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:1308.3540

Disproving Heisenberg's error-disturbance relation

Masanao Ozawa

Published Aug 16, 2013• 18 citations
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

Recently, Busch, Lahti, and Werner (arXiv:1306.1565v1 [quant-ph]) claimed that Heisenberg's error-disturbance relation can be proved in its original form with new formulations of error and disturbance, in contrast to the theory proposed by the present author and confirmed by recent experiments. Despite their claim, it is shown here that a class of solvable models of position measurement with explicit interaction Hamiltonians escape the Busch-Lahti-Werner relation. It is also made clear where their proof fails. Those models have unambiguously defined zero root-mean-square error and finite root-mean-square disturbance in every input state and are naturally considered to violate Heisenberg's error-disturbance relation in any conceivable formulation.

DOI
10.48550/arxiv.1308.3540

Related papers

Quantum rms error and Heisenberg’s error-disturbance relation

Paul Busch

Reports on experiments recently performed in Vienna [Erhard et al, Nature Phys. 8, 185 (2012)] and Toronto [Rozema et al, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 100404 (2012)] include claims of a violation of Heisenberg’s error-disturbance relation. In contrast, a Heisenberg-type tradeoff relation for joint measurements of position and momentum has been formulated and proven in [Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 160405 (2013)]. Here I show how the apparent conflict is resolved by a careful consideration of the quantum generalization of the notion of root-mean-square error. The claim of a violation of Heisenberg’s principle is untenable as it is based on a historically wrong attribution of an incorrect relation to Heisenberg, which is in fact trivially violated. We review a new general trade-off relation for the necessary errors in approximate joint measurements of incompatible qubit observables that is in the spirit of Heisenberg’s intuitions. The experiments mentioned may directly be used to test this new error inequality.

EPJ Web of Conferences•Jan 1, 2014•2 citations

Quantum Errors and Disturbances: Response to Busch, Lahti and Werner

David Appleby

Busch, Lahti and Werner (BLW) have recently criticized the operator approach to the description of quantum errors and disturbances. Their criticisms are justified to the extent that the physical meaning of the operator definitions has not hitherto been adequately explained. We rectify that omission. We then examine BLW’s criticisms in the light of our analysis. We argue that, although the BLW approach favour (based on the Wasserstein two-deviation) has its uses, there are important physical situations where an operator approach is preferable. We also discuss the reason why the error-disturbance relation is still giving rise to controversies almost a century after Heisenberg first stated his microscope argument. We argue that the source of the difficulties is the problem of interpretation, which is not so wholly disconnected from experimental practicalities as is sometimes supposed.

arXiv:1602.09002•Entropy•May 6, 2016•13 citations

Determining measurement errors: where the good meet the bad

Paul Busch, Neil Stevens

Recently there have been claims of experimental violations of Heisenberg's error-disturbance relation [Rozema et al, PRL 109, 200404 (2012), Erhard et al, Nature Phys. 8, 185 (2012)]. These claims were contradicted by a proof of a form of such relations [Busch et al, PRL 111, 160405 (2013)], showing that the validity of any formalization of Heisenberg's principle depends on the choice of appropriate measures of error and disturbance. While the error quantity underlying the experiments was shown to be conceptually problematic in general, it turns out to coincide, in the qubit experiments in question, with the alternative error measure used by Busch et al. Here we analyze this coincidence and discover a technique, hitherto deemed unavailable, for determining the disturbance measure. We show that this procedure reflects directly the operational meaning of the disturbance measure, in contrast to the weak-value method used in the experiments of Rozema et al and several other groups. The latter is thus not fundamental for an understanding of the quantum mechanical error-disturbance trade-off. The strong scheme is also shown to be applicable to a wider class of joint measurement scenarios.

•Jul 29, 2014•0 citations

Proof of Heisenberg’s Error-Disturbance Relation

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

While the slogan "no measurement without disturbance" has established itself under the name of the Heisenberg effect in the consciousness of the scientifically interested public, a precise statement of this fundamental feature of the quantum world has remained elusive, and serious attempts at rigorous formulations of it as a consequence of quantum theory have led to seemingly conflicting preliminary results. Here we show that despite recent claims to the contrary [L. Rozema et al, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 100404 (2012)], Heisenberg-type inequalities can be proven that describe a tradeoff between the precision of a position measurement and the necessary resulting disturbance of momentum (and vice versa). More generally, these inequalities are instances of an uncertainty relation for the imprecisions of any joint measurement of position and momentum. Measures of error and disturbance are here defined as figures of merit characteristic of measuring devices. As such they are state independent, each giving worst-case estimates across all states, in contrast to previous work that is concerned with the relationship between error and disturbance in an individual state.

arXiv:1306.1565•Physical Review Letters•Oct 17, 2013•241 citations

A Note on Different Definitions of Momentum Disturbance

Lee A. Rozema, Dylan H. Mahler, Alex Hayat +1 more

In [1], Busch et al. showed that it is possible to construct an error-disturbance relation having the same form as Heisenberg's original heuristic definition[2], in contrast to the theory proposed by Ozawa[3] which we and others recently confirmed experimentally[4,5]. With Ozawa's definitions of measurement error and disturbance, a relation of Heisenberg's form is not in general valid, and a new error-disturbance relationship can be derived. Here we explain the different physical significance of the two definitions, and suggest that Ozawa's definition better corresponds to the usual understanding of the disturbance that Heisenberg discussed.

arXiv:1307.3604•Jul 13, 2013•5 citations

Comment on "Proof of Heisenberg's error-disturbance principle"

Masanao Ozawa

Recently, Kosugi [arXiv:1504.03779v2 [quant-ph]] argued that Heisenberg's error-disturbance relation (EDR) must be interpreted as being between the resolution, the preparational error for the post-measurement observable, and the disturbance. He further claimed that Heisenberg's EDR can be proven to hold true in general, when the meter observable is modified as one of its functions. Here, some comments are given to suggest that the above claims are not supported.

arXiv:1505.05014•May 19, 2015•0 citations
Recently, Busch, Lahti, and Werner (arXiv:1306.1565v1 [quant-ph]) claimed that Heisenberg's error-disturbance relation can be proved in its original form with new formulations of error and disturbance, in contrast to the theory proposed by the present author and confirmed by recent experiments. Despite their claim, it is shown here that a class of solvable models of position measurement with explicit interaction Hamiltonians escape the Busch-Lahti-Werner relation. It is also made clear where their proof fails. Those models have unambiguously defined zero root-mean-square error and finite root-mean-square disturbance in every input state and are naturally considered to violate Heisenberg's error-disturbance relation in any conceivable formulation.
Reports on experiments recently performed in Vienna [Erhard et al, Nature Phys. 8, 185 (2012)] and Toronto [Rozema et al, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 100404 (2012)] include claims of a violation of Heisenberg’s error-disturbance relation. In contrast, a Heisenberg-type tradeoff relation for joint measurements of position and momentum has been formulated and proven in [Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 160405 (2013)]. Here I show how the apparent conflict is resolved by a careful consideration of the quantum generalization of the notion of root-mean-square error. The claim of a violation of Heisenberg’s principle is untenable as it is based on a historically wrong attribution of an incorrect relation to Heisenberg, which is in fact trivially violated. We review a new general trade-off relation for the necessary errors in approximate joint measurements of incompatible qubit observables that is in the spirit of Heisenberg’s intuitions. The experiments mentioned may directly be used to test this new error inequality.
Busch, Lahti and Werner (BLW) have recently criticized the operator approach to the description of quantum errors and disturbances. Their criticisms are justified to the extent that the physical meaning of the operator definitions has not hitherto been adequately explained. We rectify that omission. We then examine BLW’s criticisms in the light of our analysis. We argue that, although the BLW approach favour (based on the Wasserstein two-deviation) has its uses, there are important physical situations where an operator approach is preferable. We also discuss the reason why the error-disturbance relation is still giving rise to controversies almost a century after Heisenberg first stated his microscope argument. We argue that the source of the difficulties is the problem of interpretation, which is not so wholly disconnected from experimental practicalities as is sometimes supposed.
Recently there have been claims of experimental violations of Heisenberg's error-disturbance relation [Rozema et al, PRL 109, 200404 (2012), Erhard et al, Nature Phys. 8, 185 (2012)]. These claims were contradicted by a proof of a form of such relations [Busch et al, PRL 111, 160405 (2013)], showing that the validity of any formalization of Heisenberg's principle depends on the choice of appropriate measures of error and disturbance. While the error quantity underlying the experiments was shown to be conceptually problematic in general, it turns out to coincide, in the qubit experiments in question, with the alternative error measure used by Busch et al. Here we analyze this coincidence and discover a technique, hitherto deemed unavailable, for determining the disturbance measure. We show that this procedure reflects directly the operational meaning of the disturbance measure, in contrast to the weak-value method used in the experiments of Rozema et al and several other groups. The latter is thus not fundamental for an understanding of the quantum mechanical error-disturbance trade-off. The strong scheme is also shown to be applicable to a wider class of joint measurement scenarios.
While the slogan "no measurement without disturbance" has established itself under the name of the Heisenberg effect in the consciousness of the scientifically interested public, a precise statement of this fundamental feature of the quantum world has remained elusive, and serious attempts at rigorous formulations of it as a consequence of quantum theory have led to seemingly conflicting preliminary results. Here we show that despite recent claims to the contrary [L. Rozema et al, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 100404 (2012)], Heisenberg-type inequalities can be proven that describe a tradeoff between the precision of a position measurement and the necessary resulting disturbance of momentum (and vice versa). More generally, these inequalities are instances of an uncertainty relation for the imprecisions of any joint measurement of position and momentum. Measures of error and disturbance are here defined as figures of merit characteristic of measuring devices. As such they are state independent, each giving worst-case estimates across all states, in contrast to previous work that is concerned with the relationship between error and disturbance in an individual state.
In [1], Busch et al. showed that it is possible to construct an error-disturbance relation having the same form as Heisenberg's original heuristic definition[2], in contrast to the theory proposed by Ozawa[3] which we and others recently confirmed experimentally[4,5]. With Ozawa's definitions of measurement error and disturbance, a relation of Heisenberg's form is not in general valid, and a new error-disturbance relationship can be derived. Here we explain the different physical significance of the two definitions, and suggest that Ozawa's definition better corresponds to the usual understanding of the disturbance that Heisenberg discussed.