Heisenberg's uncertainty principle was originally posed for the limit of the accuracy of simultaneous measurement of non-commuting observables as stating that canonically conjugate observables can be measured simultaneously only with the constraint that the product of their mean errors should be no less than a limit set by Planck's constant. However, Heisenberg with the subsequent completion by Kennard has long been credited only with a constraint for state preparation represented by the product of the standard deviations. Here, we show that Heisenberg actually proved the constraint for the accuracy of simultaneous measurement but assuming an obsolete postulate for quantum mechanics. This assumption, known as the repeatability hypothesis, formulated explicitly by von Neumann and Schrodinger, was broadly accepted until the 1970s, but abandoned in the 1980s, when completely general quantum measurement theory was established. We also survey the author's recent proposal for a universally valid reformulation of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle under the most general assumption on quantum measurement.Heisenberg's uncertainty principle was originally posed for the limit of the accuracy of simultaneous measurement of non-commuting observables as stating that canonically conjugate observables can be measured simultaneously only with the constraint that the product of their mean errors should be no less than a limit set by Planck's constant. However, Heisenberg with the subsequent completion by Kennard has long been credited only with a constraint for state preparation represented by the product of the standard deviations. Here, we show that Heisenberg actually proved the constraint for the accuracy of simultaneous measurement but assuming an obsolete postulate for quantum mechanics. This assumption, known as the repeatability hypothesis, formulated explicitly by von Neumann and Schrodinger, was broadly accepted until the 1970s, but abandoned in the 1980s, when completely general quantum measurement theory was established. We also survey the author's recent proposal for a universally valid reformulation of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle under the most general assumption on quantum measurement.

Jul 8, 20150 citations

Why Heisenberg's Uncertainity Principle Is Wrong! Proposed Device: Quantum-Limited Electron Imaging Camera (QLEIC-2050)

Sardar Dilbag Singh Khalsa

The uncertainty principle is commonly regarded as a fundamental limitation ofquantum mechanics, often attributed directly to Heisenberg’s 1927 analysis.In this work, we revisit the original formulation of the principle and carefullydistinguish Heisenberg’s measurement–disturbance argument from the latermathematical uncertainty relations derived by Kennard, Robertson, andSchrödinger. We show that the standard variance-based formulation relies onthe prior introduction of fluctuation operators and ensemble averages, therebypresupposing statistical indeterminacy rather than deriving it from firstprinciples. From a physical perspective, Heisenberg’s argument is shown toreflect constraints imposed by invasive measurement techniques rather than auniversal prohibition on simultaneous knowledge of conjugate variables.Motivated by this distinction, we propose a conjecture that, in the absence ofmeasurement-induced energy transfer, the simultaneous determination ofposition and momentum may, in principle, be achievable. Our analysis suggeststhat quantum uncertainty, as traditionally formulated, encodes limitations ofcurrent observational methods rather than an intrinsic property of nature. \section{Heisenberg’s original observation and formulation (1927)} In his seminal 1927 paper \emph{Über den anschaulichen Inhalt der quantentheoretischen Kinematik und Mechanik} \cite{Heisenberg1927}, Werner Heisenberg sought to clarify the physical meaning of quantum mechanics rather than to establish a rigorous mathematical theorem. His analysis was based on thought experiments concerning the act of measurement, most notably the $\gamma$ -ray microscope. Heisenberg argued that any attempt to localize a particle within a spatial region $\Delta x$ requires radiation of wavelength comparable to $\Delta x$ , which inevitably transfers an uncontrollable momentum $\Delta p$ to the particle. As a consequence of this measurement-induced disturbance, he proposed that the product of the inaccuracies in position and momentum measurements satisfies a relation of the order\begin{equation}\Delta x\, \Delta p \sim h .\end{equation}Here, $\Delta x$ and $\Delta p$ denote operational measurement imprecisions arising from the interaction between the measuring apparatus and the system, rather than statistical variances of quantum observables. Heisenberg did not introduce operators, Hilbert space, or probability distributions, nor did he provide a formal inequality with a precise lower bound. The argument was explicitly heuristic and qualitative, emphasizing limitations imposed by the measurement process itself. Consequently, the original uncertainty principle was formulated as a statement about measurement disturbance and experimental resolution, not as a universal mathematical constraint on quantum states. \section{Standard mathematical proof of the position--momentum uncertainty relation} \subsection{Setup and definitions} Let $\mathcal{H}$ be a Hilbert space and let $|\psi\rangle \in \mathcal{H}$ be anormalized state, $\langle \psi | \psi \rangle = 1$ . Let $A$ and $B$ beself-adjoint operators (observables) on a common dense domain containing $|\psi\rangle$ , such that all expressions below are well-defined. Define expectation values\cite{Kennard1927,Robertson1929,Schrodinger1930,Ballentine1998,Sakurai1994}\begin{equation}\langle A \rangle := \langle \psi | A | \psi \rangle,\qquad\langle B \rangle := \langle \psi | B | \psi \rangle .\end{equation}Define the fluctuation (centered) operators\begin{equation}\Delta A := A - \langle A \rangle, \qquad \Delta B := B - \langle B \rangle .\end{equation}The variances are\begin{equation}\sigma_A^2 := \langle (\Delta A)^2 \rangle = \langle \psi | (\Delta A)^2 | \psi \rangle,\qquad\sigma_B^2 := \langle (\Delta B)^2 \rangle = \langle \psi | (\Delta B)^2 | \psi \rangle.\end{equation} \subsection{Key inequality: Cauchy--Schwarz in Hilbert space} Define vectors\begin{equation}|\phi\rangle := \Delta A |\psi\rangle, \qquad |\chi\rangle := \Delta B |\psi\rangle .\end{equation}By the Cauchy--Schwarz inequality,\begin{equation}\langle \phi|\phi\rangle \, \langle \chi|\chi\rangle \ge |\langle \phi|\chi\rangle|^2 .\end{equation}Compute each factor:\begin{equation}\langle \phi|\phi\rangle= \langle \psi| (\Delta A)^\dagger (\Delta A) |\psi\rangle= \langle \psi| (\Delta A)^2 |\psi\rangle= \sigma_A^2,\end{equation}and similarly $\langle \chi|\chi\rangle = \sigma_B^2$ . Therefore\begin{equation}\sigma_A^2 \sigma_B^2 \ge \left| \langle \psi| \Delta A \Delta B |\psi\rangle \right|^2= |\langle \Delta A \Delta B \rangle|^2 .\label{eq:cs_step}\end{equation} \subsection{Robertson--Schr\"odinger decomposition} Decompose $\Delta A \Delta B$ into commutator and anticommutator parts:\begin{equation}\Delta A \Delta B=\frac{1}{2}\bigl[\Delta A,\Delta B\bigr]+\frac{1}{2}\bigl\{\Delta A,\Delta B\bigr\},\end{equation}where $[X,Y]=XY-YX$ and $\{X,Y\}=XY+YX$ . Taking expectation values gives\begin{equation}\langle \Delta A \Delta B \rangle=\frac{1}{2}\langle [\Delta A,\Delta B]\rangle+\frac{1}{2}\langle \{\Delta A,\Delta B\}\rangle .\label{eq:decomp_exp}\end{equation} Now note the following facts for self-adjoint $A,B$ :\begin{itemize}\item The operator $[\Delta A,\Delta B]$ is anti-self-adjoint, hence $\langle [\Delta A,\Delta B]\rangle$ is purely imaginary.\item The operator $\{\Delta A,\Delta B\}$ is self-adjoint, hence $\langle \{\Delta A,\Delta B\}\rangle$ is real.\end{itemize}Therefore the two terms in \eqref{eq:decomp_exp} are orthogonal in the complex plane(real vs.\ imaginary), and we may write\begin{equation}|\langle \Delta A \Delta B \rangle|^2=\left(\frac{1}{2}|\langle [\Delta A,\Delta B]\rangle|\right)^2+\left(\frac{1}{2}\langle \{\Delta A,\Delta B\}\rangle\right)^2 .\label{eq:RS_identity}\end{equation} Substituting \eqref{eq:RS_identity} into \eqref{eq:cs_step} yields theSchr\"odinger uncertainty relation:\begin{equation}\boxed{\sigma_A^2 \sigma_B^2 \ge\left(\frac{1}{2}|\langle [\Delta A,\Delta B]\rangle|\right)^2+\left(\frac{1}{2}\langle \{\Delta A,\Delta B\}\rangle\right)^2}.\label{eq:schrodinger}\end{equation} Since constants commute with everything,\begin{equation}[\Delta A,\Delta B] = [A-\langle A\rangle,\; B-\langle B\rangle] = [A,B].\end{equation}Hence \eqref{eq:schrodinger} can be written as\begin{equation}\boxed{\sigma_A^2 \sigma_B^2 \ge\left(\frac{1}{2}|\langle [A,B]\rangle|\right)^2+\left(\frac{1}{2}\langle \{\Delta A,\Delta B\}\rangle\right)^2}.\end{equation} \subsection{Robertson inequality (weaker but widely quoted)} Dropping the nonnegative anticommutator term gives Robertson's inequality:\begin{equation}\boxed{\sigma_A \sigma_B \ge \frac{1}{2}|\langle [A,B]\rangle|}.\label{eq:robertson}\end{equation} \subsection{Specialization to position and momentum} Take $A=x$ and $B=p$ (one spatial dimension), with canonical commutation relation\begin{equation}[x,p] = i\hbar.\end{equation}Therefore,\begin{equation}|\langle [x,p]\rangle|= |\langle i\hbar \rangle|= \hbar,\end{equation}and \eqref{eq:robertson} yields the standard position--momentum uncertainty relation\begin{equation}\boxed{\sigma_x \sigma_p \ge \frac{\hbar}{2}.}\end{equation} \subsection{Condition for equality (minimum-uncertainty states)} Equality in Cauchy--Schwarz holds iff the vectors are linearly dependent:\begin{equation}\Delta A|\psi\rangle = \lambda \, \Delta B|\psi\rangle\quad \text{for some complex } \lambda.\end{equation}For $A=x$ and $B=p$ , this condition leads (in the $x$ -representation) to afirst-order differential equation whose normalized solutions are Gaussianwave packets. Hence Gaussian states saturate $\sigma_x \sigma_p = \hbar/2$ . \subsection{Definition of fluctuation operators and their role in the uncertainty relation} In the mathematical formulation of quantum uncertainty developed after Heisenberg’s original 1927 heuristic proposal, the quantities entering the uncertainty relation were redefined in statistical terms. In particular, in his 1929 paper, Robertson introduced the operators. \noindent\textbf{Critical observation.}The introduction of the fluctuation operators \begin{center}\fcolorbox{red}{white}{ $\Delta A = A - \langle A \rangle,\qquad\Delta B = B - \langle B \rangle$ }\end{center} \textbf{constitutes a nontrivial mathematicalassumption rather than a derived physical necessity. In the Robertson--Schrödinger formalism, the uncertainty of observables is defined \emph{a priori} in terms ofstatistical deviations from expectation values, thereby presupposing the verynotion of indeterminacy that the uncertainty principle is intended to justify.In other words, the operators $\Delta A$ and $\Delta B$ encode uncertainty byconstruction, since their variances measure ensemble spread relative to a mean.The subsequent derivation of a lower bound on $\sigma_A \sigma_B$ thereforeestablishes a constraint on these predefined statistical quantities, rather than demonstrating that physical observables must be uncertain from first principles.Consequently, the uncertainty relation obtained in this manner is logicallyconditional upon the initial choice of variance-based definitions and does not,by itself, prove the existence of intrinsic measurement indeterminacy or disturbance in individual quantum events.} \textit{They actully assumed and defined the spread and uncertainity initial in both the quantities and proved the uncertainity principle.} where $A$ and $B$ are self-adjoint operators representing observables and $\langle A \rangle = \langle \psi | A | \psi \rangle$ denotes the expectationvalue in a normalized quantum state $|\psi\rangle$ \cite{Robertson1929}.These operators describe deviations of observables from their mean valuesand are introduced in direct analogy with classical statistical fluctuations.The corresponding variances, $\sigma_A^2 = \langle (\Delta A)^2 \rangle$ and $\sigma_B^2 = \langle (\Delta B)^2 \rangle$ ,measure the statistical spread of measurement outcomes over an ensembleof identically prepared systemsThe uncertainty principle is commonly regarded as a fundamental limitation ofquantum mechanics, often attributed directly to Heisenberg’s 1927 analysis.In this work, we revisit the original formulation of the principle and carefullydistinguish Heisenberg’s measurement–disturbance argument from the latermathematical uncertainty relations derived by Kennard, Robertson, andSchrödinger. We show that the standard variance-based formulation relies onthe prior introduction of fluctuation operators and ensemble averages, therebypresupposing statistical indeterminacy rather than deriving it from firstprinciples. From a physical perspective, Heisenberg’s argument is shown toreflect constraints imposed by invasive measurement techniques rather than auniversal prohibition on simultaneous knowledge of conjugate variables.Motivated by this distinction, we propose a conjecture that, in the absence ofmeasurement-induced energy transfer, the simultaneous determination ofposition and momentum may, in principle, be achievable. Our analysis suggeststhat quantum uncertainty, as traditionally formulated, encodes limitations ofcurrent observational methods rather than an intrinsic property of nature. \section{Heisenberg’s original observation and formulation (1927)} In his seminal 1927 paper \emph{Über den anschaulichen Inhalt der quantentheoretischen Kinematik und Mechanik} \cite{Heisenberg1927}, Werner Heisenberg sought to clarify the physical meaning of quantum mechanics rather than to establish a rigorous mathematical theorem. His analysis was based on thought experiments concerning the act of measurement, most notably the $\gamma$-ray microscope. Heisenberg argued that any attempt to localize a particle within a spatial region $\Delta x$ requires radiation of wavelength comparable to $\Delta x$, which inevitably transfers an uncontrollable momentum $\Delta p$ to the particle. As a consequence of this measurement-induced disturbance, he proposed that the product of the inaccuracies in position and momentum measurements satisfies a relation of the order\begin{equation}\Delta x\, \Delta p \sim h .\end{equation}Here, $\Delta x$ and $\Delta p$ denote operational measurement imprecisions arising from the interaction between the measuring apparatus and the system, rather than statistical variances of quantum observables. Heisenberg did not introduce operators, Hilbert space, or probability distributions, nor did he provide a formal inequality with a precise lower bound. The argument was explicitly heuristic and qualitative, emphasizing limitations imposed by the measurement process itself. Consequently, the original uncertainty principle was formulated as a statement about measurement disturbance and experimental resolution, not as a universal mathematical constraint on quantum states. \section{Standard mathematical proof of the position--momentum uncertainty relation} \subsection{Setup and definitions} Let $\mathcal{H}$ be a Hilbert space and let $|\psi\rangle \in \mathcal{H}$ be anormalized state, $\langle \psi | \psi \rangle = 1$. Let $A$ and $B$ beself-adjoint operators (observables) on a common dense domain containing$|\psi\rangle$, such that all expressions below are well-defined. Define expectation values\cite{Kennard1927,Robertson1929,Schrodinger1930,Ballentine1998,Sakurai1994}\begin{equation}\langle A \rangle := \langle \psi | A | \psi \rangle,\qquad\langle B \rangle := \langle \psi | B | \psi \rangle .\end{equation}Define the fluctuation (centered) operators\begin{equation}\Delta A := A - \langle A \rangle, \qquad \Delta B := B - \langle B \rangle .\end{equation}The variances are\begin{equation}\sigma_A^2 := \langle (\Delta A)^2 \rangle = \langle \psi | (\Delta A)^2 | \psi \rangle,\qquad\sigma_B^2 := \langle (\Delta B)^2 \rangle = \langle \psi | (\Delta B)^2 | \psi \rangle.\end{equation} \subsection{Key inequality: Cauchy--Schwarz in Hilbert space} Define vectors\begin{equation}|\phi\rangle := \Delta A |\psi\rangle, \qquad |\chi\rangle := \Delta B |\psi\rangle .\end{equation}By the Cauchy--Schwarz inequality,\begin{equation}\langle \phi|\phi\rangle \, \langle \chi|\chi\rangle \ge |\langle \phi|\chi\rangle|^2 .\end{equation}Compute each factor:\begin{equation}\langle \phi|\phi\rangle= \langle \psi| (\Delta A)^\dagger (\Delta A) |\psi\rangle= \langle \psi| (\Delta A)^2 |\psi\rangle= \sigma_A^2,\end{equation}and similarly $\langle \chi|\chi\rangle = \sigma_B^2$. Therefore\begin{equation}\sigma_A^2 \sigma_B^2 \ge \left| \langle \psi| \Delta A \Delta B |\psi\rangle \right|^2= |\langle \Delta A \Delta B \rangle|^2 .\label{eq:cs_step}\end{equation} \subsection{Robertson--Schr\"odinger decomposition} Decompose $\Delta A \Delta B$ into commutator and anticommutator parts:\begin{equation}\Delta A \Delta B=\frac{1}{2}\bigl[\Delta A,\Delta B\bigr]+\frac{1}{2}\bigl\{\Delta A,\Delta B\bigr\},\end{equation}where $[X,Y]=XY-YX$ and $\{X,Y\}=XY+YX$. Taking expectation values gives\begin{equation}\langle \Delta A \Delta B \rangle=\frac{1}{2}\langle [\Delta A,\Delta B]\rangle+\frac{1}{2}\langle \{\Delta A,\Delta B\}\rangle .\label{eq:decomp_exp}\end{equation} Now note the following facts for self-adjoint $A,B$:\begin{itemize}\item The operator $[\Delta A,\Delta B]$ is anti-self-adjoint, hence$\langle [\Delta A,\Delta B]\rangle$ is purely imaginary.\item The operator $\{\Delta A,\Delta B\}$ is self-adjoint, hence$\langle \{\Delta A,\Delta B\}\rangle$ is real.\end{itemize}Therefore the two terms in \eqref{eq:decomp_exp} are orthogonal in the complex plane(real vs.\ imaginary), and we may write\begin{equation}|\langle \Delta A \Delta B \rangle|^2=\left(\frac{1}{2}|\langle [\Delta A,\Delta B]\rangle|\right)^2+\left(\frac{1}{2}\langle \{\Delta A,\Delta B\}\rangle\right)^2 .\label{eq:RS_identity}\end{equation} Substituting \eqref{eq:RS_identity} into \eqref{eq:cs_step} yields theSchr\"odinger uncertainty relation:\begin{equation}\boxed{\sigma_A^2 \sigma_B^2 \ge\left(\frac{1}{2}|\langle [\Delta A,\Delta B]\rangle|\right)^2+\left(\frac{1}{2}\langle \{\Delta A,\Delta B\}\rangle\right)^2}.\label{eq:schrodinger}\end{equation} Since constants commute with everything,\begin{equation}[\Delta A,\Delta B] = [A-\langle A\rangle,\; B-\langle B\rangle] = [A,B].\end{equation}Hence \eqref{eq:schrodinger} can be written as\begin{equation}\boxed{\sigma_A^2 \sigma_B^2 \ge\left(\frac{1}{2}|\langle [A,B]\rangle|\right)^2+\left(\frac{1}{2}\langle \{\Delta A,\Delta B\}\rangle\right)^2}.\end{equation} \subsection{Robertson inequality (weaker but widely quoted)} Dropping the nonnegative anticommutator term gives Robertson's inequality:\begin{equation}\boxed{\sigma_A \sigma_B \ge \frac{1}{2}|\langle [A,B]\rangle|}.\label{eq:robertson}\end{equation} \subsection{Specialization to position and momentum} Take $A=x$ and $B=p$ (one spatial dimension), with canonical commutation relation\begin{equation}[x,p] = i\hbar.\end{equation}Therefore,\begin{equation}|\langle [x,p]\rangle|= |\langle i\hbar \rangle|= \hbar,\end{equation}and \eqref{eq:robertson} yields the standard position--momentum uncertainty relation\begin{equation}\boxed{\sigma_x \sigma_p \ge \frac{\hbar}{2}.}\end{equation} \subsection{Condition for equality (minimum-uncertainty states)} Equality in Cauchy--Schwarz holds iff the vectors are linearly dependent:\begin{equation}\Delta A|\psi\rangle = \lambda \, \Delta B|\psi\rangle\quad \text{for some complex } \lambda.\end{equation}For $A=x$ and $B=p$, this condition leads (in the $x$-representation) to afirst-order differential equation whose normalized solutions are Gaussianwave packets. Hence Gaussian states saturate $\sigma_x \sigma_p = \hbar/2$. \subsection{Definition of fluctuation operators and their role in the uncertainty relation} In the mathematical formulation of quantum uncertainty developed after Heisenberg’s original 1927 heuristic proposal, the quantities entering the uncertainty relation were redefined in statistical terms. In particular, in his 1929 paper, Robertson introduced the operators. \noindent\textbf{Critical observation.}The introduction of the fluctuation operators \begin{center}\fcolorbox{red}{white}{$\Delta A = A - \langle A \rangle,\qquad\Delta B = B - \langle B \rangle$}\end{center} \textbf{constitutes a nontrivial mathematicalassumption rather than a derived physical necessity. In the Robertson--Schrödinger formalism, the uncertainty of observables is defined \emph{a priori} in terms ofstatistical deviations from expectation values, thereby presupposing the verynotion of indeterminacy that the uncertainty principle is intended to justify.In other words, the operators $\Delta A$ and $\Delta B$ encode uncertainty byconstruction, since their variances measure ensemble spread relative to a mean.The subsequent derivation of a lower bound on $\sigma_A \sigma_B$ thereforeestablishes a constraint on these predefined statistical quantities, rather than demonstrating that physical observables must be uncertain from first principles.Consequently, the uncertainty relation obtained in this manner is logicallyconditional upon the initial choice of variance-based definitions and does not,by itself, prove the existence of intrinsic measurement indeterminacy or disturbance in individual quantum events.} \textit{They actully assumed and defined the spread and uncertainity initial in both the quantities and proved the uncertainity principle.} where $A$ and $B$ are self-adjoint operators representing observables and$\langle A \rangle = \langle \psi | A | \psi \rangle$ denotes the expectationvalue in a normalized quantum state $|\psi\rangle$ \cite{Robertson1929}.These operators describe deviations of observables from their mean valuesand are introduced in direct analogy with classical statistical fluctuations.The corresponding variances,$\sigma_A^2 = \langle (\Delta A)^2 \rangle$ and$\sigma_B^2 = \langle (\Delta B)^2 \rangle$,measure the statistical spread of measurement outcomes over an ensembleof identically prepared systems

Feb 10, 20260 citations

Heisenberg's uncertainty relation: Violation and reformulation

Masanao Ozawa

The uncertainty relation formulated by Heisenberg in 1927 describes a trade-off between the error of a measurement of one observable and the disturbance caused on another complementary observable so that their product should be no less than a limit set by Planck's constant. In 1980, Braginsky, Vorontsov, and Thorne claimed that this relation leads to a sensitivity limit for gravitational wave detectors. However, in 1988 a model of position measurement was constructed that breaks both this limit and Heisenberg's relation. Here, we discuss the problems as to how we reformulate Heisenberg's relation to be universally valid and how we experimentally quantify the error and the disturbance to refute the old relation and to confirm the new relation.The uncertainty relation formulated by Heisenberg in 1927 describes a trade-off between the error of a measurement of one observable and the disturbance caused on another complementary observable so that their product should be no less than a limit set by Planck's constant. In 1980, Braginsky, Vorontsov, and Thorne claimed that this relation leads to a sensitivity limit for gravitational wave detectors. However, in 1988 a model of position measurement was constructed that breaks both this limit and Heisenberg's relation. Here, we discuss the problems as to how we reformulate Heisenberg's relation to be universally valid and how we experimentally quantify the error and the disturbance to refute the old relation and to confirm the new relation.

arXiv:1402.5601Journal of Physics Conference SeriesApr 14, 201412 citations

A Universal Formulation of Uncertainty Relation for Error and Disturbance

Jaeha Lee, Izumi Tsutsui

We present a universal formulation of uncertainty relation valid for any conceivable quantum measurement and the resultant observation (observer) effect of statistical nature. Owing to its simplicity and operational tangibility, our general relation is also experimentally verifiable. Our relation violates the traditional na{ï}ve bound $\hbar/2$ for the position-momentum measurement while respecting Heisenberg's original philosophy of the uncertainty principle. Our error-disturbance relation admits a parallel formulation to our relation for errors, which also embraces the standard Kennard--Robertson (Schr{ö}dinger) relation as a special case; this attains a unified picture of the three orthodox realms of uncertainty regarding quantum indeterminacy, measurement, and observation effect within a single framework.We present a universal formulation of uncertainty relation valid for any conceivable quantum measurement and the resultant observation (observer) effect of statistical nature. Owing to its simplicity and operational tangibility, our general relation is also experimentally verifiable. Our relation violates the traditional na{ï}ve bound $\hbar/2$ for the position-momentum measurement while respecting Heisenberg's original philosophy of the uncertainty principle. Our error-disturbance relation admits a parallel formulation to our relation for errors, which also embraces the standard Kennard--Robertson (Schr{ö}dinger) relation as a special case; this attains a unified picture of the three orthodox realms of uncertainty regarding quantum indeterminacy, measurement, and observation effect within a single framework.

arXiv:2004.06099Apr 13, 20200 citations

A universal formulation of uncertainty relation for errors

Jaeha Lee, Izumi Tsutsui

We present a universal formulation of uncertainty relation valid for any conceivable quantum measurement of statistical nature. Owing to its simplicity and operational tangibility, our general relation is also experimentally verifiable. Our relation violates the traditional naïve bound ħ / 2 for the position-momentum measurement while respecting Heisenberg's original philosophy of the uncertainty principle. Our relation entails, among others, the Arthurs–Kelly–Goodman and Ozawa relations as corollaries to its special cases, and also seamlessly reduces itself to the standard Kennard–Robertson (Schrödinger) relation when the measurement is non-informative.We present a universal formulation of uncertainty relation valid for any conceivable quantum measurement of statistical nature. Owing to its simplicity and operational tangibility, our general relation is also experimentally verifiable. Our relation violates the traditional naïve bound ħ / 2 for the position-momentum measurement while respecting Heisenberg's original philosophy of the uncertainty principle. Our relation entails, among others, the Arthurs–Kelly–Goodman and Ozawa relations as corollaries to its special cases, and also seamlessly reduces itself to the standard Kennard–Robertson (Schrödinger) relation when the measurement is non-informative.

Physics Letters AOct 5, 20243 citations

Proof of Heisenberg's Error-Disturbance Relation for Individual Measurements

Seiji Kosugi

Heisenberg originally envisioned the error-disturbance relation under the premise that the state after measurement must remain consistent with the Kennard-Robertson uncertainty relation. This implies that the measurement error must be formulated via a posterior observable $\hat{x}_t$ , rather than a prior observable $\hat{x}_0$ , because the posterior measurement error determines the post-measurement uncertainty of the electron. Building upon the preliminary conceptual foundation reported in arXiv:1504.03779, this paper presents a rigorous derivation of the error-disturbance principle formulated from the unitary transformation equations of observables. Each readout $X$ of a posterior probe observable $\hat{X}_t$ completes a single measurement event, producing a specific conditional object state. The Kennard-Robertson uncertainty relation must hold for these states. Specifically, we show that the uncertainty relation between the error $ε_{X}(\hat{x}_t)$ and the disturbance $η_{X}(\hat{p}_0)$ holds strictly at the level of individual measurements, characterized by the specific readout $X$ . We also verify that conventional error-disturbance relations, where the errors are evaluated by averaging over the unconditioned state, hold true. Our results provide a refined theoretical basis for understanding the fundamental trade-off in individual measurement outcomes.Heisenberg originally envisioned the error-disturbance relation under the premise that the state after measurement must remain consistent with the Kennard-Robertson uncertainty relation. This implies that the measurement error must be formulated via a posterior observable $\hat{x}_t$, rather than a prior observable $\hat{x}_0$, because the posterior measurement error determines the post-measurement uncertainty of the electron. Building upon the preliminary conceptual foundation reported in arXiv:1504.03779, this paper presents a rigorous derivation of the error-disturbance principle formulated from the unitary transformation equations of observables. Each readout $X$ of a posterior probe observable $\hat{X}_t$ completes a single measurement event, producing a specific conditional object state. The Kennard-Robertson uncertainty relation must hold for these states. Specifically, we show that the uncertainty relation between the error $ε_{X}(\hat{x}_t)$ and the disturbance $η_{X}(\hat{p}_0)$ holds strictly at the level of individual measurements, characterized by the specific readout $X$. We also verify that conventional error-disturbance relations, where the errors are evaluated by averaging over the unconditioned state, hold true. Our results provide a refined theoretical basis for understanding the fundamental trade-off in individual measurement outcomes.

quant-pharXiv:2609.18211Sep 17, 20260 citations

\gamma

-ray microscope. Heisenberg argued that any attempt to localize a particle within a spatial region

\Delta x

requires radiation of wavelength comparable to

\Delta x

, which inevitably transfers an uncontrollable momentum

\Delta p

to the particle. As a consequence of this measurement-induced disturbance, he proposed that the product of the inaccuracies in position and momentum measurements satisfies a relation of the order\begin{equation}\Delta x\, \Delta p \sim h .\end{equation}Here,

\Delta x

and

\Delta p

denote operational measurement imprecisions arising from the interaction between the measuring apparatus and the system, rather than statistical variances of quantum observables. Heisenberg did not introduce operators, Hilbert space, or probability distributions, nor did he provide a formal inequality with a precise lower bound. The argument was explicitly heuristic and qualitative, emphasizing limitations imposed by the measurement process itself. Consequently, the original uncertainty principle was formulated as a statement about measurement disturbance and experimental resolution, not as a universal mathematical constraint on quantum states. \section{Standard mathematical proof of the position--momentum uncertainty relation} \subsection{Setup and definitions} Let

\mathcal{H}

be a Hilbert space and let

|\psi\rangle \in \mathcal{H}

be anormalized state,

\langle \psi | \psi \rangle = 1

. Let

A

and

B

beself-adjoint operators (observables) on a common dense domain containing

|\psi\rangle

, such that all expressions below are well-defined. Define expectation values\cite{Kennard1927,Robertson1929,Schrodinger1930,Ballentine1998,Sakurai1994}\begin{equation}\langle A \rangle := \langle \psi | A | \psi \rangle,\qquad\langle B \rangle := \langle \psi | B | \psi \rangle .\end{equation}Define the fluctuation (centered) operators\begin{equation}\Delta A := A - \langle A \rangle, \qquad \Delta B := B - \langle B \rangle .\end{equation}The variances are\begin{equation}\sigma_A^2 := \langle (\Delta A)^2 \rangle = \langle \psi | (\Delta A)^2 | \psi \rangle,\qquad\sigma_B^2 := \langle (\Delta B)^2 \rangle = \langle \psi | (\Delta B)^2 | \psi \rangle.\end{equation} \subsection{Key inequality: Cauchy--Schwarz in Hilbert space} Define vectors\begin{equation}|\phi\rangle := \Delta A |\psi\rangle, \qquad |\chi\rangle := \Delta B |\psi\rangle .\end{equation}By the Cauchy--Schwarz inequality,\begin{equation}\langle \phi|\phi\rangle \, \langle \chi|\chi\rangle \ge |\langle \phi|\chi\rangle|^2 .\end{equation}Compute each factor:\begin{equation}\langle \phi|\phi\rangle= \langle \psi| (\Delta A)^\dagger (\Delta A) |\psi\rangle= \langle \psi| (\Delta A)^2 |\psi\rangle= \sigma_A^2,\end{equation}and similarly

\langle \chi|\chi\rangle = \sigma_B^2

. Therefore\begin{equation}\sigma_A^2 \sigma_B^2 \ge \left| \langle \psi| \Delta A \Delta B |\psi\rangle \right|^2= |\langle \Delta A \Delta B \rangle|^2 .\label{eq:cs_step}\end{equation} \subsection{Robertson--Schr\"odinger decomposition} Decompose

\Delta A \Delta B

into commutator and anticommutator parts:\begin{equation}\Delta A \Delta B=\frac{1}{2}\bigl[\Delta A,\Delta B\bigr]+\frac{1}{2}\bigl\{\Delta A,\Delta B\bigr\},\end{equation}where

[X,Y]=XY-YX

and

\{X,Y\}=XY+YX

. Taking expectation values gives\begin{equation}\langle \Delta A \Delta B \rangle=\frac{1}{2}\langle [\Delta A,\Delta B]\rangle+\frac{1}{2}\langle \{\Delta A,\Delta B\}\rangle .\label{eq:decomp_exp}\end{equation} Now note the following facts for self-adjoint

A,B

:\begin{itemize}\item The operator

[\Delta A,\Delta B]

is anti-self-adjoint, hence

\langle [\Delta A,\Delta B]\rangle

is purely imaginary.\item The operator

\{\Delta A,\Delta B\}

is self-adjoint, hence

\langle \{\Delta A,\Delta B\}\rangle

is real.\end{itemize}Therefore the two terms in \eqref{eq:decomp_exp} are orthogonal in the complex plane(real vs.\ imaginary), and we may write\begin{equation}|\langle \Delta A \Delta B \rangle|^2=\left(\frac{1}{2}|\langle [\Delta A,\Delta B]\rangle|\right)^2+\left(\frac{1}{2}\langle \{\Delta A,\Delta B\}\rangle\right)^2 .\label{eq:RS_identity}\end{equation} Substituting \eqref{eq:RS_identity} into \eqref{eq:cs_step} yields theSchr\"odinger uncertainty relation:\begin{equation}\boxed{\sigma_A^2 \sigma_B^2 \ge\left(\frac{1}{2}|\langle [\Delta A,\Delta B]\rangle|\right)^2+\left(\frac{1}{2}\langle \{\Delta A,\Delta B\}\rangle\right)^2}.\label{eq:schrodinger}\end{equation} Since constants commute with everything,\begin{equation}[\Delta A,\Delta B] = [A-\langle A\rangle,\; B-\langle B\rangle] = [A,B].\end{equation}Hence \eqref{eq:schrodinger} can be written as\begin{equation}\boxed{\sigma_A^2 \sigma_B^2 \ge\left(\frac{1}{2}|\langle [A,B]\rangle|\right)^2+\left(\frac{1}{2}\langle \{\Delta A,\Delta B\}\rangle\right)^2}.\end{equation} \subsection{Robertson inequality (weaker but widely quoted)} Dropping the nonnegative anticommutator term gives Robertson's inequality:\begin{equation}\boxed{\sigma_A \sigma_B \ge \frac{1}{2}|\langle [A,B]\rangle|}.\label{eq:robertson}\end{equation} \subsection{Specialization to position and momentum} Take

A=x

and

B=p

(one spatial dimension), with canonical commutation relation\begin{equation}[x,p] = i\hbar.\end{equation}Therefore,\begin{equation}|\langle [x,p]\rangle|= |\langle i\hbar \rangle|= \hbar,\end{equation}and \eqref{eq:robertson} yields the standard position--momentum uncertainty relation\begin{equation}\boxed{\sigma_x \sigma_p \ge \frac{\hbar}{2}.}\end{equation} \subsection{Condition for equality (minimum-uncertainty states)} Equality in Cauchy--Schwarz holds iff the vectors are linearly dependent:\begin{equation}\Delta A|\psi\rangle = \lambda \, \Delta B|\psi\rangle\quad \text{for some complex } \lambda.\end{equation}For

A=x

and

B=p

, this condition leads (in the

x

-representation) to afirst-order differential equation whose normalized solutions are Gaussianwave packets. Hence Gaussian states saturate

\sigma_x \sigma_p = \hbar/2

. \subsection{Definition of fluctuation operators and their role in the uncertainty relation} In the mathematical formulation of quantum uncertainty developed after Heisenberg’s original 1927 heuristic proposal, the quantities entering the uncertainty relation were redefined in statistical terms. In particular, in his 1929 paper, Robertson introduced the operators. \noindent\textbf{Critical observation.}The introduction of the fluctuation operators \begin{center}\fcolorbox{red}{white}{

\Delta A = A - \langle A \rangle,\qquad\Delta B = B - \langle B \rangle

}\end{center} \textbf{constitutes a nontrivial mathematicalassumption rather than a derived physical necessity. In the Robertson--Schrödinger formalism, the uncertainty of observables is defined \emph{a priori} in terms ofstatistical deviations from expectation values, thereby presupposing the verynotion of indeterminacy that the uncertainty principle is intended to justify.In other words, the operators

\Delta A

and

\Delta B

encode uncertainty byconstruction, since their variances measure ensemble spread relative to a mean.The subsequent derivation of a lower bound on

\sigma_A \sigma_B

thereforeestablishes a constraint on these predefined statistical quantities, rather than demonstrating that physical observables must be uncertain from first principles.Consequently, the uncertainty relation obtained in this manner is logicallyconditional upon the initial choice of variance-based definitions and does not,by itself, prove the existence of intrinsic measurement indeterminacy or disturbance in individual quantum events.} \textit{They actully assumed and defined the spread and uncertainity initial in both the quantities and proved the uncertainity principle.} where

A

and

B

are self-adjoint operators representing observables and

\langle A \rangle = \langle \psi | A | \psi \rangle

denotes the expectationvalue in a normalized quantum state

|\psi\rangle

\cite{Robertson1929}.These operators describe deviations of observables from their mean valuesand are introduced in direct analogy with classical statistical fluctuations.The corresponding variances,

\sigma_A^2 = \langle (\Delta A)^2 \rangle

and

\sigma_B^2 = \langle (\Delta B)^2 \rangle

,measure the statistical spread of measurement outcomes over an ensembleof identically prepared systems

\hbar/2

for the position-momentum measurement while respecting Heisenberg's original philosophy of the uncertainty principle. Our error-disturbance relation admits a parallel formulation to our relation for errors, which also embraces the standard Kennard--Robertson (Schr{ö}dinger) relation as a special case; this attains a unified picture of the three orthodox realms of uncertainty regarding quantum indeterminacy, measurement, and observation effect within a single framework.

\hat{x}_t

, rather than a prior observable

\hat{x}_0

, because the posterior measurement error determines the post-measurement uncertainty of the electron. Building upon the preliminary conceptual foundation reported in arXiv:1504.03779, this paper presents a rigorous derivation of the error-disturbance principle formulated from the unitary transformation equations of observables. Each readout

X

of a posterior probe observable

\hat{X}_t

completes a single measurement event, producing a specific conditional object state. The Kennard-Robertson uncertainty relation must hold for these states. Specifically, we show that the uncertainty relation between the error

ε_{X}(\hat{x}_t)

and the disturbance

η_{X}(\hat{p}_0)

holds strictly at the level of individual measurements, characterized by the specific readout

X

. We also verify that conventional error-disturbance relations, where the errors are evaluated by averaging over the unconditioned state, hold true. Our results provide a refined theoretical basis for understanding the fundamental trade-off in individual measurement outcomes.