We show by a statistical analysis of high-resolution scanning tunneling microscopy (STM) experiments, that the interpretation of the density of electron charge as a statistical quantity leads to a conflict with the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. Given the precision in these experiments we find that the uncertainty principle would be violated by close to two orders of magnitude, if this interpretation were correct. We are thus forced to conclude that the density of electron charge is a physically real, i.e., in principle precisely measurable quantity.
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
Abstract A modern state-of-the-art “quantum measurement” [The term “quantum measurement” as used here implies that parameters of atomic particles are measured that emerge from a single scattering process of quantum particles.] of momentum and position of a single electron at a given time [“at a given time” means directly after the scattering process. (It should be noticed that the duration of the reaction process is typically extremely short => attoseconds).] and the precision limits for their experimental determination are discussed from an experimentalists point of view. We show—by giving examples of actually performed experiments—that in a single reaction between quantum particles at a given time only the momenta of the emitted particles but not their positions can be measured with sub-atomic resolution. This fundamental disparity between the conjugate variables of momentum and position is due to the fact that during a single-event measurement only the total momentum but not position is conserved as function of time. We highlight, that (other than prevalently perceived) Heisenberg’s “Uncertainty Relation” UR [1] does not limit the achievable resolution of momentum in a single-event measurement. Thus, Heisenberg’s statement that in a single-event measurement only either the position or the momentum (velocity) of a quantum particle can be measured with high precision contradicts a real experiment. The UR states only a correlation between the mean statistical fluctuations of a large number of repeated single-event measurements of two conjugate variables. A detailed discussion of the real measurement process and its precision with respect to momentum and position is presented.
In view of experimentally obtainable resolutions, equal to the Compton wavelength of an electron, the conventional interpretation of quantum mechanics no longer seems to provide a sufficiently subtle tool. Based on the intrinsic properties of extended particles we propose a new theory, which allows to describe fundamental processes with unlimited precision at the microlevel. It is shown how this framework combines classical electrodynamics and quantum mechanics in a single and consistent picture. An analysis of single measurement problems reveals that the theory is suitable to remove some of the most striking paradoxes in quantum mechanics, which are found to originate from obscuring statistical effects with physical reasoning. A possible origin of the infinity problems in relativistic quantum fields is found by analyzing electron accelerations due to photon absorption processes. The current state of the theory and existing problems are discussed briefly.
Compton scattering figures prominently in the introductory chapters of textbooks on quantum mechanics as providing evidence for the ‘‘particulate’’ nature of light. It also arises in discussions of ‘‘Heisenberg’s microscope,’’ in which it is shown that attempts to measure the position and the momentum of an electron simultaneously are governed by the uncertainty principle. However, recent developments in Compton scattering have not yet found their way into the textbooks. In this paper we review the history of the Compton effect and describe briefly some of the modern developments in x-ray and electron Compton scattering and their application to the study of electron momentum densities which we believe to have a pedagogical value. Finally, we return to Heisenberg’s microscope, and show how it has now become a reality. A complete analysis for all scattering angles depends crucially on the different expressions for the resolution and the depth of focus of the microscope.
Atomic resolution transmission electron microscopy (TEM) is an indispensable tool for interdisciplinary investigations of radiation soft or hard materials that evolves rapidly because emerging technologies enable remarkable new experiments [1, 2]. Nowadays, many of them embrace the time domain [2-4]. Beyond materials research, electron microscopy is uniquely suited to study fundamental quantum-mechanical aspects. In fact, it remains concerning that aspects addressing the wave-particle duality, time-dependent measurements, or the entanglement of wave functions and their collapse at a detector still require detailed investigations to guide progress. Certainly, this is no academic matter because such aspects become the bottleneck for the deployment of microscopes that enable studying dynamic processes at high spatiotemporal resolution. It is established practice to describe the scattering of electron ensembles by either a particle picture (Figure 1a) or a wave picture (Figure 1b). Sometimes both pictures are mixed. In spite of calls for solving Schrödinger’s time dependent equation [5], the static Schrödinger equation of wave functions is almost exclusively used to reliably simulate the image formation process using multislice calculations for coherent-elastically scattered electron ensembles [6, 7]. Moreover, the Copenhagen convention of quantum mechanics [8] is adopted, which emphasizes the importance of an observation for the collapse of wave functions (Figure 1b). In order to foster further insight into fundamental quantum-mechanical aspects we pursue a series of experiments with low electron dose rates that guarantee the presence of single electrons in the microscope column at any given time [9]. Consequently, we address the scattering of single electrons (Figure 1c) and build up intensities from electron ensembles over time. In such conditions energy filtered TEM recently revealed the presence of image intensity at sample/vacuum interfaces that cannot be simulated using the established (static) calculation tools even if frozen phonon excitations are considered [10]. In contrast, these intensities can be explained by the time-dependent Schrödinger equation assuming that an energy exchange ΔE occurs during any interaction of the electron with the sample in the Heisenberg limit ΔE = ℏ/2 Δt−1 (coherent-inelastic scattering). In this process a wave package is formed by the superposition of partial waves and a decoherence phase of 0.5-1 radian [10]. The time-dependent Schrödinger equation yields two parameters that characterize the static and the dynamic behavior of any wave function ψ(r, t) = ψ(r) ϕ(t), namely xstatic = ℏ/(2mΔE)1/2 and xdynamic = ℏc/ΔE [11]. The former is the de Broglie wavelength if ΔE is a kinetic energy and the latter becomes an expression for self-coherence if the scattering process is coherent-inelastic in the Heisenberg limit. In these circumstances, the product of Planck’s constant and the speed of light hc is given by the product of the expression for temporal coherence λ2/Δλ and the energy loss ΔE (hc = (λ2/Δλ) ΔE). The validity of the relation is shown in Figure 2 [11]. Thus, the temporal part of Schrödinger’s equation adds contributions of a finite self-coherence length (or time if the electron velocity is considered) to any scattering process, which is neglected if only the static expression is exploited. Further, the formation of wave packages rationalizes the wave-particle duality. The width of wave packages is described by a self-coherence length ls that can vary by over 40 orders of magnitude depending on the strength of interactions [11]. For Coulomb interactions, ls explains the vanishing phase contrast from EF-HRTEM images when the energy loss exceeds values of ΔE > 200 eV [11]. A procedure to experimentally determine the self-coherence length was established earlier by measuring the energy dependent localization of scattered matter waves in surface proximity [10]. Therefore, electron microscopy can be used as a general tool to measure the self-coherence length in real space images on a scale of nanometers and relate this these values to a self-coherence time that reaches attoseconds [12]. Particle and wave descriptions of electron scattering. a) Scattering of electron ensembles in a particle picture. The process is often described by Feynman diagrams, which involves the emission of a virtual photon of lifetime given by Heisenbergs Uncertainty Principle. b) Scattering of electron ensembles in a wave picture that underlies the multi-slice calculations. Infinite wave functions entangle source, sample and detector. The Copenhagen convention requires a wave function collapse upon observation. c) Proposed scattering process of a single electron wave function. The energy exchange occurs in the Heisenberg limit ΔEloss = E2-E1= ℏ/2 (t2-t1)−1= ℏ/2 Δt−1 when a wave package is formed during Δt because of existing energy (wavelength) differences ΔEloss of partial waves [11]. Measurements of self-coherence length and the related self-coherence time at the calculated Heisenberg limit. The colored background marks the quantum realm. The solid lines represent the Heisenberg limit in space and time, which includes the constant ℏc [11].