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

arXiv:1203.2440 · Journal of Modern Physics

Simultaneous Measurability of Error and Disturbance

Riuji Mochizuki

Published Jan 1, 2013• 0 citations
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

The uncertainty relation, which displays an elementary property of quantum theory, was originally described by Heisenberg as the relation between error and disturbance. Ozawa presented a more rigorous expression of the uncertainty relation, which was later verified experimentally. Nevertheless, the operators corresponding to error and disturbance should be measurable in the identical state if we follow the presupposition of Heisenberg’s thought experiment. In this letter, we discuss simultaneous measurability of error and disturbance and present a new inequality using error and disturbance in the identical state. A testable example of this inequality is also suggested.

DOI
10.4236/jmp.2013.42036

Related papers

Heisenberg's error-disturbance uncertainty relation: Experimental study of competing approaches

Georg Sulyok, Stephan Sponar

Over the past few years, Heisenberg's error-disturbance uncertainty relation has experienced increased attention since several experimental publications verified the theoretical findings of Ozawa predicting the violation and thus necessary reformulation of Heisenberg's relation. However, soon after their appearance, an alternative theory was presented by Busch and co-workers, which proclaimed the validity of Heisenberg's relation and thus gave rise to heated debates. Here, we present an experimental comparison of the competing approaches by applying them to the same neutron optical measurement apparatus. Empirical results for the different definitions of error and disturbance are presented for special input states and configurations of the apparatus to illustrate the opposing approaches. The inequalities restricting errors and disturbances are particularly emphasized. Despite the strong controversy, in the case of projectively measured qubit observables, both approaches lead to equal outcomes.

Physical Review A•Aug 28, 2017•15 citations

Comment on "Experimental Test of Error-Disturbance Uncertainty Relations by Weak Measurement"

Paul Busch, PEKKA J. LAHTI, Reinhard F. Werner

In this comment on the paper by F. Kaneda, S.-Y. Baek, M. Ozawa and K. Edamatsu [Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 020402, 2014, arXiv:1308.5868], we point out that the claim of having refuted Heisenberg's error-disturbance relation is unfounded since it is based on the choice of unsuitable and operationally problematical quantifications of measurement error and disturbance. As we have shown elsewhere [PRL 111, 160405, 2013], for appropriate choices of operational measures of error and disturbance, Heisenberg's heuristic relation can be turned into a precise inequality which is a rigorous consequence of quantum mechanics.

arXiv:1403.0367•Mar 3, 2014•1 citation

Certainty in Heisenberg's uncertainty principle: Revisiting definitions for estimation errors and disturbance

Justin Dressel, Franco Nori

We revisit the definitions of error and disturbance recently used in error-disturbance inequalities derived by Ozawa and others by expressing them in the reduced system space. The interpretation of the definitions as mean-squared deviations relies on an implicit assumption that is generally incompatible with the Bell-Kochen-Specker-Spekkens contextuality theorems, and which results in averaging the deviations over a non-positive-semidefinite joint quasiprobability distribution. For unbiased measurements, the error admits a concrete interpretation as the dispersion in the estimation of the mean induced by the measurement ambiguity. We demonstrate how to directly measure not only this dispersion but also every observable moment with the same experimental data, and thus demonstrate that perfect distributional estimations can have nonzero error according to this measure. We conclude that the inequalities using these definitions do not capture the spirit of Heisenberg's eponymous inequality, but do indicate a qualitatively different relationship between dispersion and disturbance that is appropriate for ensembles being probed by all outcomes of an apparatus. To reconnect with the discussion of Heisenberg, we suggest alternative definitions of error and disturbance that are intrinsic to a single apparatus outcome. These definitions naturally involve the retrodictive and interdictive states for that outcome, and produce complementarity and error-disturbance inequalities that have the same form as the traditional Heisenberg relation.

arXiv:1308.4853•Physical Review A•Feb 10, 2014•70 citations

Is the Heisenberg uncertainty relation really violated?

Masao Kitano

It has been pointed out that for some types of measurement the Heisenberg uncertainty relation seems to be violated. In order to save the situation a new uncertainty relation was proposed by Ozawa. Here we introduce revised definitions of error and disturbance taking into account the gain associated with generalized measurement interactions. With these new definitions, the validity of the Heisenberg inequality is recovered for continuous linear measurement interactions. We also examine the changes in distribution functions caused by the general measurement interaction and clarify the physical meanings of infinitely large errors and disturbances.

arXiv:0803.4377•Mar 31, 2008•0 citations

Uncertainty relations: An operational approach to the error-disturbance tradeoff

Joseph M. Renes, Volkher B. Scholz, Stefan Huber

The notions of error and disturbance appearing in quantum uncertainty relations are often quantified by the discrepancy of a physical quantity from its ideal value. However, these real and ideal values are not the outcomes of simultaneous measurements, and comparing the values of unmeasured observables is not necessarily meaningful according to quantum theory. To overcome these conceptual difficulties, we take a different approach and define error and disturbance in an operational manner. In particular, we formulate both in terms of the probability that one can successfully distinguish the actual measurement device from the relevant hypothetical ideal by any experimental test whatsoever. This definition itself does not rely on the formalism of quantum theory, avoiding many of the conceptual difficulties of usual definitions. We then derive new Heisenberg-type uncertainty relations for both joint measurability and the error-disturbance tradeoff for arbitrary observables of finite-dimensional systems, as well as for the case of position and momentum. Our relations may be directly applied in information processing settings, for example to infer that devices which can faithfully transmit information regarding one observable do not leak any information about conjugate observables to the environment. We also show that Englert's wave-particle duality relation [PRL 77, 2154 (1996)] can be viewed as an error-disturbance uncertainty relation.

•Jul 25, 2017•7 citations

Uncertainty relations: An operational approach to the error-disturbance tradeoff

Joseph M. Renes, Volkher B. Scholz, Stefan Huber

The notions of error and disturbance appearing in quantum uncertainty relations are often quantified by the discrepancy of a physical quantity from its ideal value. However, these real and ideal values are not the outcomes of simultaneous measurements, and comparing the values of unmeasured observables is not necessarily meaningful according to quantum theory. To overcome these conceptual difficulties, we take a different approach and define error and disturbance in an operational manner. In particular, we formulate both in terms of the probability that one can successfully distinguish the actual measurement device from the relevant hypothetical ideal by any experimental test whatsoever. This definition itself does not rely on the formalism of quantum theory, avoiding many of the conceptual difficulties of usual definitions. We then derive new Heisenberg-type uncertainty relations for both joint measurability and the error-disturbance tradeoff for arbitrary observables of finite-dimensional systems, as well as for the case of position and momentum. Our relations may be directly applied in information processing settings, for example to infer that devices which can faithfully transmit information regarding one observable do not leak any information about conjugate observables to the environment. We also show that Englert's wave-particle duality relation [PRL 77, 2154 (1996)] can be viewed as an error-disturbance uncertainty relation.

arXiv:1612.02051•Quantum•Jul 25, 2017•13 citations
The uncertainty relation, which displays an elementary property of quantum theory, was originally described by Heisenberg as the relation between error and disturbance. Ozawa presented a more rigorous expression of the uncertainty relation, which was later verified experimentally. Nevertheless, the operators corresponding to error and disturbance should be measurable in the identical state if we follow the presupposition of Heisenberg’s thought experiment. In this letter, we discuss simultaneous measurability of error and disturbance and present a new inequality using error and disturbance in the identical state. A testable example of this inequality is also suggested.
Over the past few years, Heisenberg's error-disturbance uncertainty relation has experienced increased attention since several experimental publications verified the theoretical findings of Ozawa predicting the violation and thus necessary reformulation of Heisenberg's relation. However, soon after their appearance, an alternative theory was presented by Busch and co-workers, which proclaimed the validity of Heisenberg's relation and thus gave rise to heated debates. Here, we present an experimental comparison of the competing approaches by applying them to the same neutron optical measurement apparatus. Empirical results for the different definitions of error and disturbance are presented for special input states and configurations of the apparatus to illustrate the opposing approaches. The inequalities restricting errors and disturbances are particularly emphasized. Despite the strong controversy, in the case of projectively measured qubit observables, both approaches lead to equal outcomes.
In this comment on the paper by F. Kaneda, S.-Y. Baek, M. Ozawa and K. Edamatsu [Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 020402, 2014, arXiv:1308.5868], we point out that the claim of having refuted Heisenberg's error-disturbance relation is unfounded since it is based on the choice of unsuitable and operationally problematical quantifications of measurement error and disturbance. As we have shown elsewhere [PRL 111, 160405, 2013], for appropriate choices of operational measures of error and disturbance, Heisenberg's heuristic relation can be turned into a precise inequality which is a rigorous consequence of quantum mechanics.
We revisit the definitions of error and disturbance recently used in error-disturbance inequalities derived by Ozawa and others by expressing them in the reduced system space. The interpretation of the definitions as mean-squared deviations relies on an implicit assumption that is generally incompatible with the Bell-Kochen-Specker-Spekkens contextuality theorems, and which results in averaging the deviations over a non-positive-semidefinite joint quasiprobability distribution. For unbiased measurements, the error admits a concrete interpretation as the dispersion in the estimation of the mean induced by the measurement ambiguity. We demonstrate how to directly measure not only this dispersion but also every observable moment with the same experimental data, and thus demonstrate that perfect distributional estimations can have nonzero error according to this measure. We conclude that the inequalities using these definitions do not capture the spirit of Heisenberg's eponymous inequality, but do indicate a qualitatively different relationship between dispersion and disturbance that is appropriate for ensembles being probed by all outcomes of an apparatus. To reconnect with the discussion of Heisenberg, we suggest alternative definitions of error and disturbance that are intrinsic to a single apparatus outcome. These definitions naturally involve the retrodictive and interdictive states for that outcome, and produce complementarity and error-disturbance inequalities that have the same form as the traditional Heisenberg relation.
It has been pointed out that for some types of measurement the Heisenberg uncertainty relation seems to be violated. In order to save the situation a new uncertainty relation was proposed by Ozawa. Here we introduce revised definitions of error and disturbance taking into account the gain associated with generalized measurement interactions. With these new definitions, the validity of the Heisenberg inequality is recovered for continuous linear measurement interactions. We also examine the changes in distribution functions caused by the general measurement interaction and clarify the physical meanings of infinitely large errors and disturbances.
The notions of error and disturbance appearing in quantum uncertainty relations are often quantified by the discrepancy of a physical quantity from its ideal value. However, these real and ideal values are not the outcomes of simultaneous measurements, and comparing the values of unmeasured observables is not necessarily meaningful according to quantum theory. To overcome these conceptual difficulties, we take a different approach and define error and disturbance in an operational manner. In particular, we formulate both in terms of the probability that one can successfully distinguish the actual measurement device from the relevant hypothetical ideal by any experimental test whatsoever. This definition itself does not rely on the formalism of quantum theory, avoiding many of the conceptual difficulties of usual definitions. We then derive new Heisenberg-type uncertainty relations for both joint measurability and the error-disturbance tradeoff for arbitrary observables of finite-dimensional systems, as well as for the case of position and momentum. Our relations may be directly applied in information processing settings, for example to infer that devices which can faithfully transmit information regarding one observable do not leak any information about conjugate observables to the environment. We also show that Englert's wave-particle duality relation [PRL 77, 2154 (1996)] can be viewed as an error-disturbance uncertainty relation.
The notions of error and disturbance appearing in quantum uncertainty relations are often quantified by the discrepancy of a physical quantity from its ideal value. However, these real and ideal values are not the outcomes of simultaneous measurements, and comparing the values of unmeasured observables is not necessarily meaningful according to quantum theory. To overcome these conceptual difficulties, we take a different approach and define error and disturbance in an operational manner. In particular, we formulate both in terms of the probability that one can successfully distinguish the actual measurement device from the relevant hypothetical ideal by any experimental test whatsoever. This definition itself does not rely on the formalism of quantum theory, avoiding many of the conceptual difficulties of usual definitions. We then derive new Heisenberg-type uncertainty relations for both joint measurability and the error-disturbance tradeoff for arbitrary observables of finite-dimensional systems, as well as for the case of position and momentum. Our relations may be directly applied in information processing settings, for example to infer that devices which can faithfully transmit information regarding one observable do not leak any information about conjugate observables to the environment. We also show that Englert's wave-particle duality relation [PRL 77, 2154 (1996)] can be viewed as an error-disturbance uncertainty relation.