Uncertainty principle

In quantum mechanics, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle states precise inequalities that constrain certain pairs of physical properties, such as measuring the present position while determining future momentum; both cannot be simultaneously done to arbitrarily high precision. That is, the more precisely one property is measured, the less precisely the other can be controlled or determined. On the other hand, it is possible to imagine a hypothetical apparatus that measures the history of a particular particle's successive positions and momentums while also measuring times and energies to arbitrary accuracies.

Published by Werner Heisenberg in 1927, the principle implies that it is impossible to simultaneously both measure the present position while "determining" the future momentum of an electron or any other particle with an arbitrary degree of accuracy and certainty. This is not a statement about researchers' ability to measure one quantity while determining the other quantity. Rather, it is a statement about the laws of physics. That is, a system cannot be defined to simultaneously measure one value while determining the future value of these pairs of quantities. The principle states that a minimum exists for the product of the uncertainties in these properties that is equal to or greater than one half of ħ the reduced Planck constant (ħ = h/2π).

Historical introduction

Werner Heisenberg formulated the uncertainty principle at Niels Bohr's institute in Copenhagen, while working on the mathematical foundations of quantum mechanics.

In 1925, following pioneering work with Hendrik Kramers, Heisenberg developed matrix mechanics, which replaced the ad-hoc old quantum theory with modern quantum mechanics. The central assumption was that the classical concept of motion does not fit at the quantum level, and that electrons in an atom did not travel on sharply defined orbits. Rather, the motion was smeared out in a strange way: the Fourier transform of time only involving those frequencies that could be seen in quantum jumps.

Heisenberg's paper did not admit any unobservable quantities like the exact position of the electron in an orbit at any time; he only allowed the theorist to talk about the Fourier components of the motion. Since the Fourier components were not defined at the classical frequencies, they could not be used to construct an exact trajectory, so that the formalism could not answer certain overly precise questions about where the electron was or how fast it was going.

The most striking property of Heisenberg's infinite matrices for the position and momentum is that they do not commute. Heisenberg's canonical commutation relation indicates by how much:

:::$[X,P]\; =\; X\; P\; -\; P\; X\; =\; i\; \backslash hbar$ (see derivations below)

and this result did not have a clear physical interpretation in the beginning.

In March 1926, working in Bohr's institute, Heisenberg realized that the non-commutativity implies the uncertainty principle. This implication provided a clear physical interpretation for the non-commutativity, and it laid the foundation for what became known as the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. Heisenberg showed that the commutation relation implies an uncertainty, or in Bohr's language a complementarity. Any two variables that do not commute cannot be measured simultaneously — the more precisely one is known, the less precisely the other can be known. Heisenberg wrote:

It can be expressed in its simplest form as follows: One can never know with perfect accuracy both of those two important factors which determine the movement of one of the smallest particles—its position and its velocity. It is impossible to determine accurately both the position and the direction and speed of a particle at the same instant.

One way to understand the complementarity between position and momentum is by wave-particle duality. If a particle described by a plane wave passes through a narrow slit in a wall like a water-wave passing through a narrow channel, the particle diffracts and its wave comes out in a range of angles. The narrower the slit, the wider the diffracted wave and the greater the uncertainty in momentum afterward. The laws of diffraction require that the spread in angle $\backslash Delta\backslash theta$ is about $\backslash lambda/d$, where $d$ is the slit width and $\backslash lambda$ is the wavelength. Reasoning based on the de Broglie relation, shows that the size of the slit and the range in momentum of the diffracted wave are related by Heisenberg's rule:

:::$\backslash Delta\; x\; \backslash ,\; \backslash Delta\; p\; \backslash approx\; h.\; \backslash ,$

In his celebrated 1927 paper, "Über den anschaulichen Inhalt der quantentheoretischen Kinematik und Mechanik" ("On the Perceptual Content of Quantum Theoretical Kinematics and Mechanics"), Heisenberg established this expression as the minimum amount of unavoidable momentum disturbance caused by any position measurement, but he did not give a precise definition for the uncertainties Δx and Δp. Instead, he gave some plausible estimates in each case separately. In his Chicago lecture he refined his principle:

:::$\backslash Delta\; x\; \backslash ,\; \backslash Delta\; p\backslash gtrsim\; h\backslash qquad\backslash qquad\backslash qquad\; (1)$

But it was Kennard in 1927 who first proved the modern inequality:

:::$\backslash sigma\_x\backslash sigma\_p\backslash ge\backslash frac\{\backslash hbar\}\{2\}\backslash quad\backslash qquad\backslash qquad\backslash qquad\; (2)$

where ħ = h/2π, and σ_x, σ_p are the standard deviations of position and momentum. Heisenberg himself only proved relation (2) for the special case of Gaussian states.

Terminology

Throughout the main body of his original 1927 paper, written in German, Heisenberg used the word "Unbestimmtheit" ("indeterminacy") to describe the basic theoretical principle. Only in the endnote did he switch to the word "Unsicherheit" ("uncertainty"). However, when the English-language version of Heisenberg's textbook, The Physical Principles of the Quantum Theory, was published in 1930, the translation "uncertainty" was used, and it became the more commonly used term in the English language thereafter.

Heisenberg's microscope

shows that the electron position can be resolved only up to an uncertainty Δx that depends on θ and the wavelength λ of the incoming light.]]

One way in which Heisenberg originally argued for the uncertainty principle is by using an imaginary microscope as a measuring device. Heisenberg did not care to formulate the uncertainty principle as an exact limit, and preferred to use it as a heuristic quantitative statement, correct up to small numerical factors.

Critical reactions

The Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics and Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle were in fact seen as twin targets by detractors who believed in an underlying determinism and realism. According to the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, there is no fundamental reality that the quantum state describes, just a prescription for calculating experimental results. There is no way to say what the state of a system fundamentally is, only what the result of observations might be.

Albert Einstein believed that randomness is a reflection of our ignorance of some fundamental property of reality, while Niels Bohr believed that the probability distributions are fundamental and irreducible, and depend on which measurements we choose to perform. Einstein and Bohr debated the uncertainty principle for many years.

Einstein's slit

The first of Einstein's thought experiments challenging the uncertainty principle went as follows:

:Consider a particle passing through a slit of width d. The slit introduces an uncertainty in momentum of approximately h/d because the particle passes through the wall. But let us determine the momentum of the particle by measuring the recoil of the wall. In doing so, we find the momentum of the particle to arbitrary accuracy by conservation of momentum.

Bohr's response was that the wall is quantum mechanical as well, and that to measure the recoil to accuracy $\backslash Delta\; p$ the momentum of the wall must be known to this accuracy before the particle passes through. This introduces an uncertainty in the position of the wall and therefore the position of the slit equal to $h/\backslash Delta\; p$, and if the wall's momentum is known precisely enough to measure the recoil, the slit's position is uncertain enough to disallow a position measurement.

A similar analysis with particles diffracting through multiple slits is given by Richard Feynman.

Einstein's box

Another of Einstein's thought experiments (Einstein's box) was designed to challenge the time/energy uncertainty principle. It is very similar to the slit experiment in space, except here the narrow window the particle passes through is in time:

:Consider a box filled with light. The box has a shutter that a clock opens and quickly closes at a precise time, and some of the light escapes. We can set the clock so that the time that the energy escapes is known. To measure the amount of energy that leaves, Einstein proposed weighing the box just after the emission. The missing energy lessens the weight of the box. If the box is mounted on a scale, it is naively possible to adjust the parameters so that the uncertainty principle is violated.

Bohr spent a day considering this setup, but eventually realized that if the energy of the box is precisely known, the time at which the shutter opens is uncertain. If the case, scale, and box are in a gravitational field then, in some cases, it is the uncertainty of the position of the clock in the gravitational field that alters the ticking rate. This can introduce the right amount of uncertainty. This was ironic as it was Einstein himself who first discovered gravity's effect on time.

EPR paradox for entangled particles

Bohr was compelled to modify his understanding of the uncertainty principle after another thought experiment by Einstein. In 1935, Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen (see EPR paradox) published an analysis of widely separated entangled particles. Measuring one particle, Einstein realized, would alter the probability distribution of the other, yet here the other particle could not possibly be disturbed. This example led Bohr to revise his understanding of the principle, concluding that the uncertainty was not caused by a direct interaction.

But Einstein came to much more far-reaching conclusions from the same thought experiment. He believed the "natural basic assumption" that a complete description of reality would have to predict the results of experiments from "locally changing deterministic quantities", and therefore would have to include more information than the maximum possible allowed by the uncertainty principle.

In 1964 John Bell showed that this assumption can be falsified, since it would imply a certain inequality between the probabilities of different experiments. Experimental results confirm the predictions of quantum mechanics, ruling out Einstein's basic assumption that led him to the suggestion of his hidden variables. (Ironically this fact is one of the best pieces of evidence supporting Karl Popper's philosophy of invalidation of a theory by falsification-experiments. That is to say, here Einstein's "basic assumption" became falsified by experiments based on Bell's inequalities. For the objections of Karl Popper against the Heisenberg inequality itself, see below.)

While it is possible to assume that quantum mechanical predictions are due to nonlocal hidden variables, and in fact David Bohm invented such a formulation, this resolution is not satisfactory to the vast majority of physicists. The question of whether a random outcome is predetermined by a nonlocal theory can be philosophical, and it can be potentially intractable. If the hidden variables are not constrained, they could just be a list of random digits that are used to produce the measurement outcomes. To make it sensible, the assumption of nonlocal hidden variables is sometimes augmented by a second assumption — that the size of the observable universe puts a limit on the computations that these variables can do. A nonlocal theory of this sort predicts that a quantum computer encounters fundamental obstacles when it tries to factor numbers of approximately 10,000 digits or more; an achievable task in quantum mechanics.

Popper's criticism

Karl Popper approached the problem of indeterminacy as a logician and metaphysical realist. In this statistical interpretation, a particular measurement may be made to arbitrary precision without invalidating the quantum theory. This directly contrasts the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, which is non-deterministic but lacks local hidden variables.

In 1934, Popper published Zur Kritik der Ungenauigkeitsrelationen (Critique of the Uncertainty Relations) in Naturwissenschaften, and in the same year Logik der Forschung (translated and updated by the author as The Logic of Scientific Discovery in 1959), outlining his arguments for the statistical interpretation. In 1982, he further developed his theory in Quantum theory and the schism in Physics, writing:

[Heisenberg's] formulae are, beyond all doubt, derivable statistical formulae of the quantum theory. But they have been habitually misinterpreted by those quantum theorists who said that these formulae can be interpreted as determining some upper limit to the precision of our measurements.[original emphasis]

Popper proposed an experiment to falsify the uncertainty relations, though he later withdrew his initial version after discussions with Weizsäcker, Heisenberg, and Einstein; this experiment may have influenced the formulation of the EPR experiment. A version of this experiment was realized in 1999.

Matter wave interpretation

According to the de Broglie hypothesis, every object in our Universe is a wave, a situation which gives rise to this phenomenon. Consider the measurement of the position of a particle. The particle's wave packet has non-zero amplitude, meaning that the position is uncertain – it could be almost anywhere along the wave packet. To obtain an accurate reading of position, this wave packet must be 'compressed' as much as possible, meaning it must be made up of increasing numbers of sine waves added together. The momentum of the particle is proportional to the wavenumber of one of these waves, but it could be any of them. So a more precise position measurement – by adding together more waves – means that the momentum measurement becomes less precise (and vice versa).

The only kind of wave with a definite position is concentrated at one point, and such a wave has an indefinite wavelength (and therefore an indefinite momentum). Conversely, the only kind of wave with a definite wavelength is an infinite regular periodic oscillation over all space, which has no definite position. So in quantum mechanics, there can be no states that describe a particle with both a definite position and a definite momentum. The more precise the position, the less precise the momentum.

A mathematical statement of the principle is that every quantum state has the property that the root mean square (RMS) deviation of the position from its mean (the standard deviation of the x-distribution):

:::$\backslash sigma\_x\; =\; \backslash sqrt\{\backslash langle(x\; -\; \backslash langle\; x\backslash rangle)^2\backslash rangle\}\; \backslash ,$

times the RMS deviation of the momentum from its mean (the standard deviation of p): :::$\backslash sigma\_p\; =\; \backslash sqrt\{\backslash langle(p\; -\; \backslash langle\; p\; \backslash rangle)^2\backslash rangle\}\; \backslash ,$

can never be smaller than a fixed fraction of Planck's constant:

:::$\backslash sigma\_x\; \backslash sigma\_p\; \backslash ge\; \backslash hbar/2.$

The uncertainty principle can be restated in terms of other measurement processes, which involves collapse of the wavefunction. When the position is initially localized by preparation, the wavefunction collapses to a narrow bump in an interval Δx > 0, and the momentum wavefunction becomes spread out. The particle's momentum is left uncertain by an amount inversely proportional to the accuracy of the position measurement:

:::$\backslash sigma\_p\; \backslash ,\backslash ge\backslash ,\backslash pi\backslash hbar/\backslash Delta\; x$.

If the initial preparation in Δx is understood as an observation or disturbance of the particles then this means that the uncertainty principle is related to the observer effect. However, this is not true in the case of the measurement process corresponding to the former inequality but only for the latter inequality.

Energy-time uncertainty principle

One well-known uncertainty relation is not an obvious consequence of the Robertson–Schrödinger relation: the energy-time uncertainty principle.

Since energy bears the same relation to time as momentum does to space in special relativity, it was clear to many early founders, Niels Bohr among them, that the following relation holds:

Nevertheless, Einstein and Bohr understood the heuristic meaning of the principle. A state that only exists for a short time cannot have a definite energy. To have a definite energy, the frequency of the state must accurately be defined, and this requires the state to hang around for many cycles, the reciprocal of the required accuracy.

For example, in spectroscopy, excited states have a finite lifetime. By the time-energy uncertainty principle, they do not have a definite energy, and each time they decay the energy they release is slightly different. The average energy of the outgoing photon has a peak at the theoretical energy of the state, but the distribution has a finite width called the natural linewidth. Fast-decaying states have a broad linewidth, while slow decaying states have a narrow linewidth.

The broad linewidth of fast decaying states makes it difficult to accurately measure the energy of the state, and researchers have even used microwave cavities to slow down the decay-rate, to get sharper peaks. The same linewidth effect also makes it difficult to measure the rest mass of fast decaying particles in particle physics. The faster the particle decays, the less certain is its mass.

One false formulation of the energy-time uncertainty principle says that measuring the energy of a quantum system to an accuracy $\backslash Delta\; E$ requires a time interval $\backslash Delta\; t\; >\; h/\backslash Delta\; E$. This formulation is similar to the one alluded to in Landau's joke, and was explicitly invalidated by Y. Aharonov and D. Bohm in 1961 . The time $\backslash Delta\; t$ in the uncertainty relation is the time during which the system exists unperturbed, not the time during which the experimental equipment is turned on (As the position in the other version of the principle refers to where the particle has some probability to be and not where the observer might look).

Another common misconception is that the energy-time uncertainty principle says that the conservation of energy can be temporarily violated – energy can be "borrowed" from the Universe as long as it is "returned" within a short amount of time. Although this agrees with the spirit of relativistic quantum mechanics, it is based on the false axiom that the energy of the Universe is an exactly known parameter at all times. More accurately, when events transpire at shorter time intervals, there is a greater uncertainty in the energy of these events. Therefore it is not that the conservation of energy is violated when quantum field theory uses temporary electron-positron pairs in its calculations, but that the energy of quantum systems is not known with enough precision to limit their behavior to a single, simple history. Thus the influence of all histories must be incorporated into quantum calculations, including those with much greater or much less energy than the mean of the measured/calculated energy distribution.

In 1936 Dirac offered a precise definition and derivation of the time-energy uncertainty relation in a relativistic quantum theory of "events". But a better-known, more widely used formulation of the time-energy uncertainty principle was given in 1945 by L. I. Mandelshtam and I. E. Tamm, as follows. For a quantum system in a non-stationary state $\backslash psi$ and an observable $B$ represented by a self-adjoint operator $\backslash hat\; B$, the following formula holds:

:::$\backslash sigma\_E\; \backslash frac\{\backslash sigma\_B\}\{\backslash left\; |\; \backslash frac\{\backslash mathrm\{d\}\backslash langle\; \backslash hat\; B\; \backslash rangle\}\{\backslash mathrm\{d\}t\}\backslash right\; |\}\; \backslash ge\; \backslash frac\{\backslash hbar\}\{2\},$

where $\backslash sigma\_E$ is the standard deviation of the energy operator in the state $\backslash psi$, $\backslash sigma\_B$ stands for the standard deviation of $B$. Although, the second factor in the left-hand side has dimension of time, it is different from the time parameter that enters Schrödinger equation. It is a lifetime of the state $\backslash psi$ with respect to the observable $B$. In other words, this is the time after which the expectation value $\backslash langle\backslash hat\; B\backslash rangle$ changes appreciably.

Entropic uncertainty principle

While formulating the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics in 1957, Hugh Everett III discovered a much stronger formulation of the uncertainty principle. In the inequality of standard deviations, some states, like the wavefunction :$\backslash psi(x)\; \backslash propto\; e^\{-\backslash frac\{x^2\}\{0.0001\}\}+\; e^\{-\; \backslash frac\{(x-100)^2\}\{0.0001\; \}\}$ have a large standard deviation of position, but are actually a superposition of a small number of very narrow bumps. In this case, the momentum uncertainty is much larger than the standard deviation inequality would suggest. A better inequality uses the Shannon entropy of the distribution, a measure of the uncertainty in a random variable described by a probability distribution. :$H\_x\; =\; -\; \backslash int\; |\backslash psi(x)|^2\; \backslash log\_n\; |\backslash psi(x)|^2\; \backslash ,dx$

where n is an arbitrary base for the logarithm. The interpretation of H is that, for example if n=2, it is the number of bits of information an observer acquires when the value of x is given to accuracy $\backslash epsilon$ is equal to $I\_x\; +\; \backslash log\_2(\backslash epsilon)$. The second part is just the number of bits past the decimal point, the first part is a logarithmic measure of the width of the distribution. For a uniform distribution of width $\backslash Delta\; x$ the information content is $\backslash log\_2\backslash Delta\; x$ bits. This quantity can be negative, which means that the distribution is narrower than one unit, so that learning the first few bits past the decimal point gives no information since they are not uncertain.

Taking the logarithm of Heisenberg's formulation of uncertainty: :$\backslash log\_n(\backslash Delta\; x\; \backslash Delta\; p)\; >\; 0\; \backslash ,$ but the lower bound is not precise.

Everett (and Hirschman) conjectured that for all quantum states (using natural units): :$H\_x\; +\; H\_p\; \backslash ge\; \backslash log\_n(e\backslash pi)\backslash ,$ This was proven by Beckner in 1975. The equality is attained when $|\backslash psi(x)|^2$ is a normalized Gaussian.

Mathematical derivations

When linear operators A and B act on a function $\backslash psi$, they do not always commute.

A clear example is when operator B (acting on smooth complex functions defined over the real line) multiplies by x (that is, by the canonical immersion of the real line into the complex plane ), while operator A (defined on the same domain as B) takes the derivative (with respect to x). Then, for every wave function $\backslash psi$ we can write

::$(AB\; -\; BA)\; \backslash psi\; =\; \backslash left(\{d\backslash over\; dx\}x-x\{d\backslash over\; dx\}\backslash right)\backslash psi(x)\; =\; \{d\backslash over\; dx\}\; (\; x\; \backslash psi(x))\; -\; x\; \{d\backslash over\; dx\}\; \backslash psi(x)$ ::$=\; \backslash psi(x)\; +\; x\; \{d\; \backslash over\; dx\}\backslash psi(x)\; -\; x\; \{d\; \backslash over\; dx\}\backslash psi(x)\; =\; \backslash psi(x)\; ,$

which in operator language means that

::$\{d\backslash over\; dx\}\; x\; -\; x\; \{d\backslash over\; dx\}\; =\; 1\; ,$

here 1 stands for the identity operator on the common domain of the operators A and B.

This example is important, because it is very close to the canonical commutation relation of quantum mechanics. There, in the position basis, the position operator multiplies the value of the wavefunction by x, while the corresponding momentum operator differentiates and multiplies by $\backslash scriptstyle\; -i\backslash hbar$, so that:

::$[p,x]\; =\; p\; x\; -\; x\; p\; =\; -i\backslash hbar\; \backslash left(\; \{d\backslash over\; dx\}\; x\; -\; x\; \{d\backslash over\; dx\}\; \backslash right)\; =\; -\; i\; \backslash hbar.$ It is the nonzero commutator that implies the uncertainty.

For any two operators A and B: ::$\backslash |A\backslash psi\backslash |^2\; \backslash |B\backslash psi\backslash |^2\; =\; \backslash langle\; A\backslash psi|A\backslash psi\backslash rangle\backslash langle\; B\backslash psi|B\backslash psi\backslash rangle\; \backslash ge\; |\backslash langle\; A\backslash psi|B\backslash psi\backslash rangle|^2$

which is a statement of the Cauchy–Schwarz inequality for the inner product of the two vectors $\backslash scriptstyle\; A|\backslash psi\backslash rangle$ and $\backslash scriptstyle\; B|\backslash psi\backslash rangle$. On the other hand, the expectation value of the product AB is always greater than the magnitude of its imaginary part and this last statement can be written as

::$|\backslash langle\backslash psi|AB|\backslash psi\backslash rangle\; |^2\; \backslash ge\; \{\backslash left\backslash vert\backslash tfrac\{1\}\{2i\}\; \backslash langle\backslash psi|AB\; -\; BA\; |\backslash psi\backslash rangle\backslash right\backslash vert\}^2\; ,$

when the two operators are Hermitian. Putting the above two inequalities together - again when the operators are Hermitian operators - we conclude the relation:

::$\backslash langle\; A^2\; \backslash rangle\_\backslash psi\; \backslash langle\; B^2\; \backslash rangle\_\backslash psi\; \backslash ge\; \backslash tfrac\{1\}\{4\}\; |\backslash langle\; [A,B]\backslash rangle\_\backslash psi|^2$

and the uncertainty principle is a special case.

Physical Interpretation

The inequality above acquires its dispersion interpretation:

::$\backslash sigma\_A\backslash sigma\_B\; \backslash ge\; \backslash tfrac\{1\}\{2\}\; \backslash left|\backslash left\backslash langle\backslash left[\{A\},\{B\}\backslash right]\backslash right\backslash rangle\backslash right|$

where

::$\backslash left\backslash langle\; X\; \backslash right\backslash rangle\; =\; \backslash left\backslash langle\; \backslash psi\; |\; X\; |\; \backslash psi\; \backslash right\backslash rangle$

is the mean of observable X in the state $\backslash psi$ and

::$\backslash sigma\_X\; =\; \backslash sqrt\{\backslash langle\; \{X\}^2\backslash rangle\; -\; \backslash langle\; \{X\}\backslash rangle^2\}$

is the corresponding standard deviation of observable X.

By substituting $A\; -\; \backslash lang\; A\backslash rang$ for $A$ and $B\; -\; \backslash lang\; B\backslash rang$ for $B$ in the general operator norm inequality, since the imaginary part of the product, the commutator is unaffected by the shift:

::$[A\; -\; \backslash lang\; A\backslash rang,\; B\; -\; \backslash lang\; B\backslash rang]\; =\; [\; A\; ,\; B\; ].$

The big side of the inequality is the product of the norms of $A-\backslash lang\; A\backslash rang$ and $B-\backslash lang\; B\backslash rang$, which in quantum mechanics are the standard deviations of A and B. The small side is the norm of the commutator, which for the position and momentum is just $\backslash scriptstyle\; \backslash hbar$.

A further generalization is due to Schrödinger:

Given any two Hermitian operators A and B, and a system in the state ψ, there are probability distributions for the value of a measurement of A and B, with standard deviations $\backslash sigma\_A$ and $\backslash sigma\_B$. Then

::$\backslash sigma\_A\; \backslash sigma\_B\; \backslash geq\; \backslash sqrt\{\; \backslash tfrac\{1\}\{4\}\backslash left|\backslash left\backslash langle\backslash left[\{A\},\{B\}\backslash right]\backslash right\backslash rangle\backslash right|^2\; +\backslash tfrac\{1\}\{4\}\; \backslash left|\backslash left\backslash langle\backslash left\backslash \{\; A-\backslash langle\; A\backslash rangle,B-\backslash langle\; B\backslash rangle\; \backslash right\backslash \}\; \backslash right\backslash rangle\; \backslash right|^2\}$

where [A, B] = AB − BA is the commutator of A and B, $\backslash \{A,B\backslash \}$= AB+BA is the anticommutator.

This inequality is sometimes called the Robertson–Schrödinger relation, and includes the Heisenberg uncertainty principle as a special case but for a different measurement process. The inequality with the commutator term only was developed in 1930 by Howard Percy Robertson, and Erwin Schrödinger added the anticommutator term a little later.

Examples

The Robertson-Schrödinger relation gives the uncertainty relation for any two observables that do not commute:

between position and momentum by applying the commutator relation $[x,p\_x]=i\backslash hbar$:

::$\backslash sigma\_x\backslash sigma\_p\; \backslash geq\; \backslash tfrac\{\backslash hbar\}\{2\}$

between the kinetic energy T and position x of a particle :

::$\backslash sigma\_T\backslash sigma\_x\; \backslash geq\; \backslash tfrac\{\backslash hbar\}\{2m\}\; \backslash left|\backslash left\backslash langle\; p\_x\backslash right\backslash rangle\backslash right|$

between two orthogonal components of the total angular momentum operator of an object:

::$\backslash sigma\_\{J\_i\}\; \backslash sigma\_\{J\_j\}\; \backslash geq\; \backslash tfrac\{\backslash hbar\}\{2\}\; \backslash left|\backslash left\backslash langle\; J\_k\backslash right\backslash rangle\backslash right|$ :where i, j, k are distinct and J_i denotes angular momentum along the x_i axis. This relation implies that only a single component of a system's angular momentum can be defined with arbitrary precision, normally the component parallel to an external (magnetic or electric) field.

between angular position and angular momentum of an object with small angular uncertainty:

::$\backslash Delta\; \backslash Theta\_i\; \backslash Delta\; J\_i\; \backslash gtrapprox\; \backslash tfrac\{\backslash hbar\}\{2\}$

between the number of electrons in a superconductor and the phase of its Ginzburg–Landau order parameter

::$\backslash Delta\; N\; \backslash Delta\; \backslash phi\; \backslash geq\; 1$

Uncertainty theorems in harmonic analysis

In the context of harmonic analysis, the uncertainty principle implies that one cannot at the same time localize the value of a function and its Fourier transform; to wit, the following inequality holds

:$\backslash left(\backslash int\_\{-\backslash infty\}^\backslash infty\; x^2\; |f(x)|^2\backslash ,dx\backslash right)\backslash left(\backslash int\_\{-\backslash infty\}^\backslash infty\; \backslash xi^2\; |\backslash hat\{f\}(\backslash xi)|^2\backslash ,d\backslash xi\backslash right)\backslash ge\; \backslash frac\{\backslash |f\backslash |\_2^4\}\{16\backslash pi^2\}.$

Other purely mathematical formulations of uncertainty exist between a function ƒ and its Fourier transform – see Fourier uncertainty principle. A variety of such results can be found in or ; for a short survey, see .

Signal processing

In the context of signal processing, particularly time–frequency analysis, uncertainty principles are referred to as the Gabor limit, after Dennis Gabor, or sometimes the Heisenberg–Gabor limit. The basic result, which follows from Benedicks's theorem, below, is that a function cannot be both time limited and band limited (a function and its Fourier transform cannot both have bounded domain) – see bandlimited versus timelimited. Stated alternatively, "one cannot simultaneously localize a signal (function) in both the time domain (ƒ) and frequency domain (Fourier transform)". When applied to filters, the result is that one cannot achieve high temporal resolution and frequency resolution at the same time; a concrete example are the resolution issues of the short-time Fourier transform – if one uses a wide window, one achieves good frequency resolution at the cost of temporal resolution, while a narrow window has the opposite trade-off.

Alternative theorems give more precise quantitative results, and in time–frequency analysis, rather than interpreting the (1-dimensional) time and frequency domains separately, one instead interprets the limit as a lower limit on the support of a function in the (2-dimensional) time–frequency plane. In practice the Gabor limit limits the simultaneous time–frequency resolution one can achieve without interference; it is possible to achieve higher resolution, but at the cost of different components of the signal interfering with each other.

Benedicks's theorem

Amrein-Berthier and Benedicks's theorem intuitively says that the set of points where ƒ is non-zero and the set of points where $\backslash hat\{f\}$ is nonzero cannot both be small. Specifically, it is impossible for a function ƒ in L²(R) and its Fourier transform to both be supported on sets of finite Lebesgue measure. A more quantitative version is due to Nazarov and :

: $\backslash |f\backslash |\_\{L^2(\backslash mathbf\{R\}^d)\}\backslash leq\; Ce^\{C|S||\backslash Sigma|\}\; \backslash bigl(\backslash |f\backslash |\_\{L^2(S^c)\}\; +\; \backslash |\; \backslash hat\{f\}\; \backslash |\_\{L^2(\backslash Sigma^c)\}\; \backslash bigr)$

One expects that the factor $Ce^\{C|S||\backslash Sigma|\}$ may be replaced by $Ce^\{C(|S||\backslash Sigma|)^\{1/d\}\}$ which is only known if either $S$ or $\backslash Sigma$ is convex.

Hardy's uncertainty principle

The mathematician G. H. Hardy formulated the following uncertainty principle: it is not possible for ƒ and $\backslash hat\{f\}$ to both be "very rapidly decreasing." Specifically, if ƒ is in L²(R), is such that

:$|f(x)|\backslash leq\; C(1+|x|)^Ne^\{-a\backslash pi\; x^2\}$

and

:$|\backslash hat\{f\}(\backslash xi)|\backslash leq\; C(1+|\backslash xi|)^Ne^\{-b\backslash pi\; \backslash xi^2\}$ ($C>0,N$ an integer)

then, if $ab>1,\; f=0$ while if $ab=1$ then there is a polynomial $P$ of degree $\backslash leq\; N$ such that

::$f(x)=P(x)e^\{-a\backslash pi\; x^2\}.\; \backslash ,$

This was later improved as follows: if $f\backslash in\; L^2(\backslash mathbf\{R\}^d)$ is such that

:

then

::$f(x)=P(x)e^\{-\backslash pi\backslash langle\; Ax,x\backslash rangle\}$

where $P$ is a polynomial of degree and $A$ is a real $d\backslash times\; d$ positive definite matrix.

This result was stated in Beurling's complete works without proof and proved in Hörmander (the case $d=1,N=0$) and Bonami–Demange–Jaming for the general case. Note that Hörmander–Beurling's version implies the case $ab>1$ in Hardy's Theorem while the version by Bonami–Demange–Jaming covers the full strength of Hardy's Theorem.

A full description of the case as well as the following extension to Schwarz class distributions appears in Demange :

Theorem. If a tempered distribution $f\backslash in\backslash mathcal\{S\}\text{'}(\backslash R^d)$ is such that

:$e^\{\backslash pi|x|^2\}f\backslash in\backslash mathcal\{S\}\text{'}(\backslash R^d)$

and

:$e^\{\backslash pi|\backslash xi|^2\}\backslash hat\; f\backslash in\backslash mathcal\{S\}\text{'}(\backslash R^d)$

then

::$f(x)=P(x)e^\{-\backslash pi\backslash langle\; Ax,x\backslash rangle\}$

for some convenient polynomial $P$ and real positive definite matrix $A$ of type $d\backslash times\; d$.

Uncertainty principle of game theory

The uncertainty principle of game theory was formulated by Szekely and Rizzo in 2007. This principle is a lower bound for the entropy of optimal strategies of players in terms of the commutator of two nonlinear operators: minimum and maximum. If the payoff matrix (a_ij) of an arbitrary zero-sum game is normalized (i.e. the smallest number in this matrix is 0, the biggest number is 1) and the commutator

min_j max_i (a_ij) − max_i min_j (a_ij) = h

then the entropy of the optimal strategy of any of the players cannot be smaller than the entropy of the two-point distribution [1/(1+h), h/(1+h)] and this is the best lower bound. (This is zero if and only if h = 0 i.e. if min and max are commutable in which case the game has pure nonrandom optimal strategies). As an application, one could optimize between these two-point strategies via considering the distribution [1/(1+h), h/(1+h)] on all pairs of pure strategies. In many practical cases we do not lose much by neglecting more complex strategies.

See also

Canonical commutation relation

Correspondence principle

Correspondence rules

Introduction to quantum mechanics

Heisenbug

Quantum indeterminacy

Gödel's incompleteness theorems

The Part and The Whole (book)

Notes

References

. . . . . English translation: J. A. Wheeler and H. Zurek, Quantum Theory and Measurement Princeton Univ. Press, 1983, pp. 62–84. . . . English translation: J. Phys. (USSR) 9, 249–254 (1945). . . . Annual Report, Department of Physics, School of Science, University of Tokyo (1992) 240.

External links

Annotated pre-publication proof sheet of Über den anschaulichen Inhalt der quantentheoretischen Kinematik und Mechanik, March 23, 1927.

Matter as a Wave – a chapter from an online textbook

Quantum mechanics: Myths and facts

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry

aip.org: Quantum mechanics 1925–1927 – The uncertainty principle

Eric Weisstein's World of Physics – Uncertainty principle

Fourier Transforms and Uncertainty at MathPages

Schrödinger equation from an exact uncertainty principle

John Baez on the time-energy uncertainty relation

The time-energy certainty relation – It is shown that something opposite to the time-energy uncertainty relation is true.

The certainty principle

Category:Fundamental physics concepts Category:Quantum mechanics Category:Determinism Category:Principles