# Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle's inequality [closed]

In the uncertainty principle , whats the significance of the inequality sign ?
Why is it not equal to over there ?
Why do we say greater than equal to instead of just equal to ?

## closed as off-topic by jonsca♦Mar 25 '15 at 22:44

• This question does not appear to be about chemistry within the scope defined in the help center.
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

• The HUP just gives a lower bound in the uncertainty of $\Delta x$ and $\Delta p_x$, it is of course possible to measure both quantities with a higher uncertainty than given by the HUP, but not less. – ahemmetter Mar 25 '15 at 11:27
• Also, this is better moved to physics.SE – ahemmetter Mar 25 '15 at 11:31
• @andynitrox So the minimum uncertainty that will be there is given by it and uncertainty can be more than it too ? – pikachu Mar 25 '15 at 11:45
• physics.stackexchange.com/questions/170684/… – Mithoron Mar 25 '15 at 11:46
• @Mithoron Got it ! Thanks . Should I delete this post since it has an answer over there ? – pikachu Mar 25 '15 at 11:54

## 2 Answers

In addition to my comment further above I might add that the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle has nothing to do with an error in a measurement. The HUP does not state that we cannot measure something more accurately than this lower bound, but instead that it is inherently not determined to a better degree.

To illustrate, the two properties of a one-dimensional wave packet , frequency and location, are similarily interrelated.

Imagine a sharp wave packet, a peak, something like this: You'll have no trouble locating 'the wave packet', simply because it is fairly sharp. Conversely, for a monochromatic (and therefore technically infinitely long wave 'packet'), it is very easy to figure out what frequency or wavelength it has: However, trying to find out where this wave is, cannot really be answered. Keeping in mind that a wave packet is essentially made up of different monochromatic waves with different frequencies and amplitudes, you'll see that the sharper a packet is, the more frequencies it contains, so it will become nearly impossible to say what frequency it has. We can give a lower bound for the accuracy of both measurements: the certainty in the measurement of the frequency and of the location of such a wave packet. We cannot obviously measure both at the same time with arbitrary accuracy. Note that we may very well see exactly what such a wave packet looks like, but we can still not pin-point one single frequency and one single location that desribes such a packet. That is basically the essence of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.

Using the wave number $k$ and as location $x$, we can describe this relation in the case of a wave packet as $$\Delta k \cdot \Delta x \geq 2\pi$$

The case of the wave-particle duality is analog to this purely mathematical example (the factor $2\pi$ comes from the coefficient in the Fourier transform that is used to switch between the $k$-space and the $x$-space).

• Please leave a reference or a link to where the diagrams can be found. Fair use affords these kind of cases, but it's always best to give credit. – jonsca Mar 25 '15 at 22:46
• Thanks for the extra information. I am accepting your answer and not mine since my answer has been quoted from your comments and you won't get the credit if I do so. – pikachu Mar 27 '15 at 18:20

As andynitrox said in the comments :

The HUP just gives a lower bound in the uncertainty of Δx and Δpx, it is of course possible to measure both quantities with a higher uncertainty than given by the HUP, but not less.

The inequality exists to show that, the uncertainty is atleast this much and in real-life cases, its much larger than this . (source)(provided by Mithoron)

• Refer this for more information. – pikachu Mar 27 '15 at 18:21