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

Canadian Journal of Physics

The so-called fourth indeterminacy relation

Mario Bunge

Published Jun 1, 1970• 21 citations
Publisher

Abstract

The indeterminacy relation between time and energy, suggested by Bohr on the basis of a thought experiment, is shown not to belong to the quantum theory. It is argued that the incorporation of that formula into a theory would require a basic departure from present day physics, consisting in representing time by a suitable operator. It is suggested that the formula be dropped altogether.

DOI
10.1139/p70-172

Related papers

Epistemologic controversy on quantum operators

Alemañ Berenguer, Rafael A.

Since the very begining of quantum theory there started a debate on the proper role of space and time in it. Some authors assumed that space and time have their own algebraic operators. On that basis they supposed that quantum particles had “coordinates of position”, even though those coordinates were not possible to determine with infinite precision. Furthermore, time in quantum physics was taken to be on an equal foot, by means of a so-called “Heisenberg’s fourth relation of indeterminacy” concerning time and energy. In this paper, the proper role of space and time in the core of non-relativistic quantum phsysics is analyzed. We will find that, rigorously, that relation for time and energy shows a different root. For the role of space, it will be discussed that there is no “coordinate of position” in the conceptual structure of quantum physics because quantum particles are not point-like objects.

•Jan 1, 2010•1 citation

Epistemologic controversy on quantum operators DOI:10.5007/1808-1711.2010v14n2p241

Rafael Andrés Alemañ Berenguer

Since the very begining of quantum theory there started a debate on the proper role of space and time in it. Some authors assumed that space and time have their own algebraic operators. On that basis they supposed that quantum particles had “coordinates of position”, even though those coordinates were not possible to determine with infinite precision. Furthermore, time in quantum physics was taken to be on an equal foot, by means of a so-called “Heisenberg’s fourth relation of indeterminacy” concerning time and energy. In this paper, the proper role of space and time in the core of non-relativistic quantum phsysics is analyzed. We will find that, rigorously, that relation for time and energy shows a different root. For the role of space, it will be discussed that there is no “coordinate of position” in the conceptual structure of quantum physics because quantum particles are not point-like objects.

Principia an international journal of epistemology•Jun 22, 2011•0 citations

The Role Of Space And Time In Non-Relativistic Quantum Physics

Rafael Andrés Alemañ Berenguer

Abstract: Since the very begining of quantum theory there started a debate on the proper role of space and time in it. Some authors assumed that space and time have their own algebraic operators. On that basis they supposed that quantum particles had “coordinates of position”, even though those coordinates were not possible to determine with infinite precision. Furthermore, time in quantum physics was taken to be on an equal foot, by means of a so-called “Heisenberg’s fourth relation of indeterminacy ” concerning time and energy. In this paper, the proper role of space and time in the core of non-relativistic quantum phsysics is analyzed. We will find that, rigorously, that relation for time and energy shows a different root. For the role of space, it will be discussed that there is no “coordinate of position ” in the conceptual structure of quantum physics because quantum particles are not point-like objects. 1.

•Jul 1, 2009•0 citations

Time in Quantum Mechanics

Jan Hilgevoord, David Atkinson

Unlike classical mechanics, quantum mechanics assumes the famous Heisenberg uncertainty relations. One of these concerns time: the energy–time uncertainty relation. Unlike the canonical position–momentum uncertainty relation, the energy–time relation is not reflected in the operator formalism of quantum theory. Indeed, it is often said and taken as problematic that there is not a so-called “time operator” in quantum theory. This chapter sheds light on these questions and others, including the absorbing matter of whether quantum mechanics allows for the existence of ideal clocks. The second section notes that quantum mechanics does not involve a special problem for time, and that there is no fundamental asymmetry between space and time in quantum mechanics over and above the asymmetry which already exists in classical physics. The third section studies time operators in detail. The fourth section discusses various uncertainty relations involving time.

Oxford University Press eBooks•Sep 2, 2011•37 citations

Answer to Fock Concerning the Time Energy Indeterminacy Relation

Yakir Aharonov, David Böhm

An answer is given to a recent criticizm by Fock, concerning our paper "Time in the Quantum Theory and the Uncertainty Relation for Time and Energy." It is proved that Fock's criticizm is wrong, and that our previous conclusion that energy can be measured in an arbitrarily short period of time is valid.

Physical Review•Jun 22, 1964•48 citations

EPR before EPR: a 1930 Einstein–Bohr thought experiment revisited

Hrvoje Nikolić

In 1930, Einstein argued against the consistency of the time–energy uncertainty relation by discussing a thought experiment involving a measurement of the mass of the box which emitted a photon. Bohr seemingly prevailed over Einstein by arguing that Einstein's own general theory of relativity saves the consistency of quantum mechanics. We revisit this thought experiment from a modern point of view at a level suitable for an undergraduate readership and find that neither Einstein nor Bohr was correct. Instead, this thought experiment should be thought of as an early example of a system demonstrating nonlocal 'EPR' quantum correlations, five years before the famous Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen paper.

arXiv:1203.1139•European Journal of Physics•Jun 15, 2012•13 citations
The indeterminacy relation between time and energy, suggested by Bohr on the basis of a thought experiment, is shown not to belong to the quantum theory. It is argued that the incorporation of that formula into a theory would require a basic departure from present day physics, consisting in representing time by a suitable operator. It is suggested that the formula be dropped altogether.
Since the very begining of quantum theory there started a debate on the proper role of space and time in it. Some authors assumed that space and time have their own algebraic operators. On that basis they supposed that quantum particles had “coordinates of position”, even though those coordinates were not possible to determine with infinite precision. Furthermore, time in quantum physics was taken to be on an equal foot, by means of a so-called “Heisenberg’s fourth relation of indeterminacy” concerning time and energy. In this paper, the proper role of space and time in the core of non-relativistic quantum phsysics is analyzed. We will find that, rigorously, that relation for time and energy shows a different root. For the role of space, it will be discussed that there is no “coordinate of position” in the conceptual structure of quantum physics because quantum particles are not point-like objects.
Since the very begining of quantum theory there started a debate on the proper role of space and time in it. Some authors assumed that space and time have their own algebraic operators. On that basis they supposed that quantum particles had “coordinates of position”, even though those coordinates were not possible to determine with infinite precision. Furthermore, time in quantum physics was taken to be on an equal foot, by means of a so-called “Heisenberg’s fourth relation of indeterminacy” concerning time and energy. In this paper, the proper role of space and time in the core of non-relativistic quantum phsysics is analyzed. We will find that, rigorously, that relation for time and energy shows a different root. For the role of space, it will be discussed that there is no “coordinate of position” in the conceptual structure of quantum physics because quantum particles are not point-like objects.
Abstract: Since the very begining of quantum theory there started a debate on the proper role of space and time in it. Some authors assumed that space and time have their own algebraic operators. On that basis they supposed that quantum particles had “coordinates of position”, even though those coordinates were not possible to determine with infinite precision. Furthermore, time in quantum physics was taken to be on an equal foot, by means of a so-called “Heisenberg’s fourth relation of indeterminacy ” concerning time and energy. In this paper, the proper role of space and time in the core of non-relativistic quantum phsysics is analyzed. We will find that, rigorously, that relation for time and energy shows a different root. For the role of space, it will be discussed that there is no “coordinate of position ” in the conceptual structure of quantum physics because quantum particles are not point-like objects. 1.
Unlike classical mechanics, quantum mechanics assumes the famous Heisenberg uncertainty relations. One of these concerns time: the energy–time uncertainty relation. Unlike the canonical position–momentum uncertainty relation, the energy–time relation is not reflected in the operator formalism of quantum theory. Indeed, it is often said and taken as problematic that there is not a so-called “time operator” in quantum theory. This chapter sheds light on these questions and others, including the absorbing matter of whether quantum mechanics allows for the existence of ideal clocks. The second section notes that quantum mechanics does not involve a special problem for time, and that there is no fundamental asymmetry between space and time in quantum mechanics over and above the asymmetry which already exists in classical physics. The third section studies time operators in detail. The fourth section discusses various uncertainty relations involving time.
In 1930, Einstein argued against the consistency of the time–energy uncertainty relation by discussing a thought experiment involving a measurement of the mass of the box which emitted a photon. Bohr seemingly prevailed over Einstein by arguing that Einstein's own general theory of relativity saves the consistency of quantum mechanics. We revisit this thought experiment from a modern point of view at a level suitable for an undergraduate readership and find that neither Einstein nor Bohr was correct. Instead, this thought experiment should be thought of as an early example of a system demonstrating nonlocal 'EPR' quantum correlations, five years before the famous Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen paper.