This survey tries to investigate the truths and deficiencies of prevalent philosophy about Uncertainty Relations (UR) and Quantum Measurements (QMS). The respective philosophy, known as being eclipsed by unfinished controversies, is revealed to be grounded on six basic precepts. But one finds that all the respective precepts are discredited by insurmountable deficiencies. So, in regard to UR, the alluded philosophy discloses oneself to be an unjustified mythology. Then UR appear either as short-lived historical conventions or as simple and limited mathematical formulas, without any essential significance for physics. Such a finding reinforces the Dirac's prediction that UR "`in their present form will not survive in the physics of future"'. The noted facets of UR motivate reconsiderations of associated debates on QMS. Mainly one reveals that, properly, UR have not any essential connection with genuine descriptions of QMS. For such descriptions, it is necessary that, mathematically, the quantum observables to be considered as random variables. The measuring scenarios with a single sampling, such are wave function collapse or Schrodinger's cat thought experiment, are revealed as being useless exercises. We propose to describe QMS as transmission processes for stochastic data. Note that the above-announced revaluation of UR and QMS philosophy does not disturb in any way the practical framework of the usual quantum mechanics.
The main theme of this book is the idea that quantum mechanics is valid not only for microscopic objects but also for the macroscopic apparatus used for quantum mechanical measurements. The author demonstrates the intimate relations that exist between quantum mechanics and its interpretation which are induced by the quantum mechanical measurement process. Consequently, the book is concerned both with the philosophical, metatheoretical problems of interpretations and with the more formal problems of quantum object theory. The consequences of this approach turn out to be partly very promising and partly rather disappointing. On the one hand, it is possible to give a rigorous justification of some important parts of interpretation, such as probability, by means of object theory. On the other hand, the problem of the objectification of measurement results leads to inconsistencies which cannot be resolved in an obvious way. This open problem has far-reaching consequences for the possibility of recognising an objective reality in physics.
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
We comment on the so-called negative result experiments (also known as null measurements, interaction-free measurements, and so on) in quantum mechanics (QM), in the light of the new general understanding of the quantum-measurement processes, proposed recently. All experiments of this kind (null measurements) can be understood as improper measurements with an intentionally biased detector set up, which introduces exclusion or selection of certain events. The prediction on the state of a microscopic system under study based on a null measurement is sometimes dramatically described as "wave-function collapse without any microsystem-detector interactions". Though certainly correct, such a prediction is just a consequence of the standard QM laws, not different from the situation in the so-called state-preparation procedure. Another closely related concept is the (first-class or) repeatable measurements. The verification of the prediction made by a null measurement requires eventually a standard unbiased measurement involving the microsystem-macroscopic detector interactions, which are nonadiabatic, irreversible processes of signal amplification.
Hybrid classical-quantum approaches are instrumental in numerous fields, from condensed matter physics to quantum information science. We recently proposed to describe hybrid systems starting from a set of natural axioms for measurement probabilities without adding any underlying mathematical structure. The so defined probability measures fulfill a no-signaling condition that ensures that instantaneous communication is impossible. We formulate here a dynamical generalization of this condition. It means that, for two independent systems, the outcome probabilities of a measurement made on one of them are not affected by a measurement performed earlier on the other. Analogous requirements are satisfied for usual classical and quantum bipartite systems and violating them would make faster-than-light signaling possible. The dynamical no-signaling condition has important consequences for classical-quantum interactions that depend on the hybrid approach used. For no-signaling hybrid dynamics with classical trajectories, the classical degrees of freedom can influence the quantum ones but the latter cannot react on the former. If pure states of quantum systems remain pure then the dynamical no-signaling condition implies the absence of classical reaction. When all hybrid states are allowed, there are no genuine classical-quantum interactions for no-signaling hybrid dynamics that do not generate correlations between the classical and the quantum degrees of freedom. In all these cases, the proposed condition is equivalent to the convex-linearity of the probability measure transformations describing finite-time evolutions.
A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it. – Max Planck, 1936 The only way quantum theory allows us to interact with quantum systems is via quantum processes. Thus, the only way we can extract information about the state of a quantum system is to apply some non-deterministic process and observe which of the branches happened. For that reason, many people refer to the act of applying certain quantum processes as measurement and sometimes even as observation . A consequence of this unfortunate terminology is that one of the most touted ‘strange’ features of quantum theory is often misleadingly described as follows: ‘The mere act of observing a quantum state changes it.’ ‘Misleading’, since the concept of measurement described in the previous paragraph is far from the passive concept of observation familiar from our macroscopic world, but is rather a non-trivial process that will almost always drastically affect the quantum state. So, the mysterious aspect of quantum theory is not that ‘observation’ alters the quantum state but, rather, that it is impossible, even in principle, to ‘observe’ a quantum system in the classical sense. Given this fundamental restriction on how we can extract information from a quantum system, what can we learn about that system by means of a quantum process? The answer is, in fact, very little! First, performing a particular measurement could, for the vast majority of quantum states, yield any outcome i with a non-zero probability. In that case, obtaining an outcome i doesn't tell us much about what the state of the system was. Second, we say ‘was’, because the measurement will moreover irreversibly change the state according to the outcome. So rather than revealing the state of a system, a quantum measurement typically erases that state from history! Nonetheless, these quantum measurements are crucial to quantum theory since they constitute the only interface between us, in our classical world, and the quantum world. The great insight of the quantum computing community is that the non-deterministic changes induced by these quantum measurements are not a nuisance, but rather an extremely useful resource.