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, we have presented and proven a Heisenberg-type relation for joint measurements of position and momentum [Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 160405 (2013)]. To resolve the apparent conflict, we formulate here a general trade-off relation for errors in qubit measurements, using the same concepts as we did in the position-momentum case. We show that the combined errors in an approximate joint measurement of a pair of $\ifmmode\pm\else\textpm\fi{}1$-valued observables $A,B$ are tightly bounded from below by a quantity that measures the degree of incompatibility of $A$ and $B$. The claim of a violation of Heisenberg is shown to fail because it is based on unsuitable measures of error and disturbance. Finally we show how the experiments mentioned may directly be used to test our error inequality.
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, we have presented and proven a Heisenberg-type relation for joint measurements of position and momentum [Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 160405 (2013)]. To resolve the apparent conflict, we formulate here a general trade-off relation for errors in qubit measurements, using the same concepts as we did in the position-momentum case. We show that the combined errors in an approximate joint measurement of a pair of \ifmmode±\else\textpm\fi1-valued observables A,B are tightly bounded from below by a quantity that measures the degree of incompatibility of A and B. The claim of a violation of Heisenberg is shown to fail because it is based on unsuitable measures of error and disturbance. Finally we show how the experiments mentioned may directly be used to test our error inequality.
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.
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.
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.
Abstract In standard formulations of the uncertainty principle, two fundamental features are typically cast as impossibility statements: two noncommuting observables cannot in general both be sharply defined (for the same state), nor can they be measured jointly. The pioneers of quantum mechanics were acutely aware and puzzled by this fact, and it motivated Heisenberg to seek a mitigation, which he formulated in his seminal paper of 1927. He provided intuitive arguments to show that the values of, say, the position and momentum of a particle can at least be unsharply defined, and they can be measured together provided some approximation errors are allowed. Only now, nine decades later, a working theory of approximate joint measurements is taking shape, leading to rigorous and experimentally testable formulations of associated error tradeoff relations. Here we briefly review this new development, explaining the concepts and steps taken in the construction of optimal joint approximations of pairs of incompatible observables. As a case study, we deduce measurement uncertainty relations for qubit observables using two distinct error measures. We provide an operational interpretation of the error bounds and discuss some of the first experimental tests of such relations.
Incompatible observables can be approximated by compatible observables in joint measurement or measured sequentially, with constrained accuracy as implied by Heisenberg's original formulation of the uncertainty principle. Recently, Busch, Lahti, and Werner proposed inaccuracy trade-off relations based on statistical distances between probability distributions of measurement outcomes [P. Busch et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 160405 (2013); P. Busch et al., Phys. Rev. A 89, 012129 (2014)]. Here we reformulate their theoretical framework, derive an improved relation for qubit measurement, and perform an experimental test on a spin system. The relation reveals that the worst-case inaccuracy is tightly bounded from below by the incompatibility of target observables, and is verified by the experiment employing joint measurement in which two compatible observables designed to approximate two incompatible observables on one qubit are measured simultaneously.
In standard formulations of the uncertainty principle, two fundamental features are typically cast as impossibility statements: two noncommuting observables cannot in general both be sharply defined (for the same state), nor can they be measured jointly. The pioneers of quantum mechanics were acutely aware and puzzled by this fact, and it motivated Heisenberg to seek a mitigation, which he formulated in his seminal paper of 1927. He provided intuitive arguments to show that the values of, say, the position and momentum of a particle can at least be unsharply defined, and they can be measured together provided some approximation errors are allowed. Only now, nine decades later, a working theory of approximate joint measurements is taking shape, leading to rigorous and experimentally testable formulations of associated error tradeoff relations. Here we briefly review this new development, explaining the concepts and steps taken in the construction of optimal joint approximations of pairs of incompatible observables. As a case study, we deduce measurement uncertainty relations for qubit observables using two distinct error measures. We provide an operational interpretation of the error bounds and discuss some of the first experimental tests of such relations.