Observables A and B satisfy the Heisenberg inequality if the product of their variances has a positive lower bound independent of the state of the system. In the Hilbert space formulation of quantum mechanics it is a consequence of the Schwarz inequality that the Heisenberg-type inequality Var(A,φ)⋅Var(B,φ)≥ (1)/(4) ‖〈Aφ‖Bφ〉−〈Bφ‖Aφ〉‖2 holds for any pair of observables A and B (represented as self-adjoint operators) and for any (vector) state (represented as a unit vector). If inf{‖〈Aφ‖Bφ〉−〈Bφ‖Aφ〉‖ ‖φ∈dom(A) ∩dom(B)}≠0 then A and B satisfy the Heisenberg inequality. In the present paper the derivability of the Heisenberg-type inequality is analyzed within the general theoretical frame of a sum logic. It is shown that any real-valued non-negative function (A,α)→f(A,α) of observables A and of states α, which has a symmetry property f(A+B,α)+f(A−B,α)=2f(A,α)+2f(B,α) with respect to observables, satisfies the Heisenberg-type inequality f(A,α)⋅f(B,α)≥ (1)/(4) ‖ f(A+B,α)−f(A,α)−f(B,α)‖2 for all observables A and B and for all states α. The natural probabilistic realizations f1(A,α)=Exp(A2,α) and f2(A,α)=Var(A,α) of such functions are then analyzed. It turns out that only with the complex extension of the theory can the Heisenberg inequality be attained in the Hilbert space realization of the theory. This is used as an argument in favor of the complex field as the scalar field of quantum mechanics.
There is a notational discrepancy in how mathematicians and physicists treat Hilbert spaces. In physics, one often works with finite-dimensional Hilbert spaces treated as ℂ n , and hence wants to write the Hermitian inner product as (x, y) = x ∗ y. This definition dictates the use of a Hermitian inner product that is antilinear in the first argument, the convention followed, for example, in Reed & Simon [246]. This is also the choice adopted in Dirac’s bracket notation, whose usage in quantum mechanics is very widespread. Our notation is chosen to extend-as closely as possible-the traditional notation of standard finite-dimensional matrix algebra to arbitrary complex inner product spaces and associated linear operators. In matrix algebra, column vectors and the corresponding matrices with one column are identical objects, row vectors are the linear functionals, and the adjoint is the conjugate transpose. For example, ℍ = ℍ × = ℂ n is the space of column vectors of size n, the dual space ℍ ∗ is the space of row vectors of size n, and the operator product ϕ ∗ ψ of a row vector ϕ ∗ and a column vector ψ is the standard Hermitian inner product of the column vectors ϕ and ψ. We use Greek lower case letters to write vectors, thus emphasizing their intended use as quantum state vectors in quantum mechanics. On the other hand, mathematicians working on reproducing kernel Hilbert spaces use an inner product (x, y) antilinear in the second argument, related to the physicist’s inner product (x, y) by (x, y) =( ). This is the convention followed, for example, in Rudin [252]. Although the two ways of defining the inner product lead to fully equivalent theories, all details look a bit different, a fact that has to be taken into account when reading the literature on the subject. For example, in the description based on the physical tradition, it is preferable to work with the antidual space in place of the dual space used in the mathematical tradition. In functional analysis, linear operators in Hilbert spaces are usually considered each with their own domain. But many computations in quantum mechanics require the consideration of algebras of operators with a common domain. The latter is a Euclidean space, a dense subspace of a Hilbert space. This space and its antidual play in many respects a more basic role in quantum physics than the Hilbert space itself. Therefore, and to avoid possible confusion caused by the different traditions, we give in the present chapter a self-contained introduction to Euclidean spaces and their associated spaces. All proofs are carried out in detail.
The Heisenberg uncertainty principle is foundational to quantum mechanics, yet its standard formulation is limited to Hilbert space operator commutators. Recent advances in noncommutative geometry (NCG) allow a reformulation of quantum observables and spacetime itself using operator algebras, providing a deeper framework for uncertainty relations. In this paper, we develop a generalized uncertainty relation using spectral triples, extending the Robertson– Schrödinger inequality into the noncommutative regime. Explicit derivations are given for operator-valued distances, modified commutators, and position–momentum operators in a noncommutative configuration space. Our results reveal the emergence of a minimal measurable length scale, consistent with predictions from quantum gravity, and demonstrate that uncertainty is fundamentally geometric in origin.
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