The uncertainty principle can be understood as constraining the probability of winning a game in which Alice measures one of two conjugate observables, such as position or momentum, on a system provided by Bob, and he is to guess the outcome. Two variants are possible: either Alice tells Bob which observable she measured, or he has to furnish guesses for both cases. Here I derive uncertainty relations for both, formulated directly in terms of Bob's guessing probabilities. For the former these relate to the entanglement that can be recovered by action on Bob's system alone. This gives an explicit quantum circuit for approximate quantum error correction using the guessing measurements for ``amplitude'' and ``phase'' information, implicitly used in the recent construction of efficient quantum polar codes. I also find a relation on the guessing probabilities for the latter game, which has application to wave-particle duality relations.
The uncertainty principle can be understood as constraining the probability of winning a game in which Alice measures one of two conjugate observables, such as position or momentum, on a system provided by Bob, and he is to guess the outcome. Two variants are possible: either Alice tells Bob which observable she measured, or he has to furnish guesses for both cases. Here I derive uncertainty relations for both, formulated directly in terms of Bob's guessing probabilities. For the former these relate to the entanglement that can be recovered by action on Bob's system alone. This gives an explicit quantum circuit for approximate quantum error correction using the guessing measurements for amplitude'' and phase'' information, implicitly used in the recent construction of efficient quantum polar codes. I also find a relation on the guessing probabilities for the latter game, which has application to wave-particle duality relations.
Heisenberg's uncertainty principle implies that if one party (Alice) prepares a system and randomly measures one of two incompatible observables, then another party (Bob) cannot perfectly predict the measurement outcomes. This implication assumes that Bob does not possess an additional system that is entangled to the measured one; indeed, the seminal paper of Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen (EPR) showed that maximal entanglement allows Bob to perfectly win this guessing game. Although not in contradiction, the observations made by EPR and Heisenberg illustrate two extreme cases of the interplay between entanglement and uncertainty. On the one hand, no entanglement means that Bob's predictions must display some uncertainty. Yet on the other hand, maximal entanglement means that there is no more uncertainty at all. Here we follow an operational approach and give an exact relation---an equality---between the amount of uncertainty as measured by the guessing probability and the amount of entanglement as measured by the recoverable entanglement fidelity. From this equality, we deduce a simple criterion for witnessing bipartite entanglement and an entanglement monogamy equality.
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.
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.
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.