© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

Terms Privacy Legal Notice

arXiv:1308.4853 · Physical Review A

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

Justin Dressel, Franco Nori

Published Feb 10, 2014• 70 citations

Abstract

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.

DOI: 10.1103/physreva.89.022106

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

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

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

Violation of Heisenberg's error-disturbance uncertainty relation in neutron-spin measurements

Georg Sulyok, Stephan Sponar, Jacqueline Erhart +3 more

In its original formulation, Heisenberg's uncertainty principle dealt with the relationship between the error of a quantum measurement and the thereby induced disturbance on the measured object. Meanwhile, Heisenberg's heuristic arguments have turned out to be correct only for special cases. An alternative universally valid relation was derived by Ozawa in 2003. Here, we demonstrate that Ozawa's predictions hold for projective neutron-spin measurements. The experimental inaccessibility of error and disturbance claimed elsewhere has been overcome using a tomographic method. By a systematic variation of experimental parameters in the entire configuration space, the physical behavior of error and disturbance for projective spin-$\frac{1}{2}$ measurements is illustrated comprehensively. The violation of Heisenberg's original relation, as well as the validity of Ozawa's relation become manifest. In addition, our results conclude that the widespread assumption of a reciprocal relation between error and disturbance is not valid in general.

arXiv:1305.7251•Physical Review A•Aug 14, 2013•105 citations

Colloquium: Quantum root-mean-square error and measurement uncertainty relations

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

Recent years have witnessed a controversy over Heisenberg's famous error-disturbance relation. Here the conflict is resolved by way of an analysis of the possible conceptualizations of measurement error and disturbance in quantum mechanics. Two approaches to adapting the classic notion of root-mean-square error to quantum measurements are discussed. One is based on the concept of a noise operator; its natural operational content is that of a mean deviation of the values of two observables measured jointly, and thus its applicability is limited to cases where such joint measurements are available. The second error measure quantifies the differences between two probability distributions obtained in separate runs of measurements and is of unrestricted applicability. We show that there are no nontrivial unconditional joint-measurement bounds for state-dependent errors in the conceptual framework discussed here, while Heisenberg-type measurement uncertainty relations for state-independent errors have been proven.

arXiv:1312.4393•Reviews of Modern Physics•Dec 18, 2014•208 citations

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

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.

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 [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.

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.

In its original formulation, Heisenberg's uncertainty principle dealt with the relationship between the error of a quantum measurement and the thereby induced disturbance on the measured object. Meanwhile, Heisenberg's heuristic arguments have turned out to be correct only for special cases. An alternative universally valid relation was derived by Ozawa in 2003. Here, we demonstrate that Ozawa's predictions hold for projective neutron-spin measurements. The experimental inaccessibility of error and disturbance claimed elsewhere has been overcome using a tomographic method. By a systematic variation of experimental parameters in the entire configuration space, the physical behavior of error and disturbance for projective spin-

\frac{1}{2}

measurements is illustrated comprehensively. The violation of Heisenberg's original relation, as well as the validity of Ozawa's relation become manifest. In addition, our results conclude that the widespread assumption of a reciprocal relation between error and disturbance is not valid in general.

Recent years have witnessed a controversy over Heisenberg's famous error-disturbance relation. Here the conflict is resolved by way of an analysis of the possible conceptualizations of measurement error and disturbance in quantum mechanics. Two approaches to adapting the classic notion of root-mean-square error to quantum measurements are discussed. One is based on the concept of a noise operator; its natural operational content is that of a mean deviation of the values of two observables measured jointly, and thus its applicability is limited to cases where such joint measurements are available. The second error measure quantifies the differences between two probability distributions obtained in separate runs of measurements and is of unrestricted applicability. We show that there are no nontrivial unconditional joint-measurement bounds for state-dependent errors in the conceptual framework discussed here, while Heisenberg-type measurement uncertainty relations for state-independent errors have been proven.

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.