It is common to say that a quantum measurement is described by a Hermitian operator; e.g., we do a ``position'' measurement or a ``momentum'' measurement. The modern perspective is that this is too narrow a view of what a measurement can be, with more concepts needed, like partial measurement, weak measurement, and a quantum instrument. This Colloquium provides a larger perspective, and shows how measurement incompatibility and related uncertainty relations are extended to more general settings. One such insight is that measurements that disturb each other are in fact a valuable resource in a variety of quantum information protocols.
It is common to say that a quantum measurement is described by a Hermitian operator; e.g., we do a position'' measurement or a momentum'' measurement. The modern perspective is that this is too narrow a view of what a measurement can be, with more concepts needed, like partial measurement, weak measurement, and a quantum instrument. This Colloquium provides a larger perspective, and shows how measurement incompatibility and related uncertainty relations are extended to more general settings. One such insight is that measurements that disturb each other are in fact a valuable resource in a variety of quantum information protocols.
Some measurements in quantum mechanics disturb each other. This has puzzled physicists since the formulation of the theory, but only in recent decades has the incompatibility of measurements been analyzed in depth and detail, using the notion of joint measurability of generalized measurements. In this Colloquium joint measurability and incompatibility are reviewed from the perspective of quantum information science. The Colloquium starts by discussing the basic definitions and concepts. An overview on applications of incompatibility, such as in measurement uncertainty relations, the characterization of quantum correlations, or information processing tasks like quantum state discrimination, is then presented. Finally, emerging directions of research, such as a resource theory of incompatibility as well as other concepts to grasp the nature of measurements in quantum mechanics, are discussed.
Some measurements in quantum mechanics disturb each other. This has puzzled physicists since the formulation of the theory, but only in recent decades has the incompatibility of measurements been analyzed in depth and detail, using the notion of joint measurability of generalized measurements. In this Colloquium joint measurability and incompatibility are reviewed from the perspective of quantum information science. The Colloquium starts by discussing the basic definitions and concepts. An overview on applications of incompatibility, such as in measurement uncertainty relations, the characterization of quantum correlations, or information processing tasks like quantum state discrimination, is then presented. Finally, emerging directions of research, such as a resource theory of incompatibility as well as other concepts to grasp the nature of measurements in quantum mechanics, are discussed.
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.
In these notes, based on lectures given as part of the Les Houches summer school on Quantum Optics and Nanophotonics in August, 2013, I have tried to give a brief survey of some important approaches and modern tendencies in quantum measurement. I wish it to be clear from the outset that I shy explicitly away from the "quantum measurement problem," and that the present treatment aims to elucidate the theory and practice of various ways in which measurements can, in light of quantum mechanics, be carried out; and various formalisms for describing them. While the treatment is by necessity largely theoretical, the emphasis is meant to be on an experimental "perspective" on measurement -- that is, to place the priority on the possibility of gaining information through some process, and then attempting to model that process mathematically and consider its ramifications, rather than stressing a particular mathematical definition as the {\it sine qua non} of measurement. The textbook definition of measurement as being a particular set of mathematical operations carried out on particular sorts of operators has been so well drilled into us that many have the unfortunate tendency of saying "that experiment can't be described by projections onto the eigenstates of a Hermitian operator, so it is not really a measurement," when of course any practitioner of an experimental science such as physics should instead say "that experiment allowed us to measure something, and if the standard theory of measurement does not describe it, the standard theory of measurement is incomplete." Idealisations are important, but when the real world breaks the approximations made in the theory, it is the theory which must be fixed, and not the real world.
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.