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

Journal of Physics A Mathematical and General

Comments on Robinson's thought experiment testing Heisenberg's principle

Ishwar S Singh

Published Aug 1, 1981• 8 citations
Publisher

Abstract

The author points out the unphysical assumptions which led Robinson (see ibid., vol.13, p.877, 1980) to conclude the violation of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.
DOI
10.1088/0305-4470/14/8/037

Related papers

Comments on 'On a proposed new test of Heisenberg's principle'

Dipankar Home, S. Sengupta

The authors point out a logical fallacy in Robinson's analysis (ibid., vol.13, p.877, 1980) of a thought experiment purporting to show violation of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. The real problem concerning the interpretation of Heisenberg's principle is precisely stated.

Journal of Physics A Mathematical and General•Feb 1, 1981•2 citations

Concerning "A thought experiment violating Heisenberg's uncertainty principle"

J. J. Billette, C. Campillo, C. Lee +3 more

It is shown that "Robinson's thought experiment" does not violate Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, contrary to the claim of its designer.

Canadian Journal of Physics•Nov 1, 1969•1 citation

Reply to comments on 'On a proposed new test of Heisenberg's principle'

M C Robinson

It is shown that the claims of Home and Sengupta (1981) and of Singh (1981) to have discovered fallacies in the author's analysis of a proposed, technically feasible test of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle are based on misunderstandings.

Journal of Physics A Mathematical and General•Oct 1, 1982•1 citation

How I got to understand Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle

Eli Maor

(2009). How I got to understand Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. Math Horizons: Vol. 16, No. 4, pp. 5-33.

Math Horizons•Apr 1, 2009•0 citations

Popper's experiment and the interpretation of quantum mechanics.

Georgios Zouros

Popper invented a thought experiment that is alleged to test the Copenhagen interpretation of Quantum mechanics, though not the theory itself. In particular it is alleged to test the application of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle to indirect measurements. The experiment is similar to the EPR thought experiment, but it suffers from some technical flaws. These flaws are examined to see if they affect the validity of the argument; so long as they can be alleviated by technical means, the argument retains its force. The experiment has been recently instantiated, with some resolutions of these technical flaws. The results, on face value seem to vindicate Popper and to indicate a violation of the uncertainty principle. Nevertheless, Kim and Shih, who carried out the experiment, give their own interpretation that suggests that the principle should be considered intact but that the correct way to understand the results is to adopt a new metaphysics. Others suggest different reasons why the results do not amount to a violation of the uncertainty principle. Despite a variety of responses, which are carefully examined, the general point that an interpretation cannot alter the empirical basis of a theory is shown to be true. The importance of Rigolid's work in this connection is emphasized.

•Jan 1, 2007•1 citation

Heisenberg’s uncertainty relation may be violated in a single measurement

Michael B. Mensky

Journal of Russian Laser Research•Jul 1, 2006•2 citations
Popper invented a thought experiment that is alleged to test the Copenhagen interpretation of Quantum mechanics, though not the theory itself. In particular it is alleged to test the application of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle to indirect measurements. The experiment is similar to the EPR thought experiment, but it suffers from some technical flaws. These flaws are examined to see if they affect the validity of the argument; so long as they can be alleviated by technical means, the argument retains its force. The experiment has been recently instantiated, with some resolutions of these technical flaws. The results, on face value seem to vindicate Popper and to indicate a violation of the uncertainty principle. Nevertheless, Kim and Shih, who carried out the experiment, give their own interpretation that suggests that the principle should be considered intact but that the correct way to understand the results is to adopt a new metaphysics. Others suggest different reasons why the results do not amount to a violation of the uncertainty principle. Despite a variety of responses, which are carefully examined, the general point that an interpretation cannot alter the empirical basis of a theory is shown to be true. The importance of Rigolid's work in this connection is emphasized.