The physical meaning of the uncertainty relation between time and energy appears to be not completely clear until now. This fact is not surprising since the interpretation of the time-energy relation is much more difficult than the interpretation of the similar relation between the coordinate and momentum. Indeed, the latter relation is easily derived from the quantum-mechanical formalism and does not require the examination of the course of the physical process in time. The relation between time and energy, however, essentially requires such an examination, and there arises a question whether Schro¨dinger’s equation may be used or not in deriving this relation, the latter possibility being not excluded since the relation may be interpreted to correspond to a measurement act, which does not obey Schro¨dinger’s equation.
The physical meaning of the uncertainty relation between time and energy appears to be not completely clear until now. This fact is not surprising since the interpretation of the time-energy relation is much more difficult than the interpretation of the similar relation between the coordinate and momentum. Indeed, the latter relation is easily derived from the quantum-mechanical formalism and does not require the examination of the course of the physical process in time. The relation between time and energy, however, essentially requires such an examination, and there arises a question whether Schro¨dinger’s equation may be used or not in deriving this relation, the latter possibility being not excluded since the relation may be interpreted to correspond to a measurement act, which does not obey Schro¨dinger’s equation.
Because time does not appear in Schr\"odinger's equation as an operator but only as a parameter, the time-energy uncertainty relation must be formulated in a special way. This problem has in fact been studied by many authors and we give a summary of their treatments. We then criticize the main conclusion of these treatments; viz., that in a measurement of energy carried out in a time interval, $\ensuremath{\Delta}t$, there must be a minimum uncertainty in the transfer of energy to the observed system, given by $\ensuremath{\Delta}({E}^{\ensuremath{'}}\ensuremath{-}E)>~\frac{h}{\ensuremath{\Delta}t}$. We show that this conclusion is erroneous in two respects. First, it is not consistent with the general principles of the quantum theory, which require that all uncertainty relations be expressible in terms of the mathematical formalism, i.e., by means of operators, wave functions, etc. Secondly, the examples of measurement processes that were used to derive the above uncertainty relation are not general enough. We then develop a systematic presentation of our own point of view, with regard to the role of time in the quantum theory, and give a concrete example of a measurement process not satisfying the above uncertainty relation.
The Energy‐Time Uncertainty (ETU) has always been a problem‐ridden relation, its problems stemming uniquely from the perplexing question of how to understand this mysterious Δt. On the face of it (and, indeed, far deeper than that), we always know what time it is. Few theorists were ignorant of the fact that time in quantum mechanics is exogenously defined, in no ways intrinsically related to the system. Time in quantum theory is an independent parameter, which simply means independently known. In the early 1960s Aharonov (1961–64) and Bohm (1961–64) mounted a spirited attack against the ETU, which sealed its fate to the present date. By emphasising that time is always “well‐defined” in quantum theory, they were led to the conclusion that no ETU should exist, a view shared by many in the 1990s, if Busch (1990) is to be believed. In a similar vein, I emphasize that (a) physical systems occupy a particular energy state at a particular instant of time, if at all; (b) even in absence of all time‐measuring instruments, it is still trivially warranted that one can measure a system's energy as accurately as one pleases, and simply announce “The system's energy is exactly E NOW!”, a possibility which no quantum mechanics of any sort, or any physical theory whatsoever, can afford to tamper with or change, except circularly. One never loses one's own perception of time, when one measures the energy, a fact which no measurement conceivable can interfere with or affect. Both (a) and (b) uniquely entail that energy and time are compatible, if not indeed intimately interconnected, contrary to what the relevant uncertainty seems to affirm. In response to Aharonov's and Bohm's initial problem, I reinterpret ΔEΔt ≥ h, as directly derived from authentic quantum principles, without however having to assume a direct incompatibility between its related concepts, attributing their complementarity to conditions other than ordinarily assumed.
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.
Suppose that the Hamiltonian acting on a quantum system is unknown and one wants to determine which is the Hamiltonian. We show that, in general, this requires a time $\ensuremath{\Delta}t$ that obeys the uncertainty relation $\ensuremath{\Delta}t\ensuremath{\Delta}H\ensuremath{\gtrsim}1,$ where $\ensuremath{\Delta}H$ is a measure of how accurately the unknown Hamiltonian must be estimated. We apply this result to the problem of measuring the energy of an unknown quantum state. It has been previously shown that if the Hamiltonian is known, then the energy can, in principle, be measured with arbitrarily large precision in an arbitrarily short time. On the other hand, we show that if the Hamiltonian is not known then an energy measurement necessarily takes a minimum time $\ensuremath{\Delta}t$ which obeys the uncertainty relation $\ensuremath{\Delta}t\ensuremath{\Delta}E\ensuremath{\gtrsim}1,$ where $\ensuremath{\Delta}E$ is the precision of the energy measurement. Several examples are studied to address the question of whether it is possible to saturate these uncertainty relations. Their interpretation is discussed in detail.
It is generally thought desirable that quantum theory entail an uncertainty relation for time and energy similar to the one for position and momentum. Nevertheless, the existence of such a relation has still remained problematic. Here, it is shown that the problem is due to a confusion between the position coordinates of a point particle (a material system) and the coordinates of a point in space: The time coordinate should be put on a par with the space coordinates, not with the canonical position coordinates of a material system. Whereas quantum mechanics incorporates a Heisenberg uncertainty relation between the canonical position coordinates and their conjugate momenta, there is no reason why a Heisenberg relation should hold between the space coordinates and the canonical momenta, or between the time coordinate and the energy of the system. However, uncertainty relations of a different kind exist between the space coordinates and the total momentum of the system and between the time coordinate and the total energy. These relations are completely similar and may be taken together to form a relativistically covariant set of uncertainty relations. The relation between the time coordinate and the energy implies the well-known relation between the lifetime of a state and its energy spread.
Unlike classical mechanics, quantum mechanics assumes the famous Heisenberg uncertainty relations. One of these concerns time: the energy–time uncertainty relation. Unlike the canonical position–momentum uncertainty relation, the energy–time relation is not reflected in the operator formalism of quantum theory. Indeed, it is often said and taken as problematic that there is not a so-called “time operator” in quantum theory. This chapter sheds light on these questions and others, including the absorbing matter of whether quantum mechanics allows for the existence of ideal clocks. The second section notes that quantum mechanics does not involve a special problem for time, and that there is no fundamental asymmetry between space and time in quantum mechanics over and above the asymmetry which already exists in classical physics. The third section studies time operators in detail. The fourth section discusses various uncertainty relations involving time.