arXiv:quant-ph/9803051

The Error Principle

D. M. Appleby

Published Mar 18, 1998• 2 citations

Abstract

The problem of characterising the accuracy of, and disturbance caused by a joint measurement of position and momentum is investigated. In a previous paper the problem was discussed in the context of the unbiased measurements considered by Arthurs and Kelly. It is now shown, that suitably modified versions of these results hold for a much larger class of simultaneous measurements. The approach is a development of that adopted by Braginsky and Khalili in the case of a single measurement of position only. A distinction is made between the errors of retrodiction and the errors of prediction. Two error-error relationships and four error-disturbance relationships are derived, supplementing the Uncertainty Principle usually so-called. In the general case it is necessary to take into account the range of the measuring apparatus. Both the ideal case, of an instrument having infinite range, and the case of a real instrument, for which the range is finite, are discussed.

DOI: 10.48550/arxiv.quant-ph/9803051

Related papers

The Concept of Experimental Accuracy and Simultaneous Measurements of Position and Momentum

D. M. Appleby

The concept of experimental accuracy is investigated in the context of the unbiased joint measurement processes defined by Arthurs and Kelly. A distinction is made between the errors of retrodiction and prediction. Four error-disturbance relationships are derived, analogous to the single error-disturbance relationship derived by Braginsky and Khalili in the context of single measurements of position only. A retrodictive and a predictive error-error relationship are also derived. The connection between these relationships and the extended Uncertainty Principle of Arthurs and Kelly is discussed. The similarities and differences between the quantum mechanical and classical concepts of experimental accuracy are explored. It is argued that these relationships provide grounds for questioning Uffink's conclusion, that the concept of a simultaneous measurement of non-commuting observables is not fruitful.

arXiv:quant-ph/9803046Mar 17, 19989 citations

Maximal accuracy and minimal disturbance in the Arthurs-Kelly simultaneous measurement process

D. M. Appleby

The accuracy of the Arthurs-Kelly model of a simultaneous measurement of position and momentum is analysed using concepts developed by Braginsky and Khalili in the context of measurements of a single quantum observable. A distinction is made between the errors of retrodiction and prediction. It is shown that the distribution of measured values coincides with the initial-state Husimi function when the retrodictive accuracy is maximized (this being the result first obtained by Busch, using somewhat different methods). It is further shown that the distribution of measured values is related to the final-state anti-Husimi function (the P representation of quantum optics) when the predictive accuracy is maximized. The disturbance of the system by the measurement is also discussed. A class of minimally disturbing measurements is characterized. It is shown that the distribution of measured values then coincides with one of the smoothed Wigner functions described by Cartwright.

arXiv:quant-ph/9803047Journal of Physics A Mathematical and GeneralJul 31, 199826 citations

Uncertainty relations: An operational approach to the error-disturbance tradeoff

Joseph M. Renes, Volkher B. Scholz, Stefan Huber

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.

Jul 25, 20177 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:1306.1565Physical Review LettersOct 17, 2013241 citations

Uncertainty relations: An operational approach to the error-disturbance tradeoff

Joseph M. Renes, Volkher B. Scholz, Stefan Huber

arXiv:1612.02051QuantumJul 25, 201713 citations

Measurement uncertainty: the problem of characterising optimal error bounds

Tom Bullock, Paul Busch

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.

Dec 1, 20151 citation