Henry scores a surprise win over Eve thanks to his quantum rocket that is powered by a quantum-chargeable battery. This gadget is subject to the time–energy uncertainty relation that may result in the battery having more energy than expected. This occurs if an energy measurement within a short time “collapses” the battery randomly to the highest energy state. Intriguingly, time is not a quantum observable. This raises the question that was hotly debated by Bohr and Einstein: how can time be uncertain and affect the energy uncertainty? The more general question is: what is the meaning of time, energy and their uncertainty in physics and in human experience? Attempts to define time have been the subject of philosophical controversy throughout millennia. The appendix to this chapter introduces the Schrödinger equation that governs the dynamics of quantum systems and their time–energy uncertainty.
Henry scores a surprise win over Eve thanks to his quantum rocket that is powered by a quantum-chargeable battery. This gadget is subject to the time–energy uncertainty relation that may result in the battery having more energy than expected. This occurs if an energy measurement within a short time “collapses” the battery randomly to the highest energy state. Intriguingly, time is not a quantum observable. This raises the question that was hotly debated by Bohr and Einstein: how can time be uncertain and affect the energy uncertainty? The more general question is: what is the meaning of time, energy and their uncertainty in physics and in human experience? Attempts to define time have been the subject of philosophical controversy throughout millennia. The appendix to this chapter introduces the Schrödinger equation that governs the dynamics of quantum systems and their time–energy uncertainty.
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.
The physical meaning of the uncertainty relation between time and energy appears to be not completely clear until now. This fact is not surprising since the interpretation of the time-energy relation is much more difficult than the interpretation of the similar relation between the coordinate and momentum. Indeed, the latter relation is easily derived from the quantum-mechanical formalism and does not require the examination of the course of the physical process in time. The relation between time and energy, however, essentially requires such an examination, and there arises a question whether Schro¨dinger’s equation may be used or not in deriving this relation, the latter possibility being not excluded since the relation may be interpreted to correspond to a measurement act, which does not obey Schro¨dinger’s equation.
The time energy uncertainty relation has been a controversial issue since the advent of quantum theory, with respect to appropriate formalisation, validity and possible meanings. A comprehensive account of the development of this subject up to the 1980s is provided by a combination of the reviews of Jammer (1974), Bauer and Mello (1978), and Busch (1990). More recent reviews are concerned with different specific aspects of the subject. The purpose of this chapter is to show that different types of time energy uncertainty relation can indeed be deduced in specific contexts, but that there is no unique universal relation that could stand on equal footing with the position-momentum uncertainty relation. To this end, we will survey the various formulations of a time energy uncertainty relation, with a brief assessment of their validity, and along the way we will indicate some new developments that emerged since the 1990s.
The time–energy uncertainty relation in nonrelativistic quantum mechanics has been intensely debated with regard to its formal derivation, validity, and physical meaning. Here, we analyze two formal relations proposed by Mandelstam and Tamm and by Margolus and Levitin and evaluate their validity using a minimal quantum toy model composed of a single qubit inside an external magnetic field. We show that the ℓ1 norm of energy coherence C is invariant with respect to the unitary evolution of the quantum state. Thus, the ℓ1 norm of energy coherence C of an initial quantum state is useful for the classification of the ability of quantum observables to change in time or the ability of the quantum state to evolve into an orthogonal state. In the single-qubit toy model, for quantum states with the submaximal ℓ1 norm of energy coherence, C<1, the Mandelstam–Tamm and Margolus–Levitin relations generate instances of infinite “time uncertainty” that is devoid of physical meaning. Only for quantum states with the maximal ℓ1 norm of energy coherence, C=1, the Mandelstam–Tamm and Margolus–Levitin relations avoid infinite “time uncertainty”, but they both reduce to a strict equality that expresses the Einstein–Planck relation between energy and frequency. The presented results elucidate the fact that the time in the Schrödinger equation is a scalar variable that commutes with the quantum Hamiltonian and is not subject to statistical variance.
There are many controversies on energy—time uncertainty relation. Because of the confused role time plays in quantum mechanics, the references and meanings of energy—time uncertainty relation are different in different explanatory contexts. But what do time and energy really mean? What is the philosophical foundation of this relationship? The article bases on the three different meanings of time in quantum mechanics, discusses the references and meanings of energy—time uncertainty relation in various contexts, and aims to clarify the confusion on the references and the meanings of the uncertainty relation between energy and time.
Because time does not appear in Schr\"odinger's equation as an operator but only as a parameter, the time-energy uncertainty relation must be formulated in a special way. This problem has in fact been studied by many authors and we give a summary of their treatments. We then criticize the main conclusion of these treatments; viz., that in a measurement of energy carried out in a time interval, $\ensuremath{\Delta}t$, there must be a minimum uncertainty in the transfer of energy to the observed system, given by $\ensuremath{\Delta}({E}^{\ensuremath{'}}\ensuremath{-}E)>~\frac{h}{\ensuremath{\Delta}t}$. We show that this conclusion is erroneous in two respects. First, it is not consistent with the general principles of the quantum theory, which require that all uncertainty relations be expressible in terms of the mathematical formalism, i.e., by means of operators, wave functions, etc. Secondly, the examples of measurement processes that were used to derive the above uncertainty relation are not general enough. We then develop a systematic presentation of our own point of view, with regard to the role of time in the quantum theory, and give a concrete example of a measurement process not satisfying the above uncertainty relation.