6

If the universe were finite it should mean that the position of a particle can't be uncertain beyond the universe's size itself. If that is true, then what stops the momentum from being in a perfectly defined state, thereby violating the uncertainty principle? I know that to measure the momentum with more precision we need longer wavelengths and in a finite universe we can't go beyond a certain wavelength. But I have also read that HUP is not a problem of observational limitations. So how is HUP upheld in a closed universe?

Midovaar
  • 159
  • 2
    For compact spaces, you get something more complicated than $\Delta x \Delta p \geq \hbar / 2$ indeed. – Connor Behan Jan 27 '22 at 19:13
  • 3
    related/possible duplicate: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/233266/50583 and its linked questions (note that the plane wave state discussed there is a momentum eigenstate in a finite universe, essentially) – ACuriousMind Jan 27 '22 at 19:17
  • @ACuriousMind could you, if possible, dumb down the mathematics in that thread for me please? – Midovaar Jan 27 '22 at 21:50
  • Without the technicalities I don't know what to say except "the HUP you're thinking of does not actually hold for states with definite momentum in a finite universe". – ACuriousMind Jan 27 '22 at 22:57
  • @Acuriousmind ok. I understand it's sometimes difficult to explain things in everyday language without diluting the science too much. Anyway thanks. – Midovaar Jan 27 '22 at 23:40
  • @ACuriousMind ""the HUP you're thinking of does not actually hold for states with definite momentum in a finite universe". Don't the states of definite momentum also not exist? – Lost Feb 21 '22 at 13:55
  • @Lost If you're thinking of the usual situation on $\mathbb{R}$ where the position and momentum operators don't really have eigenstates because their spectra are purely continuous, this is not the case in a finite universe - the position operator is still continuous (but with bounded spectrum), while the momentum operator has a purely discrete spectrum (corresponding to the possible "standing waves" in the finite space) for which ordinary eigenstates exist. (If you weren't thinking of that, please explain what you mean) – ACuriousMind Feb 21 '22 at 15:17
  • @ACuriousMind Yes I was thinking on the lines you understood. That the plane wave eigenstates do not exist since they are not normalizable. But I think your comment clears this up since for a finite universe we will not require the limits to be from -infty to +infty. – Lost Feb 22 '22 at 15:21

3 Answers3

4

The uncertainty principle does not actually say that $$ \sigma_x\sigma_p \geq \frac{\hbar}{2}$$ holds for all states. This is the form it takes for most states, but this isn't a universal rule. The underlying universal rule is actually dependent on the state. If we make explicit the dependence on the quantum state $\psi$, then the general uncertainty principle for two observables $A$ and $B$ is $$ \sigma_A(\psi)\sigma_B(\psi) \geq f(\psi)$$ where $f(\psi) = \frac{1}{2}\lvert\langle A\psi,B\psi\rangle - \langle B\psi,A\psi\rangle\rvert$. This is equal to $f(\psi) = \frac{1}{2}\langle \psi, [A,B]\psi\rangle$ if the commutator $[A,B]$ makes sense to apply to $\psi$, and since $[x,p] = \mathrm{i}\hbar$, this gives the much more famous $\sigma_x\sigma_p \geq \frac{\hbar}{2}$ for such states.

The statement "if the commutator $[A,B]$ makes sense to apply to $\psi$" might seem strange, but it is simply a fact that the mathematics of quantum mechanics lead us to cases where there is a state $\psi$ to which you might apply $A$ or $B$ but you cannot apply the commutator to it. This type of pathology occurs when at least one of the operators is unbounded (i.e. when it can, like momentum, have arbitrarily high values). I explain the details of these mathematics for the position and momentum operator on a finite "universe" in this answer of mine. A momentum eigenstate in a finite universe is exactly this type of state, but it has $f(\psi) = 0$ for the non-commutator version, so the uncertainty principle for such states reads $$ \sigma_x\sigma_p\geq 0,$$ which is always true, so there is no contradiction.

ACuriousMind
  • 124,833
0

There is an analogue of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle that holds if one replaces $\mathbb{R}$ by a finite abelian group; it is easy to prove. Look up for "Donoho-Stark" or just "uncertainty principle for finite abelian groups".

EDIT: If $G$ is a topological group, let us denote by $\hat{G}$ the group (for pointwise multiplication) of continuous morphisms $G \rightarrow \{z \in \mathbb{C} \ \vert \ \vert z \vert = 1\}$.

The group $\hat{G}$ is called the dual of $G$. If $f$ is a function on $G$, we denote by $\hat{f}$ the function on $\hat{G}$ defined by the formula $\xi \mapsto \int_G f(g) \xi(g)dg$ whenever an integral on $G$ is defined and this integral converges.

When $G = \mathbb{R}$, the map $x \mapsto \left(t \mapsto e^{ixt}\right)$ is an isomorphism between $\mathbb{R}$ and $\hat{\mathbb{R}}$ which allows us to identify $\mathbb{R}$ with its dual, and the usual Heisenberg inequality envolves $f$ and $\hat{f}$. Something quite similar can be done with $G = \mathbb{Z}/n\mathbb{Z}$, which also is isomorphic to its dual.

Plop
  • 537
  • While this link may answer the question, it is better to include the essential parts of the answer here and provide the link for reference. Link-only answers can become invalid if the linked page changes. - From Review – jng224 Feb 20 '22 at 19:33
  • What do you think now? – Plop Feb 21 '22 at 14:42
-1

The magnitude of Planck's constant is very, very tiny. This causes the uncertainty principle to be significant only on extremely small length scales, of order ~ 1 atomic diameter and less. Long before we get to cosmological distance scales (~ millions of light years and more), the effects of the uncertainty principle have shrunk to insignificance and beyond that the universe is governed by newtonian dynamics and ultimately general relativity.

This means that astrophysics does not have to take into account the uncertainty principle at all except at very, very early times after the big bang when the whole universe itself was very tiny.

niels nielsen
  • 92,630