1) We shall discuss what modern interpretations say about the Heisenberg's uncertainties. These interpretations explain that a quantity begins to 'lose' meaning when a conjugate property begins to 'acquire' definite meaning. We know that a quantity losing meaning means that it has no fixed value and has an uncertainty . In this paper we look deeper into this interpretation and the outcome reveals more evidence of the quantity losing meaning. Newer insights appear. 2) We consider two extreme cases of hypothetical processes nature undergoes, without interference by a measurement: One, a system collapses to an energy eigenstate under the influence of a Hamiltonian instantaneously at a time $t$. This is thus what would happen if we would measure the system's energy. Next, when a particle becomes localised to a point at a time $t_0$ under the influence of a Hamiltonian. This is thus what would happen if we would measure the system's position. We shall prove that both these situations cannot arise under ordinary circumstances and thus measurement processes cannot be modelled by physical Hamiltonians.
We shall discuss what modern interpretations say about the Heisenberg's uncertainties. These interpretations explain that a quantity begins to 'lose' meaning when a conjugate property begins to 'acquire' definite meaning. We know that a quantity losing meaning means that it has no fixed value and has an uncertainty . In this paper we look deeper into this interpretation and the outcome reveals more evidence of the quantity losing meaning. Newer insights appear. 2) We consider two extreme cases of hypothetical processes nature undergoes, without interference by a measurement: One, a system collapses to an energy eigenstate under the influence of a Hamiltonian instantaneously at a time t. This is thus what would happen if we would measure the system's energy. Next, when a particle becomes localised to a point at a time t0 under the influence of a Hamiltonian. This is thus what would happen if we would measure the system's position. We shall prove that both these situations cannot arise under ordinary circumstances and thus measurement processes cannot be modelled by physical Hamiltonians.
This paper presents the measurement problem from the point of view of the thermal interpretation of quantum physics introduced in Part II. The measurement of a Hermitian quantity A is regarded as giving an uncertain value approximating the q-expectation ⟨A⟩ rather than (as tradition wanted to have it) as an exact revelation of an eigenvalue of A. Single observations of microscopic systems are (except under special circumstances) very uncertain measurements only. The thermal interpretation * treats detection events as a statistical measurement of particle beam intensity. * claims that the particle concept is only asymptotically valid, under conditions where particles are essentially free. * claims that the unmodeled environment influences the results enough to cause all randomness in quantum physics. * allows one to derive Born's rule for scattering and in the limit of ideal measurements; but in general, only part of Born's rule holds exactly: Whenever a quantity A with zero uncertainty is measured exactly, its value is an eigenvalue of A. * has no explicit collapse -- the latter emerges approximately in non-isolated subsystems. * gives a valid interpretation of systems modeled by a quantum-classical dynamics. * explains the peculiar features of the Copenhagen interpretation (lacking realism between measurements) and the minimal statistical interpretation (lacking realism for the single case) where these interpretations apply -- in the microscopic domain. The thermal interpretation is an interpretation of quantum physics that is in principle refutable by theoretical arguments leading to a negative answer to a number of open issues collected at the end of the paper, since there is plenty of experimental evidence for each of the points mentioned there.
Abstract In quantum mechanics, the Heisenberg uncertainty relation presents an ultimate limit to the precision by which one can predict the outcome of position and momentum measurements on a particle. Heisenberg explicitly stated this relation for the prediction of “hypothetical future measurements”, and it does not describe the situation where knowledge is available about the system both earlier and later than the time of the measurement. Here, we study what happens under such circumstances with an atomic ensemble containing 1011 rubidium atoms, initiated nearly in the ground state in the presence of a magnetic field. The collective spin observables of the atoms are then well described by canonical position and momentum observables, x^A x ̂ A and p^A p ̂ A that satisfy [x^A,p^A]=iℏ [ x ̂ A , p ̂ A ] = i ℏ . Quantum non-demolition measurements of p^A p ̂ A before and of x^A x ̂ A after time t allow precise estimates of both observables at time t. By means of the past quantum state formalism, we demonstrate that outcomes of measurements of both the x^A x ̂ A and p^A p ̂ A observables can be inferred with errors below the standard quantum limit. The capability of assigning precise values to multiple observables and to observe their variation during physical processes may have implications in quantum state estimation and sensing.
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>2πh
(1)
This inequality has come to be known quite generally as Heisenberg’s uncertainty relation.
The notion of uncertainty in the description of a physical system has assumed prodigious importance in the development of quantum theory. Overcoming the early misunderstanding and confusion, the concept grew continuously and still remains an active and fertile research field. Curious new insights and correlations are gained and developed in the process with the introduction of new 'measures' of uncertainty or indeterminacy and the development of quantum measurement theory. In this article we intend to reach a fairly uptodate status report of this yet unfurling concept and its interrelation with some distinctive quantum features like nonlocality, steering and entanglement/ inseparability. Some recent controversies are discussed and the grey areas are mentioned.
Abstract In quantum mechanics, the Heisenberg uncertainty relation presents an ultimate limit to the precision by which one can predict the outcome of position and momentum measurements on a particle. Heisenberg explicitly stated this relation for the prediction of “hypothetical future measurements”, and it does not describe the situation where knowledge is available about the system both earlier and later than the time of the measurement. Here, we study what happens under such circumstances with an atomic ensemble containing 1011 rubidium atoms, initiated nearly in the ground state in the presence of a magnetic field. The collective spin observables of the atoms are then well described by canonical position and momentum observables, x^A x ̂ A and p^A p ̂ A that satisfy [x^A,p^A]=iℏ [ x ̂ A , p ̂ A ] = i ℏ . Quantum non-demolition measurements of p^A p ̂ A before and of x^A x ̂ A after time t allow precise estimates of both observables at time t. By means of the past quantum state formalism, we demonstrate that outcomes of measurements of both the x^A x ̂ A and p^A p ̂ A observables can be inferred with errors below the standard quantum limit. The capability of assigning precise values to multiple observables and to observe their variation during physical processes may have implications in quantum state estimation and sensing.
Unsolved controversies about uncertainty relations and quantum measurements still persists nowadays. They originate around the shortcomings regarding the conventional interpretation of uncertainty relations. Here we show that the respective shortcomings disclose veridic and unavoidable facts which require the abandonment of the mentioned interpretation. So the primitive uncertainty relations appear as being either thought fictions or fluctuations formulae. Subsequently we reveal that the conventional approaches of quantum measurements are grounded on incorrect premises. We propose a new approach in which : (i) the quantum observables are considered as generalized stochastic variables, (ii) the view is focused only on the pre-existent state of the measured system, without any interest for the collapse of the respective state, (iii) a measurement is described as an input-output transformation which modify the probability density and current but preserve the expressions of the operators. The measuring uncertainties are evaluated as changes in the probabilistic estimators of observables. Related to different observables we do not find reasons of principle neither for uncertainties-connections nor for measuring compatibility/incompatibility.