We consider particles prepared by a single slit diffraction experiment. For those particles the standard deviation σ p of the momentum is discussed. We find out that σ p =∞ is not an exception but a rather typical case. A necessary and sufficient condition for σ p <∞ is given. Finally, the inequality σ p Δx≥π ℏ is derived and it is shown that this bound cannot be improved.

The purpose of this work is to carry out a systematic, detailed analytical study, together with the direct interpretations, as they follow from the analytical expressions obtained, of three basic “experiments” which have been classical examples in our understanding of quantum mechanics. The experiments considered are: the single- and double-slit (-hole) experiments, and the final one, which, in particular, deals with the situation where a particle is “reflected off” the detection screen in the single-slit experiment. Special emphasis is put on (...) pointing out some purely quantum mechanical results, which follow from the analytical expressions, as well as on making a comparison with classical physics. Needless to say, the analysis of such experiments has been extremely important in laying the foundations of quantum physics. (shrink)

The concepts of uncertainty in prediction and inference are introduced and illustrated using the diffraction of light as an example. The close relationship between the concepts of uncertainty in inference and resolving power is noted. A general quantitative measure of uncertainty in inference can be obtained by means of the so-called statistical distance between probability distributions. When applied to quantum mechanics, this distance leads to a measure of the distinguishability of quantum states, which essentially is the absolute value of the (...) matrix element between the states. The importance of this result to the quantum mechanical uncertainty principle is noted. The second part of the paper provides a derivation of the statistical distance on the basis of the so-called method of support. (shrink)

We define and study the notion of quantum polarity, which is a kind of geometric Fourier transform between sets of positions and sets of momenta. Extending previous work of ours, we show that the orthogonal projections of the covariance ellipsoid of a quantum state on the configuration and momentum spaces form what we call a dual quantum pair. We thereafter show that quantum polarity allows solving the Pauli reconstruction problem for Gaussian wavefunctions. The notion of quantum polarity exhibits a strong (...) interplay between the uncertainty principle and symplectic and convex geometry and our approach could therefore pave the way for a geometric and topological version of quantum indeterminacy. We relate our results to the Blaschke–Santaló inequality and to the Mahler conjecture. We also discuss the Hardy uncertainty principle and the less-known Donoho–Stark principle from the point of view of quantum polarity. (shrink)

I argue against a general time observable in quantum mechanics except for quantum gravity theory. Then I argue in support of case specific arrival time and dwell time observables with a cautionary note concerning the broad approach to POVM observables because of the wild proliferation available.

Dirac's equation is reviewed and found to be based on nonrelativistic ideas of probability. A 4-space formulation is proposed that is completely Lorentzinvariant, using probability distributions in space-time with the particle's proper time as a parameter for the evolution of the wave function. This leads to a new wave equation which implies that the proper mass of a particle is an observable, and is sharp only in stationary states. The model has a built-in arrow of time, which is associated with (...) a restriction to positive-energy solutions. The usual solution for a Coulomb field is retained, though it now implies a slightly different charge distribution. The conventional nonstationary solutions become invalid. The new formulation appears to offer a resolution of difficulties that have been associated with Dirac's equation. It also predicts the occurrence of virtual pairs at a level that may be experimentally testable, and suggests a mechanism for self-cancellation of the vacuum energy. (shrink)

We use the notion of polar duality from convex geometry and the theory of Lagrangian planes from symplectic geometry to construct a fiber bundle over ellipsoids that can be viewed as a quantum-mechanical substitute for the classical symplectic phase space. The total space of this fiber bundle consists of geometric quantum states, products of convex bodies carried by Lagrangian planes by their polar duals with respect to a second transversal Lagrangian plane. Using the theory of the John ellipsoid we relate (...) these geometric quantum states to the notion of “quantum blobs” introduced in previous work; quantum blobs are the smallest symplectic invariant regions of the phase space compatible with the uncertainty principle. We show that the set of equivalence classes of unitarily related geometric quantum states is in a one-to-one correspondence with the set of all Gaussian wavepackets. We emphasize that the uncertainty principle appears in this paper as geometric property of the states we define, and is not expressed in terms of variances and covariances, the use of which was criticized by Hilgevoord and Uffink. (shrink)

Time, along with concepts as space and matter, is bound to be a central concept of any physical theory. The chapter first discusses how time is treated similarly in quantum and classical theories. It then provides a few references on time‐reversal. The chapter discusses three chosen authors' (Paul Busch, Jan Hilgevoord and Jos Uffink) clarifications of uncertainty principles in general. Next, the chapter follows Busch in distinguishing three roles for time in quantum physics. They are external time, intrinsic time and (...) observable time. It also provides a brief discussion on time operators, in particular Pauli's influential proof. Finally, the chapter talks about time‐energy uncertainty principles with intrinsic times. (shrink)

The discussion of a particular kind of interpretation of the energy-time uncertainty relation, the “pragmatic time” version of the ETUR outlined in Part I of this work [measurement duration (pragmatic time) versus uncertainty of energy disturbance or measurement inaccuracy] is reviewed. Then the Aharonov-Bohm counter-example is reformulated within the modern quantum theory of unsharp measurements and thereby confirmed in a rigorous way.

The problem of the validity and interpretation of the energy-time uncertainty relation is briefly reviewed and reformulated in a systematic way. The Bohr-Einsteinphoton-box gedanken experiment is seen to illustrate the complementarity of energy andevent time. A more recent experiment with amplitude-modulated Mößbauer quanta yields evidence for the genuine quantum indeterminacy of event time. In this way, event time arises as a quantum observable.

Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle is a milestone of twentieth-century physics. We sketch the history that led to the formulation of the principle, and we recall the objections of Grete Hermann and Niels Bohr. Then we explain that there are in fact two uncertainty principles. One was published by Heisenberg in the Zeitschrift für Physik of March 1927 and subsequently targeted by Bohr and Hermann. The other one was introduced by Earle Kennard in the same journal a couple of months later. While (...) Kennard’s principle remains untarnished, the principle of Heisenberg has recently been criticized in a way that is very different from the objections by Bohr and Hermann: there are reasons to believe that Heisenberg’s formula is not valid. Experimental results seem to support this claim. -/- . (shrink)

Since the very begining of quantum theory there started a debate on the proper role of space and time in it. Some authors assumed that space and time have their own algebraic operators. On that basis they supposed that quantum particles had “coordinates of position”, even though those coordinates were not possible to determine with infinite precision. Furthermore, time in quantum physics was taken to be on an equal foot, by means of a so-called “Heisenberg’s fourth relation of indeterminacy” concerning (...) time and energy. In this paper, the proper role of space and time in the core of non-relativistic quantum phsysics is analyzed. We will find that, rigorously, that relation for time and energy shows a different root. For the role of space, it will be discussed that there is no “coordinate of position” in the conceptual structure of quantum physics because quantum particles are not point-like objects. DOI:10.5007/1808-1711.2010v14n2p241. (shrink)

Since the very begining of quantum theory there started a debate on the proper role of space and time in it. Some authors assumed that space and time have their own algebraic operators. On that basis they supposed that quantum particles had “coordinates of position”, even though those coordinates were not possible to determine with infinite precision. Furthermore, time in quantum physics was taken to be on an equal foot, by means of a so-called “Heisenberg’s fourth relation of indeterminacy” concerning (...) time and energy. In this paper, the proper role of space and time in the core of non-relativistic quantum phsysics is analyzed. We will find that, rigorously, that relation for time and energy shows a different root. For the role of space, it will be discussed that there is no “coordinate of position” in the conceptual structure of quantum physics because quantum particles are not point-like objects. (shrink)

Niels Bohr famously argued that a consistent understanding of quantum mechanics requires a new epistemic framework, which he named complementarity . This position asserts that even in the context of quantum theory, classical concepts must be used to understand and communicate measurement results. The apparent conflict between certain classical descriptions is avoided by recognizing that their application now crucially depends on the measurement context. ;Recently it has been argued that a new form of complementarity can provide a solution to the (...) so-called information loss paradox. Stephen Hawking argues that the evolution of black holes cannot be described by standard unitary quantum evolution, because such evolution always preserves information, while the evaporation of a black hole will imply that any information that fell into it is irrevocably lost---hence a "paradox." Some researchers in quantum gravity have argued that this paradox can be resolved if one interprets certain seemingly incompatible descriptions of events around black holes as instead being complementary. ;In this dissertation I assess the extent to which this black hole complementarity can be undergirded by Bohr's account of the limitations of classical concepts. I begin by offering an interpretation of Bohr's complementarity and the role that it plays in his philosophy of quantum theory. After clarifying the nature of classical concepts, I offer an account of the limitations these concepts face, and argue that Bohr's appeal to disturbance is best understood as referring to these conceptual limits. ;Following preparatory chapters on issues in quantum field theory and black hole mechanics, I offer an analysis of the information loss paradox and various responses to it. I consider the three most prominent accounts of black hole complementarity and argue that they fail to offer sufficient justification for the proposed incompatibility between descriptions. ;The lesson that emerges from this dissertation is that we have as much to learn from the limitations facing our scientific descriptions as we do from the successes they enjoy. Because all of our scientific theories offer at best limited, effective accounts of the world, an important part of our interpretive efforts will be assessing the borders of these domains of description. (shrink)

An inequality in quantum mechanics, which does not appear to be well known, is derived by elementary means and shown to be quite useful. The inequality applies to 'all' operators and 'all' pairs of quantum states, including mixed states. It generalizes the rule of the orthogonality of eigenvectors for distinct eigenvalues and is shown to imply all the Robertson generalized uncertainty relations. It severely constrains the difference between probabilities obtained from 'close' quantum states and the different responses they can have (...) to unitary transformations. Thus, it is dubbed a master inequality. With appropriate definitions the inequality also holds throughout general probability theory and appears not to be well known there either. That classical inequality is obtained here in an appendix. The quantum inequality can be obtained from the classical version but a more direct quantum approach is employed here. A similar but weaker classical inequality has been reported by Uffink and van Lith. (shrink)