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

Determining measurement errors: where the good meet the bad

Paul Busch, Neil Stevens

Published Jul 29, 2014• 0 citations
OpenAlex

Abstract

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.

Related papers

Heisenberg uncertainty for qubit measurements

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

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.

arXiv:1311.0837•Physical Review A•Jan 31, 2014•119 citations

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

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

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

Measuring measurement–disturbance relationships with weak values

Austin P. Lund, Howard M. Wiseman

Using formal definitions for the measurement precision and the disturbance (measurement back-action) η, Ozawa (2003 Phys. Rev. A 67 042105) has shown that Heisenberg's claimed relation between these quantities is false in general. Here, we show that the quantities introduced by Ozawa can be determined experimentally, using no prior knowledge of the measurement under investigation—both quantities correspond to the root-mean-squared difference given by a weak-valued probability distribution. We propose a simple three-qubit experiment that can illustrate the failure of Heisenberg's measurement–disturbance relation and the validity of an alternative relation proposed by Ozawa.

arXiv:1007.3076•New Journal of Physics•Sep 8, 2010•92 citations

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
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, 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,BA,BA,B are tightly bounded from below by a quantity that measures the degree of incompatibility of AAA and BBB. 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.
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.
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.
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.
Using formal definitions for the measurement precision and the disturbance (measurement back-action) η, Ozawa (2003 Phys. Rev. A 67 042105) has shown that Heisenberg's claimed relation between these quantities is false in general. Here, we show that the quantities introduced by Ozawa can be determined experimentally, using no prior knowledge of the measurement under investigation—both quantities correspond to the root-mean-squared difference given by a weak-valued probability distribution. We propose a simple three-qubit experiment that can illustrate the failure of Heisenberg's measurement–disturbance relation and the validity of an alternative relation proposed by Ozawa.
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.