The uncertainty principle being a cornerstone of quantum mechanics, it is surprising that, in nearly 90 years, there have been no direct tests of measurement uncertainty relations. This lacuna was due to the absence of two essential ingredients: appropriate measures of measurement error (and disturbance) and precise formulations of such relations that are universally valid and directly testable. We formulate two distinct forms of direct tests, based on different measures of error. We present a prototype protocol for a direct test of measurement uncertainty relations in terms of value deviation errors (hitherto considered nonfeasible), highlighting the lack of universality of these relations. This shows that the formulation of universal, directly testable measurement uncertainty relations for state-dependent error measures remains an important open problem. Recent experiments that were claimed to constitute invalidations of Heisenberg's error-disturbance relation, are shown to conform with the spirit of Heisenberg's principle if interpreted as direct tests of measurement uncertainty relations for error measures that quantify distances between observables.
The uncertainty principle being a cornerstone of quantum mechanics, it is surprising that, in nearly 90 years, there have been no direct tests of measurement uncertainty relations. This lacuna was due to the absence of two essential ingredients: appropriate measures of measurement error (and disturbance) and precise formulations of such relations that are universally valid and directly testable. We formulate two distinct forms of direct tests, based on different measures of error. We present a prototype protocol for a direct test of measurement uncertainty relations in terms of value deviation errors (hitherto considered nonfeasible), highlighting the lack of universality of these relations. This shows that the formulation of universal, directly testable measurement uncertainty relations for state-dependent error measures remains an important open problem. Recent experiments that were claimed to constitute invalidations of Heisenberg's error-disturbance relation, are shown to conform with the spirit of Heisenberg's principle if interpreted as direct tests of measurement uncertainty relations for error measures that quantify distances between observables.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The original Heisenberg error-disturbance relation was recently shown to be not universally valid and two different approaches to reformulate it were proposed. The first one focuses on how the error and disturbance of two observables A and B depend on a particular quantum state. The second one asks how a joint measurement of A and B affects their eigenstates. Previous experiments focused on the first approach. Here we focus on the second one. First, we propose and implement an extendible method of quantum-walk-based joint measurements of noisy Pauli operators to test the error-disturbance relation for qubits introduced in the work of Busch et al. [Phys. Rev. A 89, 012129 (2014)], where the polarization of the single photon, corresponding to a walker's auxiliary degree of freedom that is commonly known as a coin, undergoes a position- and time-dependent evolution. Then we formulate and experimentally test a universally valid state-dependent relation for three mutually unbiased observables. We therefore establish a method of testing error-disturbance relations.