreading).

This is not a statement about the slit “kicking” the particle due to rough edges (though interactions can also disturb). Even in an idealized model where the slit acts as a clean spatial filter, the prepared state after the slit has increased momentum spread because it is more localized.

5) Uncertainty relations vs “disturbance-only” narratives

A common story says: “We can’t know position and momentum because measuring one disturbs the other.” Disturbance can be part of real experiments, but it is not the whole principle.

Two different ideas (keep them separate)

• Preparation uncertainty (state-based): Even before you measure anything, the state may have intrinsic spreads. The uncertainty relation constrains these spreads: Δx Δp cannot be arbitrarily small for any state.
• Measurement disturbance (process-based): A particular measurement interaction can change the state and thus affect subsequent measurements.

The uncertainty principle primarily expresses preparation uncertainty. Disturbance-only explanations can mislead because they suggest that, with a gentler device, you could prepare a state with both exact position and exact momentum. Quantum theory says you cannot: the limitation is built into the structure of states and the incompatibility of observables.

Practical interpretation

• You can prepare a state with very small Δx (high localization), but then the state necessarily has large Δp.
• You can prepare a state with very small Δp (nearly single-wavelength), but then the state necessarily has large Δx.

In many lab situations, both effects appear: the preparation itself enforces the tradeoff, and the measurement interaction can further modify the state. The uncertainty relation is the baseline constraint that remains even in idealized scenarios.

6) Checkpoint questions (interpretation and precision)

Checkpoint A: Meaning of “no exact position and momentum simultaneously”

Consider the statement: “An electron has no exact position and momentum simultaneously in a given state.” Which interpretation is most precise?

• (1) We lack the technology to measure both at once, but in principle the electron has exact values.
• (2) In that state, the distributions of outcomes for position and momentum cannot both be arbitrarily narrow; the state does not allow both spreads to be zero.
• (3) The electron has exact values, but measuring position physically knocks momentum to a random value.

Choose one and justify it using the ideas of wave packets and incompatible measurements.

Checkpoint B: Spread vs single-shot error

You prepare many identical systems in the same state and measure position each time. You obtain a range of results. What does Δx describe?

• (1) The calibration error of the detector.
• (2) The statistical spread of outcomes implied by the state preparation.
• (3) The distance the particle travels during measurement.

Checkpoint C: Order of operations

You run two experiments on identically prepared particles:

• Experiment 1: measure position, then momentum.
• Experiment 2: measure momentum, then position.

What would it mean (operationally) for position and momentum to be incompatible? Describe what difference you would expect in the statistics of the second measurement between the two experiments.

Checkpoint D: Slit narrowing and diffraction

A slit is narrowed by a factor of 2. Qualitatively, what happens to:

• Δx right after the slit?
• Δp_x right after the slit?
• The width of the diffraction pattern on a distant screen?

Answer using the chain: localization → momentum spread → angular spread.

Checkpoint E: Disturbance-only narrative test

Someone claims: “If we could measure position without disturbing the particle, we could know both position and momentum exactly.” Identify what this misses. In your response, explicitly mention the difference between a state’s intrinsic spreads and measurement disturbance.