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:1402.3102

Measurement Uncertainty: Reply to Critics

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

Published Feb 13, 2014• 5 citations
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

In a recent publication [PRL 111, 160405 (2013)] we proved a version of Heisenberg's error-disturbance tradeoff. This result was in apparent contradiction to claims by Ozawa of having refuted these ideas of Heisenberg. In a direct reaction [arXiv:1308.3540] Ozawa has called our work groundless, and has claimed to have found both a counterexample and an error in our proof. Here we answer to these allegations. We also comment on the submission [arXiv:1307.3604] by Rozema et al, in which our approach is unfavourably compared to that of Ozawa.

DOI
10.48550/arxiv.1402.3102

Related papers

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

Comment on "Noise and Disturbance in Quantum Measurements: An Information-Theoretic Approach"

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

In this comment on the work of F. Buscemi, M.J.W. Hall, M. Ozawa and M.M. Wilde [PRL 112, 050401, 2014, arXiv:1310.6603], we point out a misrepresentation of measures of error and disturbance introduced in our recent work [PRL 111, 160405, 2013, arXiv:1306.1565] as being "purely formal, with no operational counterparts". We also exhibit an tension in the authors' message, in that their main result is an error-disturbance relation for state-independent measures, but its importance is declared to be limited to discrete variables. In contrast, we point out the separate roles played by such relations for either state-dependent or state-independent measures of error and disturbance.

arXiv:1403.0368•Mar 3, 2014•1 citation

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

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

Comment on "Experimental demonstration of a universally valid error-disturbance uncertainty relation in spin measurements"

Y. Kurihara

In this comment we show that the experimental results for a universally valid uncertainty relation in ref.[J. Erhart et al. Nat. Phys.(2012)10.1038/nphys2194]cannot be justified. The experiments cannot be recognized to establish a violation of the Heisenberg-type uncertainty relation suggested by Ozawa[Phys. Lett. A318(2003)21, Phys. Rev. A67(2003)042105].

arXiv:1201.5151•Jan 24, 2012•1 citation

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
In a recent publication [PRL 111, 160405 (2013)] we proved a version of Heisenberg's error-disturbance tradeoff. This result was in apparent contradiction to claims by Ozawa of having refuted these ideas of Heisenberg. In a direct reaction [arXiv:1308.3540] Ozawa has called our work groundless, and has claimed to have found both a counterexample and an error in our proof. Here we answer to these allegations. We also comment on the submission [arXiv:1307.3604] by Rozema et al, in which our approach is unfavourably compared to that of Ozawa.
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.
In this comment on the work of F. Buscemi, M.J.W. Hall, M. Ozawa and M.M. Wilde [PRL 112, 050401, 2014, arXiv:1310.6603], we point out a misrepresentation of measures of error and disturbance introduced in our recent work [PRL 111, 160405, 2013, arXiv:1306.1565] as being "purely formal, with no operational counterparts". We also exhibit an tension in the authors' message, in that their main result is an error-disturbance relation for state-independent measures, but its importance is declared to be limited to discrete variables. In contrast, we point out the separate roles played by such relations for either state-dependent or state-independent measures of error and disturbance.
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.
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.