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

American Journal of Physics

The Bohr–Einstein ‘‘weighing-of-energy’’ debate and the principle of equivalence

Richard Hughes

Published Sep 1, 1990• 11 citations
Publisher

Abstract

The Bohr–Einstein debate over the ‘‘weighing of energy’’ and the validity of the time–energy uncertainty relation is reexamined in the context of gravitation theories that do not respect the equivalence principle. Bohr’s use of the equivalence principle is shown to be sufficient, but not necessary, to establish the validity of this uncertainty relation in Einstein’s ‘‘weighing-of-energy’’ gedanken experiment. The uncertainty relation is shown to hold in any energy-conserving theory of gravity, and so a failure of the equivalence principle does not engender a failure of quantum mechanics. The relationship between the gravitational redshift and the equivalence principle is reviewed.

DOI
10.1119/1.16374

Related papers

The role of general relativity in the uncertainty principle

Τ. Padmanabhan

The role played by general relativity in quantum mechanics (especially as regards the uncertainty principle) is investigated. It is confirmed that the validity of time-energy uncertainty does depend on gravitational time dilation. The author also shows that there exists an intrinsic lower bound to the accuracy with which acceleration due to gravity can be measured. The motion of the equivalence principle in quantum mechanics is clarified.

Classical and Quantum Gravity•Sep 1, 1986•18 citations

Relation between energy and mass in Bohr's essay on his debate with einstein

Lev B. Okun

The famous debate between Einstein and Bohr on the (in)consistency of quantum mechanics was described in detail by Bohr in his essay of 1949. The present article comments not on the main subject of the debate but only on the terminology that is relevant to the notions of the theory of relativity and which was used by the participants. In particular, their statement on the equivalence of mass and energy should not be taken literally. In fact, the rest energy is meant here. The authority of the two great physicists should not be misused to preserve the confusing terminology.

Physics of Atomic Nuclei•Mar 1, 2001•4 citations

Uncertainty principle for proper time and mass

Shoju Kudaka, Shuichi Matsumoto

We review Bohr’s reasoning in the Bohr–Einstein debate on the photon box experiment. The essential point of his reasoning leads us to an uncertainty relation between the proper time and the rest mass of the clock. It is shown that this uncertainty relation can be derived if only we take the fundamental point of view that the proper time should be included as a dynamic variable in the Lagrangian describing the system of the clock. Some problems and some positive aspects of our approach are then discussed.

arXiv:quant-ph/9901019•Journal of Mathematical Physics•Mar 1, 1999•19 citations

Atom interferometry and the gravitational redshift

Supurna Sinha, Joseph Samuel

From the principle of equivalence, Einstein predicted that clocks slow down in a gravitational field. Since the general theory of relativity is based on the principle of equivalence, it is essential to test this prediction accurately. Muller, Peters and Chu claim that a reinterpretation of decade old experiments with atom interferometers leads to a sensitive test of this gravitational redshift effect at the Compton frequency. Wolf et al dispute this claim and adduce arguments against it. In this article, we distill these arguments to a single fundamental objection: an atom is NOT a clock ticking at the Compton frequency. We conclude that atom interferometry experiments conducted to date do not yield such sensitive tests of the gravitational redshift. Finally, we suggest a new interferometric experiment to measure the gravitational redshift, which realises a quantum version of the classical clock "paradox".

arXiv:1102.2587•Classical and Quantum Gravity•Jun 9, 2011•57 citations

Proof of the Energy-Time uncertainty principle in Powerful Statement

H. Arabshahi, Abdirahman Hassan Haji, Mohammadi Fariman +1 more

In this paper we have tried to perform a comprehensive summery of Energy-Time uncertainty principle. At first we review the history of uncertainty principle then the most well-known arguments between Einstein and Bohr. Our main aim is to provide an acceptable relationship for Energy-Time uncertainty principle and proof to it. I.

•Feb 3, 2014•0 citations

The uncertainty principle for energy and time. II

Jan Hilgevoord

The meaning and scope of a recent type of uncertainty relation of a very general character are elucidated using the notions of time-indicating dynamical variables (clock variables) and place-indicating dynamical variables (position variables). It is shown that if the total energy (momentum) of a system is certain, all time-indicating (place-indicating) dynamical variables are completely uncertain. The quantum clock is discussed as an illustration of the energy–time uncertainty relation. The relations can be successfully applied to the thought experiments that Einstein introduced into his debate with Bohr about the uncertainty principle(s) and, in particular, to the famous photon-box experiment. It is shown that due to this general relation the photon box can never serve its purpose, independent of the details of the experiment.

American Journal of Physics•May 1, 1998•55 citations
The Bohr–Einstein debate over the ‘‘weighing of energy’’ and the validity of the time–energy uncertainty relation is reexamined in the context of gravitation theories that do not respect the equivalence principle. Bohr’s use of the equivalence principle is shown to be sufficient, but not necessary, to establish the validity of this uncertainty relation in Einstein’s ‘‘weighing-of-energy’’ gedanken experiment. The uncertainty relation is shown to hold in any energy-conserving theory of gravity, and so a failure of the equivalence principle does not engender a failure of quantum mechanics. The relationship between the gravitational redshift and the equivalence principle is reviewed.
The famous debate between Einstein and Bohr on the (in)consistency of quantum mechanics was described in detail by Bohr in his essay of 1949. The present article comments not on the main subject of the debate but only on the terminology that is relevant to the notions of the theory of relativity and which was used by the participants. In particular, their statement on the equivalence of mass and energy should not be taken literally. In fact, the rest energy is meant here. The authority of the two great physicists should not be misused to preserve the confusing terminology.
We review Bohr’s reasoning in the Bohr–Einstein debate on the photon box experiment. The essential point of his reasoning leads us to an uncertainty relation between the proper time and the rest mass of the clock. It is shown that this uncertainty relation can be derived if only we take the fundamental point of view that the proper time should be included as a dynamic variable in the Lagrangian describing the system of the clock. Some problems and some positive aspects of our approach are then discussed.
From the principle of equivalence, Einstein predicted that clocks slow down in a gravitational field. Since the general theory of relativity is based on the principle of equivalence, it is essential to test this prediction accurately. Muller, Peters and Chu claim that a reinterpretation of decade old experiments with atom interferometers leads to a sensitive test of this gravitational redshift effect at the Compton frequency. Wolf et al dispute this claim and adduce arguments against it. In this article, we distill these arguments to a single fundamental objection: an atom is NOT a clock ticking at the Compton frequency. We conclude that atom interferometry experiments conducted to date do not yield such sensitive tests of the gravitational redshift. Finally, we suggest a new interferometric experiment to measure the gravitational redshift, which realises a quantum version of the classical clock "paradox".
The meaning and scope of a recent type of uncertainty relation of a very general character are elucidated using the notions of time-indicating dynamical variables (clock variables) and place-indicating dynamical variables (position variables). It is shown that if the total energy (momentum) of a system is certain, all time-indicating (place-indicating) dynamical variables are completely uncertain. The quantum clock is discussed as an illustration of the energy–time uncertainty relation. The relations can be successfully applied to the thought experiments that Einstein introduced into his debate with Bohr about the uncertainty principle(s) and, in particular, to the famous photon-box experiment. It is shown that due to this general relation the photon box can never serve its purpose, independent of the details of the experiment.