Until Heisenberg proposed the uncertainty principle in 1927, it was an open question whether models for the structure of matter reflected actual reality or were useful fictions for operational purposes. There wasn’t any sense in either case that there might be parameters it was impossible to determine. The uncertainty principle says that it is impossible to determine simultaneously the location and momentum of an electron. While it applies to a specific situation, ‘uncertainty’ is a good description for the entire approach of quantum theory. Schrödinger’s equations show that electrons behave simultaneously as waves and particles. The double-slit experiment, when a beam of light or electrons passes through two parallel slits, shows that the act of observation influences the behavior of the wave–particle duality. The ability of a pair of ‘entangled’ electrons (or other particles) to influence each other instantaneously appears to exceed the speed limit of light. Paradoxes of quantum behavior may even extend to biological situations. Intuition or common sense are no guide to quantum behavior.
One of the most remarkable features of quantum physics is that attributes of quantum objects, such as the wavelike and particlelike behaviors of single photons, can be complementary in the sense that they are equally real but cannot be observed simultaneously. Quantum measurements, serving as windows providing views into the abstract edifice of quantum theory, are basic tools for manifesting the intrinsic behaviors of quantum objects. However, a quantitative formulation of complementarity that highlights its manifestations in general measurement scenarios remains elusive. Here we develop a general framework for demonstrating quantum complementarity in the form of information exclusion relations (IERs), which incorporates the wave-particle duality relations as particular examples. Moreover, we explore the applications of our theory in entanglement detection and elucidate that our IERs lead to an extended form of entropic uncertainty relations, providing insights into the connection between quantum complementarity and the preparation uncertainty.
The uncertainty principle (linked to p,x or E,t) plays an important role in quantum mechanics. For example, an electron with an exact momentum p is described by a wavefunction exp(ipx). This function exists at all x points and so it is suggested in the literature that there is complete uncertainty as to the electron’s position. (More specifically P(x)=exp(-ipx)exp(ipx) normalization constant=constant and so all x points have the same probability.) Thus if p is completely certain, it is said that position x is completely unknown. We note, however, that exp(ipx) consists of cos(px) and sin(px) which are repeated probability distributions (with zero endpoints). Thus even though they exist in all of space, due to repetition which in turn is due to spatial invariance, there is a specific length number, namely the wavelength. Thus we argue that in classical physics there is a set of points (x,p), but in quantum mechanics ( p , x with its dx interval), with the latter being equal to hbar/p. Then the only uncertainty is within the dx interval i.e. the wavelength and spatial density is linked to momentum i.e. there is dynamical probability. In particular, there is a frequency hbar/E and a wavelength hbar/p which define an internal clock and ruler and the two are independent. Thus within a wavelength one has a probabilistic picture (in order to have endpoints defining the dx interval) and no sense of time, yet on average time exists because of hbar/E and the particle moves in space with a constant v. This begs the question: How do time and space x arise in such a scenario? We speculate the following. Assume there exists a property called energy which defines an object. This object, however, may break into two different objects. As a result, one introduces a parameter called time to distinguish between the two systems (E) and (E1,E2). For a certain time range one has a single object, while for a later time interval, one has two objects. Each of the two objects in the second system, however, needs to be distinguished as well and so another parameter, namely space x is used for this. If the two objects existed at the same x and t, how would one know there were two unless another parameter were introduced? We use t and x as the distinguishing parameters and furthermore give these a measure i.e. dt and dx. We then argue that from these ideas one may show the notion of speed and direction (because there are two objects) as well as conservation of momentum arises. Given the notion of an interval, we argue it must be described by a probability distribution and we link this to constant/p and exp(ipx). We finally note that since spatial density is linked to dynamical probability, one must consider motion associated with a density which may lead even to collective motion.
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
The principle of uncertainty is one of the essential principles of quantum mechanics as it outlines that there is a reflective limit to the measurement of microscopic particle motion. However it is impossible to measure at once and accurately both the position and momentum data of any microscopic particle no matter what means are used to do so. This paper starts by discussing the notion and mathematical derivation of the uncertainty principle as put forth by Heisenberg explaining the physical relevance of the principle. It introduces the natural uncertainty the principle introduces to the dynamics of particles in the microscopic world, and the significant part it plays in the theory of quantum mechanics. The article overviews the explanations of the principle on phenomena including atomic stability and scanning tunneling microscopes, and the interference of measurement actions on the states of particles and the shortcomings of measurement precision. According to the wave-particle duality of quantum mechanics, this article gives a required theoretical basis of microscopic phenomena. Likewise, the use of the research theory on the uncertainty principle by distinguished scholars in the physics fraternity helps the readers in achieving the knowledge in related subjects more easily.
There are two opposing points of view on the nature of light: the first one manifests the wave-particle duality as a fundamental property of the nature; the second one claims that photons do not exist and the light is a continuous classical wave, while the so-called “quantum” properties of this field appear only as a result of its interaction with matter. In this paper we show that many quantum phenomena which are traditionally described by quantum electrodynamics can be described if light is considered within the limits of classical electrodynamics without quantization of radiation. These phenomena include the double-slit experiment, the photoelectric effect, the Compton effect, the Hanbury Brown and Twiss effect, the so-called multiphoton ionisation of atoms, etc. We show that this point of view allows also explaining the “wave-particle duality” of light in Wiener experiments with standing waves. We show that the Born rule for light can easily be derived from Fermi’s golden rule as an approximation for low-intense light or for short exposure time. We show that the Heisenberg uncertainty principle for “photons” has a simple classical sense and cannot be considered as a fundamental limitation of accuracy of simultaneous measurements of position and momentum or time and energy. We conclude that the concept of a “photon” is superfluous in explanation of light-matter interactions.