Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Log inSign up
Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Blog
Job Board
Q3AS

© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

TermsPrivacyLegal Notice

Physical Review A

Derivation of the energy-time uncertainty relation

Donald H. Kobe, Valdir C. Aguilera-Navarro

Published Aug 1, 1994• 71 citations
Publisher

Abstract

A derivation from first principles is given of the energy-time uncertainty relation in quantum mechanics. A canonical transformation is made in classical mechanics to a new canonical momentum, which is energy E, and a new canonical coordinate T, which is called tempus, conjugate to the energy. Tempus T, the canonical coordinate conjugate to the energy, is conceptually different from the time t in which the system evolves. The Poisson bracket is a canonical invariant, so that energy and tempus satisfy the same Poisson bracket as do p and q. When the system is quantized, we find the energy-time uncertainty relation \ensuremath{\Delta}E\ensuremath{\Delta}T\ensuremath{\ge}\ensuremath{\Elzxh}/2. For a conservative system the average of the tempus operator T^ is the time t plus a constant. For a free particle and a particle acted on by a constant force, the tempus operators are constructed explicitly, and the energy-time uncertainty relation is explicitly verified.

DOI
10.1103/physreva.50.933

Related papers

The uncertainty principle for energy and time

Jan Hilgevoord

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.

American Journal of Physics•Dec 1, 1996•122 citations

Energy conservation in quantum mechanics

Jeffrey J. Prentis, William A. Fedak

In the classical mechanics of conservative systems, the position and momentum evolve deterministically such that the sum of the kinetic energy and potential energy remains constant in time. This canonical trademark of energy conservation is absent in the standard presentations of quantum mechanics based on the Schrödinger picture. We present a purely canonical proof of energy conservation that focuses exclusively on the time-dependent position x(t) and momentum p(t) operators. This treatment of energy conservation serves as an introduction to the Heisenberg picture and illuminates the classical-quantum connection. We derive a quantum-mechanical work-energy theorem and show explicitly how the time dependence of x and p and the noncommutivity of x and p conspire to bring about a perfect temporal balance between the evolving kinetic and potential parts of the total energy operator.

American Journal of Physics•Apr 13, 2004•12 citations

Explicit Construction of Time-Energy Uncertainty Relationship in Quantum Mechanics

I. Fujiwara, Kazuki Wakita, H. Yoro

On the basis of the principles proposed by the first author in 1970 and 1979 the time-energy uncertainty relationship in quantum mechanics is constructed explicitly for transitions between adequately prescribed states of a simple system of a nonrelativistic particle moving in a constant uniform field of force. The implications of the uncertainties in time and energy contemplated for transitions are clarified by contrasting them with ordinary uncertainties of various dynamical variables evaluated in one single state of the system. Decay process and the mean lifetime related to it are discussed too in a particular case when a pair of states, initial and final, for a transition happen to be identical.

Progress of Theoretical Physics•Aug 1, 1980•12 citations

Derivation of the relativistic ‘proper-time’ quantum evolution equations from canonical invariance

Moshe Shapiro

Based on (1) the spectral resolution of the energy operator; (2) the linearity of correspondence between physical observables and quantum self-adjoint operators; (3) the definition of conjugate coordinate–momentum variables in classical mechanics; and (4) the fact that the physical point in phase space remains unchanged under (canonical) transformations between one pair of conjugate variables to another, we are able to show that , the proper-time rest-energy transformation matrices, are given as a exp(−i E s t s /ℏ), from which we obtain the proper-time rest-energy evolution equation . For special relativistic situations this equation can be reduced to the usual dynamical equations, where t is the 'reference time' and E is the total energy. Extension of these equations to accelerating frames is then provided.

arXiv:0802.1063•Journal of Physics A Mathematical and Theoretical•Apr 15, 2008•4 citations

Relation between Quantum Thermodynamics and Classical Thermodynamics

Herbert W. Zimmermann

Abstract Quantum thermodynamics describes dynamic processes by means of the operators of entropy production P and time t . P and t do not commute. It exists the non-vanishing t–P commutator [ t , P ]=ik. Here the Boltzmann constant k has the physical meaning of a quantum of entropy. The t–P commutator immediately leads us to the t–P uncertainty relation ΔtΔP≥k/2. Hence the observables t and P are not sharply defined simultaneously. Similar uncertainty relations can also be expected for other pairs of conjugate variables with products of the physical meaning of an entropy. The free energy F and the reciprocal temperature (1/T) are the respective conjugate variables of an isolated system of many particles, which leads us to the F–(1/T) uncertainty relation ǀΔFǁΔ(1/T)ǀ≥k/2. It can be traced back to the t–P uncertainty relation mentioned above. In this way the Helmholtz free energy F and the temperatur T are introduced into quantum thermodynamics. The uncertainties ǀΔFǀ→0 and ǀΔTǀ→0 are negligible at low temperatures T→0, and quantum thermodynamics turns into the time-independent classical thermodynamics. Against this the uncertainties ǀΔFǀ→∞ and ǀΔTǀ→∞ grow unlimited at high temperatures T→∞, and classical thermodynamics loses its sense. In the limit of one particle the uncertainties cannot be neglected even at low temperatures. However a detailed discussion shows that the free energy f of a single particle vanishes within the whole range of temperatures T. This defines the particle entropy σ=ε/T=ak. The dimensionless entropy number a connects the particle energy ε=akT with the temperature T. The entropy number a of a single (s) independent particle can be calculated with the extended, temperature-dependent Schrödinger equation A s φ=aφ. Here A s=−(Λ 2/4π)∇2 means the dimensionless entropy operator describing the entropy number a and thus the particle entropy σ=ak. Λ is the thermal de Broglie wave length. Finally we calculate by means of quantized particle entropies σ the internal energy E, the Helmholtz free energy F, the entropy S, the chemical potential μ, and the equation of state of an ideal gas of N monatomic free particles in full agreement with classical thermodynamics. We also calculate the partition function q=V/Λ 3 of a single free particle within the volume V. Here Λ 3 is a small volume element taking into account the wave–particle dualism of a single free particle of mass m at temperature T. Extension to a system of N free particles leads us to a simple geometrical model and to the conclusion that an ideal gas of independent particles becomes instable below a critical temperature T C. T C corresponds to the critical temperature T BE of Bose–Einstein condensation.

Zeitschrift für Physikalische Chemie•Nov 24, 2010•15 citations

Quantum mechanics from Newton's second law and the canonical commutation relation [ X , P ] = i

Mark C. Palenik

Despite the fact that it has been known since the time of Heisenberg that quantum operators obey a quantum version of Newton's laws, students are often told that derivations of quantum mechanics must necessarily follow from the Hamiltonian or Lagrangian formulations of mechanics. Here, we first derive the existing Heisenberg equations of motion from Newton's laws and the uncertainty principle using only the equations $F=\frac{dP}{dt}$, $P=m\frac{dV}{dt}$, and $\left[X,P\right]=i$. Then, a new expression for the propagator is derived that makes a connection between time evolution in quantum mechanics and the motion of a classical particle under Newton's laws. The propagator is solved for three cases where an exact solution is possible 1) the free particle 2) the harmonic oscillator 3) a constant force, or linear potential in the standard interpretation. Such a picture may be useful for students as they make the transition from classical to quantum mechanics and help solidify the equivalence of the Hamiltonian, Lagrangian, and Newtonian formulations of physics in their minds.

arXiv:1402.0396•European Journal of Physics•May 9, 2014•4 citations
A derivation from first principles is given of the energy-time uncertainty relation in quantum mechanics. A canonical transformation is made in classical mechanics to a new canonical momentum, which is energy E, and a new canonical coordinate T, which is called tempus, conjugate to the energy. Tempus T, the canonical coordinate conjugate to the energy, is conceptually different from the time t in which the system evolves. The Poisson bracket is a canonical invariant, so that energy and tempus satisfy the same Poisson bracket as do p and q. When the system is quantized, we find the energy-time uncertainty relation \ensuremath{\Delta}E\ensuremath{\Delta}T\ensuremath{\ge}\ensuremath{\Elzxh}/2. For a conservative system the average of the tempus operator T^ is the time t plus a constant. For a free particle and a particle acted on by a constant force, the tempus operators are constructed explicitly, and the energy-time uncertainty relation is explicitly verified.
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.
In the classical mechanics of conservative systems, the position and momentum evolve deterministically such that the sum of the kinetic energy and potential energy remains constant in time. This canonical trademark of energy conservation is absent in the standard presentations of quantum mechanics based on the Schrödinger picture. We present a purely canonical proof of energy conservation that focuses exclusively on the time-dependent position x(t) and momentum p(t) operators. This treatment of energy conservation serves as an introduction to the Heisenberg picture and illuminates the classical-quantum connection. We derive a quantum-mechanical work-energy theorem and show explicitly how the time dependence of x and p and the noncommutivity of x and p conspire to bring about a perfect temporal balance between the evolving kinetic and potential parts of the total energy operator.
On the basis of the principles proposed by the first author in 1970 and 1979 the time-energy uncertainty relationship in quantum mechanics is constructed explicitly for transitions between adequately prescribed states of a simple system of a nonrelativistic particle moving in a constant uniform field of force. The implications of the uncertainties in time and energy contemplated for transitions are clarified by contrasting them with ordinary uncertainties of various dynamical variables evaluated in one single state of the system. Decay process and the mean lifetime related to it are discussed too in a particular case when a pair of states, initial and final, for a transition happen to be identical.
Based on (1) the spectral resolution of the energy operator; (2) the linearity of correspondence between physical observables and quantum self-adjoint operators; (3) the definition of conjugate coordinate–momentum variables in classical mechanics; and (4) the fact that the physical point in phase space remains unchanged under (canonical) transformations between one pair of conjugate variables to another, we are able to show that , the proper-time rest-energy transformation matrices, are given as a exp(−i E s t s /ℏ), from which we obtain the proper-time rest-energy evolution equation . For special relativistic situations this equation can be reduced to the usual dynamical equations, where t is the 'reference time' and E is the total energy. Extension of these equations to accelerating frames is then provided.
Abstract Quantum thermodynamics describes dynamic processes by means of the operators of entropy production P and time t . P and t do not commute. It exists the non-vanishing t–P commutator [ t , P ]=ik. Here the Boltzmann constant k has the physical meaning of a quantum of entropy. The t–P commutator immediately leads us to the t–P uncertainty relation ΔtΔP≥k/2. Hence the observables t and P are not sharply defined simultaneously. Similar uncertainty relations can also be expected for other pairs of conjugate variables with products of the physical meaning of an entropy. The free energy F and the reciprocal temperature (1/T) are the respective conjugate variables of an isolated system of many particles, which leads us to the F–(1/T) uncertainty relation ǀΔFǁΔ(1/T)ǀ≥k/2. It can be traced back to the t–P uncertainty relation mentioned above. In this way the Helmholtz free energy F and the temperatur T are introduced into quantum thermodynamics. The uncertainties ǀΔFǀ→0 and ǀΔTǀ→0 are negligible at low temperatures T→0, and quantum thermodynamics turns into the time-independent classical thermodynamics. Against this the uncertainties ǀΔFǀ→∞ and ǀΔTǀ→∞ grow unlimited at high temperatures T→∞, and classical thermodynamics loses its sense. In the limit of one particle the uncertainties cannot be neglected even at low temperatures. However a detailed discussion shows that the free energy f of a single particle vanishes within the whole range of temperatures T. This defines the particle entropy σ=ε/T=ak. The dimensionless entropy number a connects the particle energy ε=akT with the temperature T. The entropy number a of a single (s) independent particle can be calculated with the extended, temperature-dependent Schrödinger equation A s φ=aφ. Here A s=−(Λ 2/4π)∇2 means the dimensionless entropy operator describing the entropy number a and thus the particle entropy σ=ak. Λ is the thermal de Broglie wave length. Finally we calculate by means of quantized particle entropies σ the internal energy E, the Helmholtz free energy F, the entropy S, the chemical potential μ, and the equation of state of an ideal gas of N monatomic free particles in full agreement with classical thermodynamics. We also calculate the partition function q=V/Λ 3 of a single free particle within the volume V. Here Λ 3 is a small volume element taking into account the wave–particle dualism of a single free particle of mass m at temperature T. Extension to a system of N free particles leads us to a simple geometrical model and to the conclusion that an ideal gas of independent particles becomes instable below a critical temperature T C. T C corresponds to the critical temperature T BE of Bose–Einstein condensation.
Despite the fact that it has been known since the time of Heisenberg that quantum operators obey a quantum version of Newton's laws, students are often told that derivations of quantum mechanics must necessarily follow from the Hamiltonian or Lagrangian formulations of mechanics. Here, we first derive the existing Heisenberg equations of motion from Newton's laws and the uncertainty principle using only the equations F=dPdtF=\frac{dP}{dt}F=dtdP​, P=mdVdtP=m\frac{dV}{dt}P=mdtdV​, and [X,P]=i\left[X,P\right]=i[X,P]=i. Then, a new expression for the propagator is derived that makes a connection between time evolution in quantum mechanics and the motion of a classical particle under Newton's laws. The propagator is solved for three cases where an exact solution is possible 1) the free particle 2) the harmonic oscillator 3) a constant force, or linear potential in the standard interpretation. Such a picture may be useful for students as they make the transition from classical to quantum mechanics and help solidify the equivalence of the Hamiltonian, Lagrangian, and Newtonian formulations of physics in their minds.