Generalized Uncertainty Relations: Theory, Examples, and Lorentz Invariance

Samuel L. Braunstein, Carlton M. Caves, Gerard J Milburn

Published Jul 7, 1995• 331 citations

Abstract

The quantum-mechanical framework in which observables are associated with Hermitian operators is too narrow to discuss measurements of such important physical quantities as elapsed time or harmonic-oscillator phase. We introduce a broader framework that allows us to derive quantum-mechanical limits on the precision to which a parameter---e.g., elapsed time---may be determined via arbitrary data analysis of arbitrary measurements on N identically prepared quantum systems. The limits are expressed as generalized Mandelstam-Tamm uncertainty relations, which involve the operator that generates displacements of the parameter---e.g., the Hamiltonian operator in the case of elapsed time. This approach avoids entirely the problem of associating a Hermitian operator with the parameter. We illustrate the general formalism, first, with nonrelativistic uncertainty relations for spatial displacement and momentum, harmonic-oscillator phase and number of quanta, and time and energy and, second, with Lorentz-invariant uncertainty relations involving the displacement and Lorentz-rotation parameters of the Poincar\\'e group.

Related papers

Time-energy uncertainty relation for quantum events

Matteo Fadel, Lorenzo Maccone

Textbook quantum mechanics treats time as a classical parameter and not as a quantum observable with an associated Hermitian operator. For this reason, to make sense of usual time-energy uncertainty relations such as $\mathrm{\ensuremath{\Delta}}t\mathrm{\ensuremath{\Delta}}E\ensuremath{\gtrsim}\ensuremath{\hbar}$, the term $\mathrm{\ensuremath{\Delta}}t$ must be interpreted as a time interval and not as a time measurement uncertainty due to quantum noise. However, quantum clocks allow for a measurement of the ``time at which an event happens'' by conditioning the system's evolution on an additional quantum degree of freedom. Within this framework we derive here two uncertainty relations that relate the uncertainty in the quantum measurement of the time at which a quantum event happens on a system to its energy uncertainty.

arXiv:2108.13974Physical Review ANov 24, 202110 citations

Remarks on the uncertainty relations

K. Urbanowski

We analyze general uncertainty relations and we show that there can exist such pairs of non-commuting observables [Formula: see text] and [Formula: see text] and such vectors that the lower bound for the product of standard deviations [Formula: see text] and [Formula: see text] calculated for these vectors is zero: [Formula: see text]. We also show that for some pairs of non-commuting observables the sets of vectors for which [Formula: see text] can be complete (total). The Heisenberg, [Formula: see text], and Mandelstam–Tamm (MT), [Formula: see text], time–energy uncertainty relations ([Formula: see text] is the characteristic time for the observable [Formula: see text]) are analyzed too. We show that the interpretation [Formula: see text] for eigenvectors of a Hamiltonian [Formula: see text] does not follow from the rigorous analysis of MT relation. We show also that contrary to the position–momentum uncertainty relation, the validity of the MT relation is limited: It does not hold on complete sets of eigenvectors of [Formula: see text] and [Formula: see text].

arXiv:1810.11462Modern Physics Letters AJun 25, 20204 citations

Uncertainty relations for general phase spaces

Reinhard F. Werner

We describe a setup for obtaining uncertainty relations for arbitrary pairs of observables related by a Fourier transform. The physical examples discussed here are the standard position and momentum, number and angle, finite qudit systems, and strings of qubits for quantum information applications. The uncertainty relations allow for an arbitrary choice of metric for the outcome distance, and the choice of an exponent distinguishing, e.g., absolute and root mean square deviations. The emphasis of this article is on developing a unified treatment, in which one observable takes on values in an arbitrary locally compact Abelian group and the other in the dual group. In all cases, the phase space symmetry implies the equality of measurement and preparation uncertainty bounds. There is also a straightforward method for determining the optimal bounds.

Frontiers of PhysicsMar 31, 201621 citations

Uncertainty relations for general phase spaces

Reinhard F. Werner

arXiv:1601.03843Jan 1, 20161 citation

Time–Energy Uncertainty Relation in Nonrelativistic Quantum Mechanics

Danko Dimchev Georgiev

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.

arXiv:2401.07634SymmetryJan 14, 20243 citations

Uncertainty Relations as Consequence of the Lorentz Transformations

VADIM N. MATVEEV, O.V. Matveev

It is believed that the uncertainty relation of momentum and coordinates, as well as the uncertainty relation of energy and time in practice are not observed in the macrocosm. The objective of the work at hand was to demonstrate the existence of general physical uncertainty relations that extend to macrobodies. A macroscopic object consisting of a rod equipped with a pair of synchronized clocks and a macroscopic object in and of itself performing the function of an ideal physical clock are examined. General physical relations are directly derived from Lorentz transformations for the case of the object's one-dimensional motion (along the X axis) – the uncertainty relation of the object's x coordinate and the projection of its impulse along the X axis, px, and the uncertainty relation of the object's observation time, t, and its energy, E. The relations take the form: ΔpxΔx ≥ H and ΔEΔt ≥ H. The H value in the relation has action dimensions and is dependent upon the precision of the object's clocks and/or upon the properties of the physical clock. Despite the interpretation of the concept of uncertainty being different from that in quantum mechanics, the relations derived in the limiting case with ideal physical clock take the form of ΔpxΔx ≥ h and ΔEΔt ≥ h, where h is the Planck constant.

Dec 1, 20111 citation