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:1602.09002 · Entropy

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

David Appleby

Published May 6, 2016• 13 citations
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

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.

DOI
10.3390/e18050174

Related papers

Disproving Heisenberg's error-disturbance relation

Masanao Ozawa

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.

arXiv:1308.3540•Aug 16, 2013•18 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

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

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

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

Heisenberg's error-disturbance relations: A joint measurement-based experimental test

Yuanyuan Zhao, Paweł Kurzyński, Guo‐Yong Xiang +2 more

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.

arXiv:1512.07050•Physical Review A•Apr 7, 2017•8 citations
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, 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 AAA and BBB depend on a particular quantum state. The second one asks how a joint measurement of AAA and BBB 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.