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
γ-ray microscope. Heisenberg argued that any attempt to localize a particle within a spatial region
Δx requires radiation of wavelength comparable to
Δx, which inevitably transfers an uncontrollable momentum
Δp 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,
Δx and
Δp 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
H be a Hilbert space and let
∣ψ⟩∈H be anormalized state,
⟨ψ∣ψ⟩=1. Let
A and
B beself-adjoint operators (observables) on a common dense domain containing
∣ψ⟩, 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
⟨χ∣χ⟩=σB2. 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
ΔAΔB 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
[ΔA,ΔB] is anti-self-adjoint, hence
⟨[ΔA,ΔB]⟩ is purely imaginary.\item The operator
{ΔA,ΔB} is self-adjoint, hence
⟨{ΔA,ΔB}⟩ 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
σxσp=ℏ/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}{
ΔA=A−⟨A⟩,ΔB=B−⟨B⟩}\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
ΔA and
ΔB encode uncertainty byconstruction, since their variances measure ensemble spread relative to a mean.The subsequent derivation of a lower bound on
σAσB 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
⟨A⟩=⟨ψ∣A∣ψ⟩ denotes the expectationvalue in a normalized quantum state
∣ψ⟩ \cite{Robertson1929}.These operators describe deviations of observables from their mean valuesand are introduced in direct analogy with classical statistical fluctuations.The corresponding variances,
σA2=⟨(ΔA)2⟩ and
σB2=⟨(ΔB)2⟩,measure the statistical spread of measurement outcomes over an ensembleof identically prepared systems
The principle of uncertainty is one of the essential principles of quantum mechanics as it outlines that there is a reflective limit to the measurement of microscopic particle motion. However it is impossible to measure at once and accurately both the position and momentum data of any microscopic particle no matter what means are used to do so. This paper starts by discussing the notion and mathematical derivation of the uncertainty principle as put forth by Heisenberg explaining the physical relevance of the principle. It introduces the natural uncertainty the principle introduces to the dynamics of particles in the microscopic world, and the significant part it plays in the theory of quantum mechanics. The article overviews the explanations of the principle on phenomena including atomic stability and scanning tunneling microscopes, and the interference of measurement actions on the states of particles and the shortcomings of measurement precision. According to the wave-particle duality of quantum mechanics, this article gives a required theoretical basis of microscopic phenomena. Likewise, the use of the research theory on the uncertainty principle by distinguished scholars in the physics fraternity helps the readers in achieving the knowledge in related subjects more easily.
The essential indefiniteness of quantum mechanics {Heisenberg) The origin of quantum mechanics was an attempt to break away from the usual kinematical and mechanical concepts and in their place to substitute relations between concrete numbers given by experiment. The position of an electron The position of an electron relative to a given system of axes must be measurable by experiment if the term is to have a meaning in quantum mechanics. We illuminate the electron and observe it through a microscope; the accuracy with which the position can be observed is given by the wave-length of the light used. If we use a y ray microscope, we should get the most exact result physically possible. But these y rays produce a Compton effect on the electron, so that at the instant when the position is determined the momentum of the electron is suddenly changed. This change of momentum is all the greater the shorter the wave-length of the light used, i.e. the more accurate the determination of position is. Thus at the moment when the position of the electron is known, its momentum can only be known to an order equal to this discontinuous change. Hence the more exactly a coordinate q is determined, the less exactly can its momentum p be found; and conversely.
A universal formulation of the quantum uncertainty regarding quantum indeterminacy, quantum measurement, and its inevitable observer effect is presented with additional focus on the representability of quantum observables over a given state. The operational tangibility of the framework assures that the resultant general relations admit natural operational interpretations and characterisations, and thereby perhaps most importantly, their experimental verifiability. In view of the universal formulation, Heisenberg's original philosophy of the uncertainty principle, most typically exemplified in his famous gamma-ray microscope Gedankenexperiment, is revisited; it is reformulated and restated as a refined no-go theorem, albeit perhaps in a weaker form than was originally intended. The relations entail, in essence as corollaries to their special cases, several previously known relations, including most notably the standard Kennard-Robertson relation, the Arthurs-Kelly-Goodman relations for joint measurement as well as the Ozawa and the Watanabe-Sagawa-Ueda relations for error and error-disturbance.
This paper is a small discussion about the uncertainty principle. With the great discoveries and researches made by predecessors, I try to answer some questions within the uncertainty principle. Using the definition of momentum, the momentum in de Broglie wave, the property of cosine function, the Euler’s formula, the basic property of plane wave, the law of derivative, the energy of quantum discovered by Max Planck, the photon energy discovered by Albert Einstein, the energy equation of a system and the Hamiltonian operator, I figure out the Schrodinger equation successfully. With the help of Schrodinger equation, the possibility density of a wave function, the concept of normalization, the average value of position and momentum, the Fourier transform, the integration by parts and the limit of normalized wave functions, I find the position operator and the momentum operator. Then using some knowledge of the standard deviation and the variance, the concept of inner product of vectors, some property of Dirac symbol, the law of calculation of complex number and the law of operator calculation, I obtain the general uncertainty relationship of abstract mathematical quantities. According to the general relationship, I get the inequality of uncertainty principle, and discuss the specific relationship between the position and the momentum. After getting the inequality, I use Heisenberg’s experiment of measuring an electron by using the γ ray to hit the electron to explain why we cannot measure the position and the momentum simultaneously. Based on Heisenberg’s experiment, I give my own explanation by discussing the earth and a spacecraft. Transforming the perspective, we can easily see how the accuracies of position and momentum change. In addition, I attempt to figure out why the uncertainty exists. However, I can only explain it by discussing the time and frequency in mathematical method and have no idea to work it out in a pure physics approach.
Heisenberg guessed, after he established the matrix quantum mechanics, that the non-commutativity of the matrices of position and momentum implied that the position and momentum of a particle could not be precisely simultaneously determined. He consequently conjectured that time and energy should also have a similar relationship. Soon after, Robertson derived an inequality concerning the space coordinate and momentum, which was thought to be the mathematical expression of the uncertainty relation guessed by Heisenberg. Since then, people have tried various devices to prove the correctness of these two relations. However, no one conducted a careful analysis of Heisenberg’s primary paper. In this work, we point out some serious problems in Heisenberg’s paper and the literature talking about the uncertainty relationships: the physical concepts involved in the uncertainty relations are not clear; one physical concept had more than one explanation, i.e., switching concepts; there has never been measurement experiment to support the relations. The conclusions are that the so-called coordinate–momentum uncertainty relation has never been related to actual measurement and there does not exist a time–energy uncertainty relation.