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

CRC Press eBooks

4 New uncertainty properties of the electromagnetic field

L.D. Faddeev, L.A. Khalfin, I.V. Komarov

Published May 21, 2004• 0 citations
Publisher

Abstract

If we assume that the most precise measurements of electromagnetic fields using electrons or protons as “test bodies” have been carried out, then by reason of the quantum mechanical uncertainty principle for the coordinate and momentum of the bodies, we get certain bounds on the measurability of the field intensities, namely, the same bounds for measurements both with electrons and protons. In the sense of the quantum mechanical concepts, it means that these fundamental restrictions on the measurability of the electromagnetic fields suggest a reasonable limitation on the possibility to determine precisely the state of the classical field.

DOI
10.1201/9780203643204-20

Related papers

Quantum fluctuations, quanta of electromagnetic interaction, quantum electronic bound states

V. N. Murzin, Ljudmila Yu. Shchurova

Based on the concepts of the quantum field theory of virtual photons as quanta of electromagnetic interaction, we discuss the physical content of the phenomena underlying the principle of quantum uncertainties. We consider the features of the uncertainty relations and the properties of the elementary particles (electrons, protons, etc.) under the conditions of the formation of quantum bound states at atomic and subatomic distances.

arXiv:2208.01742•Jul 31, 2022•0 citations

Quantum mechanical understanding of light

Harry Paul

Quantum mechanical uncertainty After reviewing the main characteristics of the classical description of light, let us discuss those aspects of the quantization of the electromagnetic field which are of relevance for the analysis of the phenomena we are interested in. It seems a reasonable place to start to make clear the fundamental difference between the classical and the quantum mechanical description of nature; we will come across this difference many times when discussing experiments, and it will often give us a headache. We have to deal with the physical meaning of what is called uncertainty. The starting point of the classical description is the conviction that natural processes have a “factual” character. This means that physical variables such as the position or momentum of a particle have, in each single case, a well defined (in general, time dependent) value. However, it will not always be possible to measure all the appropriate variables (for instance, the instantaneous electric field strength of a radiation field); furthermore under normal circumstances we are able to measure only with a finite precision. Hence the basic credo of classical physics should be given in the following form: we are justified in imagining a world with variables possessing well defined values which are not known precisely (or not known at all). In doing this we are not forming any conclusions that contradict our everyday experiences. This is the fundamental concept of classical statistics: we are satisfied with the use of probability distributions for the variables we are interested in, not from fundamental but purely practical reasons.

Cambridge University Press eBooks•May 20, 2004•0 citations

Remarks on Uncertainty Principles

E. U. Condon

Since the publication of Heisenberg’s paper1 on the “anschaulichen Inhalt” of quantum mechanics, discussions of the fundamental limitations on the accuracy of physical measurements have been much in the foreground. According to Heisenberg, the quantum mechanics implies that it is impossible to measure simultaneous values of a coordinate and its conjugate momentum with unlimited precision. Instead, if Δp be the estimated error or uncertainty in a momentum and Δq that in the associated coordinate one must have the inequality, $$ \Delta p\Delta q>\frac{h}{{2\pi}} $$ (1) This inequality has come to be known quite generally as Heisenberg’s uncertainty relation.

Science•May 31, 1929•15 citations

Quantum mechanics and precision measurements

Norman F. Ramsey

The accuracies of measurements of almost all fundamental physical constants have increased by factors of about 10 000 during the past 60 years. Although some of the improvements are due to greater care, most are due to new techniques based on quantum mechanics. Although the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle often limits measurement accuracies, in many cases the validity of quantum mechanics makes possible the vastly improved measurement accuracies. Seven quantum features that have a profound influence on the science of measurements are: (1) Existence of discrete quantum states of energy. (2) Energy conservation in transitions between two states. (3) Electromagnetic radiation of frequency v is quantized with energy hv per quantum. (4) The identity principle. (5) The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. (6) Addition of probability amplitudes (not probabilities). (7) Wave and coherent phase phenomena. Of these seven quantum features, only the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle limits the accuracy of measurements, and its affect is often negligibly small. The other six features make possible much more accurate measurements of quantum systems than with almost all classical systems. These effects are discussed and illustrated.

Physica Scripta•Jan 1, 1995•8 citations

The Derivation and Some Explanations of the Uncertainty Principle

Haoran Huang

This paper is a small discussion about the uncertainty principle. With the great discoveries and researches made by predecessors, I try to answer some questions within the uncertainty principle. Using the definition of momentum, the momentum in de Broglie wave, the property of cosine function, the Euler’s formula, the basic property of plane wave, the law of derivative, the energy of quantum discovered by Max Planck, the photon energy discovered by Albert Einstein, the energy equation of a system and the Hamiltonian operator, I figure out the Schrodinger equation successfully. With the help of Schrodinger equation, the possibility density of a wave function, the concept of normalization, the average value of position and momentum, the Fourier transform, the integration by parts and the limit of normalized wave functions, I find the position operator and the momentum operator. Then using some knowledge of the standard deviation and the variance, the concept of inner product of vectors, some property of Dirac symbol, the law of calculation of complex number and the law of operator calculation, I obtain the general uncertainty relationship of abstract mathematical quantities. According to the general relationship, I get the inequality of uncertainty principle, and discuss the specific relationship between the position and the momentum. After getting the inequality, I use Heisenberg’s experiment of measuring an electron by using the γ ray to hit the electron to explain why we cannot measure the position and the momentum simultaneously. Based on Heisenberg’s experiment, I give my own explanation by discussing the earth and a spacecraft. Transforming the perspective, we can easily see how the accuracies of position and momentum change. In addition, I attempt to figure out why the uncertainty exists. However, I can only explain it by discussing the time and frequency in mathematical method and have no idea to work it out in a pure physics approach.

Highlights in Science Engineering and Technology•Jul 30, 2023•0 citations

Bounds on quantum Fisher information and uncertainty relations for thermodynamically conjugate variables

Ye-Ming Meng, Zhe-Yu Shi

Uncertainty relations represent a foundational principle in quantum mechanics, imposing inherent limits on the precision with which \textit{mechanically} conjugate variables such as position and momentum can be simultaneously determined. This work establishes analogous relations for \textit{thermodynamically} conjugate variables -- specifically, a classical intensive parameter $θ$ and its corresponding extensive quantum operator $\hat{O}$ -- in equilibrium states. We develop a framework to derive a rigorous thermodynamic uncertainty relation for such pairs, where the uncertainty of the classical parameter $θ$ is quantified by its quantum Fisher information $\mathcal{F}_θ$. The framework is based on an exact integral representation that relates $\mathcal{F}_θ$ to the autocorrelation function of operator $\hat{O}$. From this representation, we derive a tight upper bound for the quantum Fisher information, which yields a thermodynamic uncertainty relation: $Δθ\,\overline{ΔO} \ge k_\text{B}T$ with $\overline{ΔO}\equiv\partial_θ\langle\hat{O}\rangle\,Δθ$ and $T$ is the system temperature. The result establishes a fundamental precision limit for quantum sensing and metrology in thermal systems, directly connecting it to the thermodynamic properties of linear response and fluctuations.

quant-pharXiv:2511.05042•SciPost Physics•Nov 10, 2025•1 citation
If we assume that the most precise measurements of electromagnetic fields using electrons or protons as “test bodies” have been carried out, then by reason of the quantum mechanical uncertainty principle for the coordinate and momentum of the bodies, we get certain bounds on the measurability of the field intensities, namely, the same bounds for measurements both with electrons and protons. In the sense of the quantum mechanical concepts, it means that these fundamental restrictions on the measurability of the electromagnetic fields suggest a reasonable limitation on the possibility to determine precisely the state of the classical field.
Quantum mechanical uncertainty After reviewing the main characteristics of the classical description of light, let us discuss those aspects of the quantization of the electromagnetic field which are of relevance for the analysis of the phenomena we are interested in. It seems a reasonable place to start to make clear the fundamental difference between the classical and the quantum mechanical description of nature; we will come across this difference many times when discussing experiments, and it will often give us a headache. We have to deal with the physical meaning of what is called uncertainty. The starting point of the classical description is the conviction that natural processes have a “factual” character. This means that physical variables such as the position or momentum of a particle have, in each single case, a well defined (in general, time dependent) value. However, it will not always be possible to measure all the appropriate variables (for instance, the instantaneous electric field strength of a radiation field); furthermore under normal circumstances we are able to measure only with a finite precision. Hence the basic credo of classical physics should be given in the following form: we are justified in imagining a world with variables possessing well defined values which are not known precisely (or not known at all). In doing this we are not forming any conclusions that contradict our everyday experiences. This is the fundamental concept of classical statistics: we are satisfied with the use of probability distributions for the variables we are interested in, not from fundamental but purely practical reasons.
Since the publication of Heisenberg’s paper1 on the “anschaulichen Inhalt” of quantum mechanics, discussions of the fundamental limitations on the accuracy of physical measurements have been much in the foreground. According to Heisenberg, the quantum mechanics implies that it is impossible to measure simultaneous values of a coordinate and its conjugate momentum with unlimited precision. Instead, if Δp be the estimated error or uncertainty in a momentum and Δq that in the associated coordinate one must have the inequality, ΔpΔq>h2π \Delta p\Delta q>\frac{h}{{2\pi}} ΔpΔq>2πh​ (1) This inequality has come to be known quite generally as Heisenberg’s uncertainty relation.
The accuracies of measurements of almost all fundamental physical constants have increased by factors of about 10 000 during the past 60 years. Although some of the improvements are due to greater care, most are due to new techniques based on quantum mechanics. Although the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle often limits measurement accuracies, in many cases the validity of quantum mechanics makes possible the vastly improved measurement accuracies. Seven quantum features that have a profound influence on the science of measurements are: (1) Existence of discrete quantum states of energy. (2) Energy conservation in transitions between two states. (3) Electromagnetic radiation of frequency v is quantized with energy hv per quantum. (4) The identity principle. (5) The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. (6) Addition of probability amplitudes (not probabilities). (7) Wave and coherent phase phenomena. Of these seven quantum features, only the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle limits the accuracy of measurements, and its affect is often negligibly small. The other six features make possible much more accurate measurements of quantum systems than with almost all classical systems. These effects are discussed and illustrated.
This paper is a small discussion about the uncertainty principle. With the great discoveries and researches made by predecessors, I try to answer some questions within the uncertainty principle. Using the definition of momentum, the momentum in de Broglie wave, the property of cosine function, the Euler’s formula, the basic property of plane wave, the law of derivative, the energy of quantum discovered by Max Planck, the photon energy discovered by Albert Einstein, the energy equation of a system and the Hamiltonian operator, I figure out the Schrodinger equation successfully. With the help of Schrodinger equation, the possibility density of a wave function, the concept of normalization, the average value of position and momentum, the Fourier transform, the integration by parts and the limit of normalized wave functions, I find the position operator and the momentum operator. Then using some knowledge of the standard deviation and the variance, the concept of inner product of vectors, some property of Dirac symbol, the law of calculation of complex number and the law of operator calculation, I obtain the general uncertainty relationship of abstract mathematical quantities. According to the general relationship, I get the inequality of uncertainty principle, and discuss the specific relationship between the position and the momentum. After getting the inequality, I use Heisenberg’s experiment of measuring an electron by using the γ ray to hit the electron to explain why we cannot measure the position and the momentum simultaneously. Based on Heisenberg’s experiment, I give my own explanation by discussing the earth and a spacecraft. Transforming the perspective, we can easily see how the accuracies of position and momentum change. In addition, I attempt to figure out why the uncertainty exists. However, I can only explain it by discussing the time and frequency in mathematical method and have no idea to work it out in a pure physics approach.
Uncertainty relations represent a foundational principle in quantum mechanics, imposing inherent limits on the precision with which \textit{mechanically} conjugate variables such as position and momentum can be simultaneously determined. This work establishes analogous relations for \textit{thermodynamically} conjugate variables -- specifically, a classical intensive parameter θθθ and its corresponding extensive quantum operator O^\hat{O}O^ -- in equilibrium states. We develop a framework to derive a rigorous thermodynamic uncertainty relation for such pairs, where the uncertainty of the classical parameter θθθ is quantified by its quantum Fisher information Fθ\mathcal{F}_θFθ​. The framework is based on an exact integral representation that relates Fθ\mathcal{F}_θFθ​ to the autocorrelation function of operator O^\hat{O}O^. From this representation, we derive a tight upper bound for the quantum Fisher information, which yields a thermodynamic uncertainty relation: Δθ ΔO‾≥kBTΔθ\,\overline{ΔO} \ge k_\text{B}TΔθΔO≥kB​T with ΔO‾≡∂θ⟨O^⟩ Δθ\overline{ΔO}\equiv\partial_θ\langle\hat{O}\rangle\,ΔθΔO≡∂θ​⟨O^⟩Δθ and TTT is the system temperature. The result establishes a fundamental precision limit for quantum sensing and metrology in thermal systems, directly connecting it to the thermodynamic properties of linear response and fluctuations.