Skip to main content
Log in

On the energy-time uncertainty relation. Part II: Pragmatic time versus energy indeterminacy

  • Published:
Foundations of Physics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The discussion of a particular kind of interpretation of the energy-time uncertainty relation, the “pragmatic time” version of the ETUR outlined in Part I of this work [measurement duration (pragmatic time) versus uncertainty of energy disturbance or measurement inaccuracy] is reviewed. Then the Aharonov-Bohm counter-example is reformulated within the modern quantum theory of unsharp measurements and thereby confirmed in a rigorous way.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. P. Busch,Int. J. Theor. Phys. 24, 63 (1985).

    Google Scholar 

  2. F. E. Schroeck,J. Math. Phys. 22, 2562 (1981).

    Google Scholar 

  3. E. B. Davies,Quantum Theory of Open Systems (Academic, New York, 1976).

    Google Scholar 

  4. K. Kraus, States, Effects, and Operations (Springer, Berlin, 1983).

    Google Scholar 

  5. G. Ludwig, Foundations of Quantum Mechanics I (Springer, Berlin, 1983).

    Google Scholar 

  6. E. Prugovecki,Stochastic Quantum Mechanics and Quantum Spacetime, corrected printing (Reidel, Dordrecht, 1986).

    Google Scholar 

  7. P. Busch,Found. Phys. 17, 905 (1987).

    Google Scholar 

  8. A. Peres and W. K. Wootters,Phys. Rev. D 32, 1968 (1985).

    Google Scholar 

  9. B. d'Espagnat,Found. Phys. 16, 351 (1986).

    Google Scholar 

  10. P. Busch, inSymposium on the Foundations of Modern Physics 1987, P. J. Lahti and P. Mittelstaedt, eds. (World Scientific, Singapore, 1987), p. 105.

    Google Scholar 

  11. S. L. Braunstein and C. M. Caves,Found. Phys. Lett. 1, 3 (1988).

    Google Scholar 

  12. Y. Aharonovet al., Phys. Lett. A 124, 199 (1987).

    Google Scholar 

  13. Y. Aharonovet al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 60, 1351 (1988).

    Google Scholar 

  14. Y. Aharonov and D. Bohm,Phys. Rev. 122, 1649 (1961).

    Google Scholar 

  15. P. Busch,Phys. Lett. A 130, 323 (1988).

    Google Scholar 

  16. P. Busch,Found. Phys. 20, 1 (1990).

    Google Scholar 

  17. P. Busch, M. Grabowski, and P. J. Lahti,Found. Phys. Lett. 2, 331–345 (1989).

    Google Scholar 

  18. L. D. Landau and E. M. Lifschitz,Quantenmechanik, 6th edn. (Akademie, Berlin, 1979), §§ 42 and 44.

    Google Scholar 

  19. L. D. Landau and R. Peierls,Z. Phys. 69, 56 (1931).

    Google Scholar 

  20. N. Bohr,Naturwissenschaften 16, 245 (1928);Nature, Suppl., April 14, p. 580.

    Google Scholar 

  21. W. Pauli,General Principles of Quantum Mechanics (Springer, Berlin, 1980).

    Google Scholar 

  22. V. Fock and N. Krylov,J. Phys. (USSR) 11, 112 (1947).

    Google Scholar 

  23. N. Bohr and L. Rosenfeld,Dan. Vid. Selsk. Mat.-fys. Medd. 12 (8), 1–65 (1933).

    Google Scholar 

  24. W. Heisenberg,Z. Phys. 43, 172 (1927).

    Google Scholar 

  25. Y. Aharonov and J. L. Safko,Ann. Phys. (N.Y.) 91, 279 (1975).

    Google Scholar 

  26. J. von Neumann,Mathematische Grundlagen der Quantenmechanik (Springer, Berlin, 1932), p. 188, especially footnote 181.

    Google Scholar 

  27. W. Heisenberg,Die Physikalischen Prinzipien der Quantentheorie (Hirzel, Leipzig, 1930), § II.2.d.

    Google Scholar 

  28. P. Teller,Philos Sci. 50, 413 (1983).

    Google Scholar 

  29. V. Fock,Sov. Phys. JETP 15, 784 (1962).

    Google Scholar 

  30. Y. Aharonov and D. Bohm,Phys. Rev. 134, B1417 (1964).

  31. V. Fock,Sov. Phys. Uspekhi 8, 628 (1966).

    Google Scholar 

  32. R. Sorkin,Found. Phys. 9, 123 (1979).

    Google Scholar 

  33. Yu. I. Vorontsov,Sov. Phys. Dokl. 25, 278 (1980).

    Google Scholar 

  34. Yu. I. Vorontsov,Sov. Phys. Uspekhi 24, 150 (1981).

    Google Scholar 

  35. K. Kraus, “A note on Zeno's paradox in quantum theory,” preprint, University of Texas at Austin, DOE-ER-03992-387 (1980).

  36. S. Stenholm, “To fathom space and time,” inQuantum Optics, Experimental Gravitation, and Measurement Theory, P. Meystre and M. O. Scully, eds. (Plenum, New York, 1983), p. 117.

    Google Scholar 

  37. P. Busch,Phys. Rev. D 33, 2253 (1986).

    Google Scholar 

  38. P. Busch and P. J. Lahti,Ann. Phys. (Leipzig), in press.

  39. E. P. Wigner,Z. Phys. 133, 101 (1952).

    Google Scholar 

  40. P. Busch,J. Phys. A 18, 3351 (1985).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Busch, P. On the energy-time uncertainty relation. Part II: Pragmatic time versus energy indeterminacy. Found Phys 20, 33–43 (1990). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00732933

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00732933

Keywords

Navigation