Often, one would like to determine some observable A, but can only measure some (hopefully related) observable M. This can arise, for example, in quantum eavesdropping, or when the research lab budget isn't large enough for that 100% efficient photodetector. It also arises whenever one tries to jointly determine two complementary observables via some measurement M. This raises three natural questions: (i) What is the best possible estimate of A from M ? ; (ii) How 'noisy' is such an estimate ? ; and (iii) Are there any universally valid uncertainty relations for joint estimates ? Quite general answers, and applications to heterodyne detection and EPR joint measurements, are briefly reviewed.
Often, one would like to determine some observable A, but can only measure some (hopefully related) observable M. This can arise, for example, in quantum eavesdropping, or when the research lab budget isn't large enough for that 100% efficient photodetector. It also arises whenever one tries to jointly determine two complementary observables via some measurement M. This raises three natural questions: (i) What is the best possible estimate of A from M ? ; (ii) How 'noisy' is such an estimate ? ; and (iii) Are there any universally valid uncertainty relations for joint estimates ? Quite general answers, and applications to heterodyne detection and EPR joint measurements, are briefly reviewed.
The principle of complementarity is quantified in two ways: by a universal uncertainty relation valid for arbitrary joint estimates of any two observables from a given measurement setup and by a general uncertainty relation valid for the optimal estimates of the same two observables when the state of the system prior to measurement is known. A formula is given for the optimal estimate of any given observable, based on arbitrary measurement data and prior information about the state of the system, which generalizes and provides a more robust interpretation of previous formulas for ``local expectations'' and ``weak values'' of quantum observables. As an example, the canonical joint measurement of position X and momentum P corresponds to measuring the commuting operators ${X}_{J}=X+{X}^{\ensuremath{'}}$ and ${P}_{J}=P\ensuremath{-}{P}^{\ensuremath{'}}$, where the primed variables refer to an auxiliary system in a minimum-uncertainty state. It is well known that $\ensuremath{\Delta}{X}_{J}\ensuremath{\Delta}{P}_{J}\ensuremath{\geqslant}\ensuremath{\hbar}$. Here it is shown that given the same physical experimental setup and knowledge of the system density operator prior to measurement, one can make improved joint estimates Xopt and Popt of X and P. These improved estimates are not only statistically closer to X and P but further satisfy $\ensuremath{\Delta}{X}_{opt}\ensuremath{\Delta}{P}_{opt}\ensuremath{\geqslant}\ensuremath{\hbar}∕4$, where equality can be achieved in certain cases. Thus one can do up to four times better than the standard lower bound (where the latter corresponds to the limit of no prior information). Other applications include the heterodyne detection of orthogonal quadratures of a single-mode optical field and joint measurements based on Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen correlations.
Uncertainty relations are commonly praised as one of the central pillars of quantum theory. Usually, they are taught in the first weeks of a beginners lecture, and introduced in the ?rst chapters of a textbook. However, their precise operational meaning and a formulation in a general context, i.e. beyond the example of position and momentum observables, are often left out. The reasoning for this is twofold: On one hand, an exact operational definition of uncertainty, indeterminacy and a corresponding uncertainty principle has been the content of many debates since the early days of quantum mechanics until today. From a modern perspective, we have the consent that there are at least the two notions of preparation and measurement uncertainty: the first notion prohibits the existence of dissipation free states and the latter one the existence of error free joint measurements. On the other hand, we have that, the mathematical tools, which are needed for comprehensive treatment of uncertainty relations in a general context, are still under development and usually go far beyond the mathematical level of an introductory course. In this thesis we will investigate these two notions of uncertainty, their corre- sponding uncertainty relations, such as their interplay. The aim of this thesis is to give answers to the central questions: (1.) Which quantities should be used to formulate uncertainty? (2.) How can we compute uncertainty relations for those? (3.) Are there connections between the two notions of uncertainty? We will do this, whenever possible, in a most general context and with a focus on relevant examples, otherwise. Therefore, we will consider constructions of mea- surement errors and deviation measures that quantify uncertainty, based on, so called, cost functions. Commonly used uncertainty measures like variances, en- tropies, and the Hamming distance are examples for these. We will investigate the structure of the corresponding uncertainty relations and provide several methods that enable us to compute them. The third question is addressed by a theorem that shows, for sharp observables, that measurement uncertainty relations can be lower bounded by preparation uncertainty relations, whenever the same cost function is used.
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.
Heisenberg's uncertainty relations for measurement quantify how well we can jointly measure two complementary observables and have attracted much experimental and theoretical attention recently. Here we provide an exact tradeoff between the worst-case errors in measuring jointly two observables of a qubit, i.e., all the allowed and forbidden pairs of errors, especially asymmetric ones, are exactly pinpointed. For each pair of optimal errors we provide an optimal joint measurement that is realizable without introducing any ancilla and entanglement. Possible experimental implementations are discussed and Toronto experiment [Rozema et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 100404 (2012)] can be readily adapted to an optimal joint measurement of two orthogonal observables.