Physics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for active researchers, academics and students of physics. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

According to quantum mechanics, energy of a state is uncertain within a small range in hydrogen atom. But we also know that energy of a state is quantized which is contradictory to the first. Which one is correct?

share|cite|improve this question
You can see the energy uncertainty in the following practical way: the energy of a level has a real and imaginary part. They both are "sharp" values. The time evolution of the given state describes a transition rate into another state. – Vladimir Kalitvianski Dec 7 '11 at 17:05
You're using the word "state" in two different ways here. – Harry Johnston Dec 7 '11 at 19:32
I meant a decaying factor $exp(-\gamma_{12})$ at the initial state $|\psi_1 |^2$ and a growing factor $[1-exp(-\gamma_{12})]$ at the final state $|\psi_2 |^2$ or so. – Vladimir Kalitvianski Dec 7 '11 at 22:10

The uncertainty refers only to states which stick around for a limited time. If you have a hydrogen atom form by capturing an electron, you have to wait a while before the H atom is in a sharply defined energy state. At early times, it is in a quantum superposition of all possible states. In order for a state to have definite energy, it must be undisturbed for a long time. But then the energy uncertainty goes to zero. The quantization is of this asymptotic long-time energy.

This topic is called the "time-energy uncertainty principle", and it has a long and inglorious history. The principle was the obvious time analog to the position-momentum uncertainty principle, and was appreciated as such by Bohr and Einstein. But the principle has some false formulations, like this one:

  • If a state has a definite energy, the time at which it has this energy is uncertain.

Landau said: "I can violate the time energy uncertainty principle by measuring the energy of a system very precisely, and then looking at my watch!" I think this is a very funny thing to say. It is a deep joke, because the time that a system is at is not a property of the system, but of Landau's watch. People sometimes tell this joke in a less droll way by saying "time is a parameter, not an observable", but this of course is in a particular formalism in which the parameter refers to watches, and the observables refer to system, and particle-time is matched to external proper time. But there are other formalisms in the world, some of which associate an internal ticking clock to the system.

share|cite|improve this answer

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.