Applications of interval computations usually assume that while we only know an interval containing the actual (unknown) value of a physical quantity, there is the exact value of this quantity, and that in principle, we can get more and more accurate estimates of this value. Physicists know, however, that, due to uncertainty principle, there are limitations on how accurately we can measure the values of physical quantities. One of the important principles of modern physics is operationalism -- that a physical theory should only use observable properties. This principle is behind most successes of the 20th century physics, starting with relativity theory (vs. un-observable aether) and quantum mechanics. From this viewpoint, it is desirable to avoid using un-measurable exact values and to modify the mathematical formalisms behind physical theories so that they explicitly only take objective uncertainty into account. In this paper, we describe how this can be done for objective interval uncertainty.
Applications of interval computations usually assume that while we only know an interval containing the actual (unknown) value of a physical quantity, there is the exact value of this quantity, and that in principle, we can get more and more accurate estimates of this value. Physicists know, however, that, due to uncertainty principle, there are limitations on how accurately we can measure the values of physical quantities. One of the important principles of modern physics is operationalism -- that a physical theory should only use observable properties. This principle is behind most successes of the 20th century physics, starting with relativity theory (vs. un-observable aether) and quantum mechanics. From this viewpoint, it is desirable to avoid using un-measurable exact values and to modify the mathematical formalisms behind physical theories so that they explicitly only take objective uncertainty into account. In this paper, we describe how this can be done for objective interval uncertainty.
The current uncertainty principle is only the variance expressions, which is no complete and cannot satisfy the key and real urgent needs of the exactly describing physical systems up to now about one century since proposing uncertainty principle by Heisenberg. This paper not only deduces universal uncertainty principle but also solves the Puzzle of no giving exact values of general uncertainty of any orders of physical quantities in current different quantum theories, i.e., this paper solves the difficult Puzzle that current quantum computer, quantum communication, quantum control, quantum mechanics, particle physics, and quantum field theory and so on cannot give exact values of general uncertainty of any orders of physical quantities. This paper further gives all relevant different expressions of the universal uncertainty principle and their applications. In fact, our studies are consistent with current theories and physical factual experiments, e.g., relevant to hydrogen atom physics experiments Using the new universal uncertainty principle, people can give all applications to atomic physics, quantum mechanics, quantum communication quantum field theory, particle physics and so on, which will result in renewing to urgently do all works relevant to the universal uncertainty principle in all these sciences.
One of the most fascinating principles in quantum mechanics must be Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, which can be briefly stated as follows: every physical observation cannot be precisely determined without some degree of error or uncertainty. And it is by no means can one use the principle within the limit of certainty region, as will be shown in this Letter. Two of the most important pillars in modern physics must be Einstein’s relativity theory and Schr dinger’s contribution to quantum mechanics. Yet, there is a profound connection between these discoveries by means of the uncertainty relationship, in which we shown that the observation of a high-speed object is conceivable if the speed of the observer keeps up with object’s speed.
Uncertainty relations are commonly praised as one of the central pillars of quantum theory. Usually, they are taught in the first weeks of a beginners lecture, and introduced in the ?rst chapters of a textbook. However, their precise operational meaning and a formulation in a general context, i.e. beyond the example of position and momentum observables, are often left out. The reasoning for this is twofold: On one hand, an exact operational definition of uncertainty, indeterminacy and a corresponding uncertainty principle has been the content of many debates since the early days of quantum mechanics until today. From a modern perspective, we have the consent that there are at least the two notions of preparation and measurement uncertainty: the first notion prohibits the existence of dissipation free states and the latter one the existence of error free joint measurements. On the other hand, we have that, the mathematical tools, which are needed for comprehensive treatment of uncertainty relations in a general context, are still under development and usually go far beyond the mathematical level of an introductory course. In this thesis we will investigate these two notions of uncertainty, their corre- sponding uncertainty relations, such as their interplay. The aim of this thesis is to give answers to the central questions: (1.) Which quantities should be used to formulate uncertainty? (2.) How can we compute uncertainty relations for those? (3.) Are there connections between the two notions of uncertainty? We will do this, whenever possible, in a most general context and with a focus on relevant examples, otherwise. Therefore, we will consider constructions of mea- surement errors and deviation measures that quantify uncertainty, based on, so called, cost functions. Commonly used uncertainty measures like variances, en- tropies, and the Hamming distance are examples for these. We will investigate the structure of the corresponding uncertainty relations and provide several methods that enable us to compute them. The third question is addressed by a theorem that shows, for sharp observables, that measurement uncertainty relations can be lower bounded by preparation uncertainty relations, whenever the same cost function is used.
The notions of error and disturbance appearing in quantum uncertainty relations are often quantified by the discrepancy of a physical quantity from its ideal value. However, these real and ideal values are not the outcomes of simultaneous measurements, and comparing the values of unmeasured observables is not necessarily meaningful according to quantum theory. To overcome these conceptual difficulties, we take a different approach and define error and disturbance in an operational manner. In particular, we formulate both in terms of the probability that one can successfully distinguish the actual measurement device from the relevant hypothetical ideal by any experimental test whatsoever. This definition itself does not rely on the formalism of quantum theory, avoiding many of the conceptual difficulties of usual definitions. We then derive new Heisenberg-type uncertainty relations for both joint measurability and the error-disturbance tradeoff for arbitrary observables of finite-dimensional systems, as well as for the case of position and momentum. Our relations may be directly applied in information processing settings, for example to infer that devices which can faithfully transmit information regarding one observable do not leak any information about conjugate observables to the environment. We also show that Englert's wave-particle duality relation [PRL 77, 2154 (1996)] can be viewed as an error-disturbance uncertainty relation.
The notions of error and disturbance appearing in quantum uncertainty relations are often quantified by the discrepancy of a physical quantity from its ideal value. However, these real and ideal values are not the outcomes of simultaneous measurements, and comparing the values of unmeasured observables is not necessarily meaningful according to quantum theory. To overcome these conceptual difficulties, we take a different approach and define error and disturbance in an operational manner. In particular, we formulate both in terms of the probability that one can successfully distinguish the actual measurement device from the relevant hypothetical ideal by any experimental test whatsoever. This definition itself does not rely on the formalism of quantum theory, avoiding many of the conceptual difficulties of usual definitions. We then derive new Heisenberg-type uncertainty relations for both joint measurability and the error-disturbance tradeoff for arbitrary observables of finite-dimensional systems, as well as for the case of position and momentum. Our relations may be directly applied in information processing settings, for example to infer that devices which can faithfully transmit information regarding one observable do not leak any information about conjugate observables to the environment. We also show that Englert's wave-particle duality relation [PRL 77, 2154 (1996)] can be viewed as an error-disturbance uncertainty relation.
Abstract 1. In the general synthesis of classical dynamics with the quantum theory, the Uncertainty Principle plays a most useful part. It is of course only one aspect of the new mechanics, but it is a very helpful one since by its means it becomes easy to see where the old classical ideas broke down. The state of affairs in the quantum theory is not unlike that of the early days of relativity, when most of those who studied the subject felt the need of supporting the formal theory by seeing how the old ideas failed in specific cases. Here the formal theory is very abstract and is not easy to follow intuitively, and the Uncertainty Principle plays much the same rôle as did the examples of clocks and rods in relativity theory. For this reason it is more appropriate for illustrative examples, than for any extreme generality, and though a number of examples have been already given by Heisenberg and Bohr, it may not be amiss to have some more. There are probably some who will have shared my experience that it is often by no means easy to detect how the uncertainty enters into a given experiment, though once detected the arguments are usually very simple. In a recent conversation Professor Bohr criticised some rather careless remarks that I had made, and the present work was undertaken to clear matters up. It may be shortly described as a study of the Uncertainty Principle in connection with electrometers and magnetometers. It may be of interest to point out that the Uncertainty Principle can be regarded from a rather different aspect. The "resolving power" of optical instruments was discussed very fully by Rayleigh on wave principles, but as long as matter was regarded in the classical manner, a mechanical instrument could be considered as capable of measuring quantities with absolute accuracy. Now that we know that matter also has wave properties, there is need of a theory of the resolving power of mechanical instruments, and this is exactly what the Uncertainty Principle supplies.