Skip to main content
  • Submit
  • About
    • Editorial Board
    • PNAS Staff
    • FAQ
    • Accessibility Statement
    • Rights and Permissions
    • Site Map
  • Contact
  • Journal Club
  • Subscribe
    • Subscription Rates
    • Subscriptions FAQ
    • Open Access
    • Recommend PNAS to Your Librarian
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Main menu

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current
    • Special Feature Articles - Most Recent
    • Special Features
    • Colloquia
    • Collected Articles
    • PNAS Classics
    • List of Issues
  • Front Matter
  • News
    • For the Press
    • This Week In PNAS
    • PNAS in the News
  • Podcasts
  • Authors
    • Information for Authors
    • Editorial and Journal Policies
    • Submission Procedures
    • Fees and Licenses
  • Submit
  • About
    • Editorial Board
    • PNAS Staff
    • FAQ
    • Accessibility Statement
    • Rights and Permissions
    • Site Map
  • Contact
  • Journal Club
  • Subscribe
    • Subscription Rates
    • Subscriptions FAQ
    • Open Access
    • Recommend PNAS to Your Librarian

User menu

  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Home
Home

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current
    • Special Feature Articles - Most Recent
    • Special Features
    • Colloquia
    • Collected Articles
    • PNAS Classics
    • List of Issues
  • Front Matter
  • News
    • For the Press
    • This Week In PNAS
    • PNAS in the News
  • Podcasts
  • Authors
    • Information for Authors
    • Editorial and Journal Policies
    • Submission Procedures
    • Fees and Licenses

New Research In

Physical Sciences

Featured Portals

  • Physics
  • Chemistry
  • Sustainability Science

Articles by Topic

  • Applied Mathematics
  • Applied Physical Sciences
  • Astronomy
  • Computer Sciences
  • Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Sciences
  • Engineering
  • Environmental Sciences
  • Mathematics
  • Statistics

Social Sciences

Featured Portals

  • Anthropology
  • Sustainability Science

Articles by Topic

  • Economic Sciences
  • Environmental Sciences
  • Political Sciences
  • Psychological and Cognitive Sciences
  • Social Sciences

Biological Sciences

Featured Portals

  • Sustainability Science

Articles by Topic

  • Agricultural Sciences
  • Anthropology
  • Applied Biological Sciences
  • Biochemistry
  • Biophysics and Computational Biology
  • Cell Biology
  • Developmental Biology
  • Ecology
  • Environmental Sciences
  • Evolution
  • Genetics
  • Immunology and Inflammation
  • Medical Sciences
  • Microbiology
  • Neuroscience
  • Pharmacology
  • Physiology
  • Plant Biology
  • Population Biology
  • Psychological and Cognitive Sciences
  • Sustainability Science
  • Systems Biology
Research Article

Error-tradeoff and error-disturbance relations for incompatible quantum measurements

Cyril Branciard
PNAS April 23, 2013 110 (17) 6742-6747; https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1219331110
Cyril Branciard
Centre for Engineered Quantum Systems and School of Mathematics and Physics, The University of Queensland, St. Lucia, QLD 4072, Australia
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: c.branciard@physics.uq.edu.au
  1. Edited by Yakir Aharonov, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel, and approved February 21, 2013 (received for review November 6, 2012)

  • Article
  • Figures & SI
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle is one of the main tenets of quantum theory. Nevertheless, and despite its fundamental importance for our understanding of quantum foundations, there has been some confusion in its interpretation: Although Heisenberg’s first argument was that the measurement of one observable on a quantum state necessarily disturbs another incompatible observable, standard uncertainty relations typically bound the indeterminacy of the outcomes when either one or the other observable is measured. In this paper, we quantify precisely Heisenberg’s intuition. Even if two incompatible observables cannot be measured together, one can still approximate their joint measurement, at the price of introducing some errors with respect to the ideal measurement of each of them. We present a tight relation characterizing the optimal tradeoff between the error on one observable vs. the error on the other. As a particular case, our approach allows us to characterize the disturbance of an observable induced by the approximate measurement of another one; we also derive a stronger error-disturbance relation for this scenario.

  • approximate joint measurements
  • error-disturbance tradeoffs
  • quantum information

The discovery and development of quantum theory have generated passionate debates among its founding fathers. The surprising features of the theory [e.g., its probabilistic nature, its uncertainty principle (1), its nonlocality (2, 3)] were indeed too counterintuitive to satisfy all physicists: Einstein, for instance, famously argued that “God does not play dice” (4) and could not accept the apparent “spooky action at a distance” (5) that seemed to be allowed by the theory. Interestingly, it has since been realized that what first seemed to be limitations of the theory—the impossibility of perfectly predicting measurement outcomes and of explaining them with local hidden variables—can turn out to allow for useful applications for information processing, such as quantum cryptography (6). With the advent of quantum information science, it becomes all the more essential to clarify what can or cannot be done quantum mechanically.

The well-known uncertainty principle is typically expressed in terms of “uncertainty relations.” To fix the notations, let us define the SDs Graphic of two observables A and B in the state Graphic asEmbedded ImageEmbedded Imagewith Graphic and Graphic, and the “value” of the commutator Graphic in the state Graphic, divided by 2i, asEmbedded Image

Robertson’s well-known uncertainty relation (7) then imposes thatEmbedded Image

Such uncertainty relations are often wrongly interpreted—even, historically, by some of the most illustrious authors (8⇓⇓–11)—as saying that one cannot jointly measure the observables A and B on the state Graphic when Graphic, or that the measurement of one observable necessarily disturbs the other. Although this last observation indeed corresponds to Heisenberg’s intuition (1), this is actually not what standard uncertainty relations imply, let alone quantify (12). Rather than referring to joint (or successive) measurements of two observables on one state, they indeed bound the statistical deviations of the measurement results of A and B when each measurement is performed many times on several independent, identically prepared quantum states.

In this paper, we aim instead at precisely quantifying Heisenberg’s original formulation of the uncertainty principle. Even if two observables A and B are incompatible and can indeed not be jointly measured on a state Graphic, it is still possible to approximate their joint measurement. How good can such an approximation be? What is the optimal tradeoff between the error induced on the measurement of A and the error on B? What is the optimal tradeoff between the error in the approximation of one observable and the disturbance implied on the other? We answer these questions below by deriving tight error-tradeoff and error-disturbance relations.

Approximate Joint Measurements

Let us start by setting up our general framework for approximate joint measurements. Our presentation is inspired by those of Ozawa (13, 14) and Hall (15), and it is restricted here to the basics; more details are given in SI Text, section A.

To approximate the measurement of an observable A on a quantum system in the state Graphic (in some Hilbert space Graphic), a general strategy consists of measuring another “approximate” observable Graphic, possibly on an extended Hilbert space (i.e., on the joint system composed of the state Graphic and an ancillary system in the state Graphic of another Hilbert space Graphic). In this picture, the impossible joint measurement of two incompatible observables A and B on Graphic can thus be approximated by the perfect joint measurement of two compatible (i.e., commuting) observables Graphic and Graphic on Graphic. Note that in full generality, we do not assume a priori (for now at least) that Graphic and Graphic must have the same spectrums as A and B.

Following Ozawa (13, 14, 16⇓–18), we characterize the quality of the approximations Graphic and Graphic of A and B, respectively, by defining the rms errorsEmbedded ImageEmbedded Image

These rms errors, which generalize standard definitions in classical estimation theory (19), quantify the statistical deviations between the approximations Graphic and Graphic and the ideal measurements of A and B. We refer to work by Ozawa (17, 18), Hall (20), and Lund and Wiseman (21) for discussions on the motivations and appropriateness of such definitions. There has been a controversy (22, 23) on the question of whether these quantities were experimentally accessible; two different indirect methods have nevertheless been proposed (18, 21) and recently implemented (24, 25).

Error-Tradeoff Relations for Joint Measurements

The fact that quantum theory forbids perfect joint measurements of incompatible observables implies that the rms errors Graphic can generally not take arbitrary values. Some limitations on their possible values have been obtained previously (13, 14, 16, 26⇓–28), which we review below. For historical reasons, such limitations are often referred to as uncertainty relations (for joint measurements). We will keep this terminology when we refer to previously derived relations; however, because such relations are not, strictly speaking, about uncertainty but about errors in the approximation of joint measurements, we prefer the terminology “error-tradeoff relations (for joint measurements).”

Heisenberg–Arthurs–Kelly Relation.

In his seminal paper, Heisenberg (1) argued that the measurement of the position q of a particle necessary implies a disturbance Graphic on its momentum p, and that this disturbance is all the more important as the precision of the measurement of q is large (or as the “error” Graphic is small), such that Graphic, where h is the Planck constant.

The formalization of Heisenberg’s intuition rapidly led to the derivation of general uncertainty relations in terms of SDs (as in 4) rather than in terms of error and disturbance. Nevertheless, it is commonly believed that a relation similar to Robertson’s uncertainty relation (7) should also restrict the possible values of the errors Graphic and Graphic on A and B in an approximate joint measurement in such a way thatEmbedded Image

Although it is debatable whether this is really how Heisenberg’s claims (1) should be interpreted and generalized, this relation is commonly attributed to Heisenberg in the literature (13, 14, 17, 18, 21, 24, 25, 28). Because it was actually first explicitly derived by Arthurs and Kelly (26) [for position and momentum measurements; it was generalized to arbitrary observables by Arthurs and Goodman (27)], we will call it the Heisenberg–Arthurs–Kelly relation.

This relation was indeed proven to hold, under some restrictive assumptions on the approximate joint measurements (14, 16, 26⇓–28); namely, it holds when Graphic and Graphic are such that the mean errors Graphic and Graphic are independent of the state Graphic. Because we are only interested here in one particular state Graphic, for which we may want to adapt our approximation strategy, such an assumption is quite unsatisfactory for our purposes: We indeed aim at characterizing the tradeoff between Graphic and Graphic for all possible approximate measurements, in which case the Heisenberg–Arthurs–Kelly relation [7] does not generally hold (12).

Ozawa’s Uncertainty Relation.

Only recently did Ozawa (14) show how one could derive a universally valid uncertainty relation for joint measurements, by adding two additional terms to the left-hand side of 7. His relation writesEmbedded Image

[We also note that a very similar but inequivalent relation was derived by Hall (15), which involves the SDs Graphic and Graphic rather than Graphic and Graphic; a discussion is provided in SI Text, section D].

The three terms in Ozawa’s relation come from three independent uses of Robertson’s relation [4] to different pairs of observables. Although this indeed leads to a valid relation and allows one to exclude a large set of impossible values Graphic, this is not optimal because the three Robertson’s relations (and therefore Ozawa’s relation) generally cannot be saturated simultaneously.

A Tight Error-Tradeoff Relation for Joint Measurements.

Using a general geometric inequality for vectors in a Euclidean space (Lemma 1 in Methods), one can improve on the suboptimality of Ozawa’s proof and derive the following error-tradeoff relation for approximate joint measurements:Embedded Imageor, in its dimensionless version, when Graphic, with Graphic, Graphic, and Graphic:Embedded Image

The proof is detailed in Methods. It can easily be checked (SI Text, section D) that Ozawa’s relation [8] can be directly derived from our relation [9]. Interestingly, one observes that Ozawa’s relation [8] remains valid even if one drops the term Graphic, which is precisely the term that appears in the Heisenberg–Arthurs–Kelly relation [7].

Not only is our relation stronger than Ozawa’s, but it is actually tight: for any A, B, and Graphic, any values Graphic saturating inequality [9 and 10] can be obtained. This can even be achieved by projective measurements on Graphic, without introducing any ancillary system (explicit examples are provided in SI Text, section C). Hence, contrary to previously derived relations, ours does not tell only what cannot be done quantum mechanically but what can be done.

Fig. 1 illustrates the constraints imposed by the three error-tradeoff relations [7–10] in the plane Graphic. Our relation [10] thus characterizes precisely the optimal tradeoff between Graphic and Graphic in the general context of approximate measurements. The values below the thick red curve (Fig. 1) cannot be reached, whereas all values on and above the curve can be obtained by tuning the actual measurements Graphic and Graphic depending on how well one wants to measure one observable, at the expense of increasing the error on the other.

Fig. 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig. 1.

Error-tradeoff and error-disturbance relations. The figure illustrates (in the case Graphic) how the different error-tradeoff and error-disturbance relations [7–10 and 12] restrict the possible values of the normalized rms errors Graphic. Contrary to the Heisenberg–Arthurs–Kelly relation [7] (dashed blue curve), Ozawa’s relation [8] (thin dashed red curve) is always valid; however, it does not fully characterize the whole set of forbidden values for Graphic (dark-shaded area), which is precisely delimited by our relation [9 and 10] (thick solid red curve). Imposing the same-spectrum assumption can imply strictly stronger constraints, such as 12 for the case where Graphic and Graphic (thick dashed red curve); however, more values of Graphic are forbidden (light-shaded area). The theoretical values expected from the experiment of Erhart et al. (24) are also shown (dotted blue curve and + symbols); they do not saturate 12, except for Graphic or Graphic. On the other hand, in an ideal implementation, the experiment of Rozema et al. (25) would saturate our inequality [12].

Error-Disturbance Scenario and the Same-Spectrum Assumption.

Let us now consider a special case of our general framework for approximate joint measurements: that of the error-disturbance scenario, as first discussed by Heisenberg (1).

In this context, one considers the disturbance Graphic in the statistics of one observable, B, due to the unsharp measurement of another observable, A. The latter is typically approximated by the measurement Graphic of a probe (or ancillary system in the state Graphic), which interacts with the state Graphic via a unitary transformation U (13). In such a case, the approximation of A corresponds to the measurement of Graphic on Graphic, whereas the perturbed measurement of B after the interaction with the probe corresponds to the measurement of Graphic (note that Graphic and Graphic commute). This error-disturbance scenario can be cast into the same formalism as our joint measurement framework; the rms error Graphic is now interpreted as the rms disturbance Graphic of B, with formally the same definition (13): Graphic as defined in 6.

Any error-tradeoff relation derived in the more general framework of joint measurements thus remains valid in this error-disturbance scenario. In particular, when interpreting Graphic as the rms disturbance Graphic, Ozawa’s relation [8] writes:Embedded Image

This error-disturbance relation was actually introduced by Ozawa before its previous version 8 for joint measurements (13). In a similar manner, our error-tradeoff relation [9 and 10] also implies an error-disturbance relation, by simply replacing Graphic with Graphic.

The difference from the previous, more general scenario of joint measurements is not merely in the interpretation of Graphic, however. A crucial point is that Graphic now has the same spectrum as B; furthermore, it is typically (but often implicitly) assumed in the error-disturbance scenario that Graphic, and hence Graphic, also has the same spectrum as A (13, 21, 24, 25). Because of these constraints, one may expect stronger restrictions on the possible values of Graphic to hold and that stronger “error-disturbance relations” can be derived. (For simplicity, and by abuse of language, we call error-disturbance relation any error-tradeoff relation derived under the same-spectrum assumption, because this is the crucial difference between the two scenarios.)

To illustrate this, let us now restrict our study to the case of dichotomic observables A, B with eigenvalues ±1 (such that Graphic) and to states Graphic for which Graphic (which implies Graphic), as considered, for instance, in the experiments of Erhart et al. (24) and Rozema et al. (25). We show in Methods that in this particular case, and with the same-spectrum assumption (hence, Graphic as well), an analogous relation to our error-tradeoff relation [9 and 10] holds, where Graphic and Graphic are replaced by Graphic and Graphic, respectively:Embedded Image

This error-disturbance relation is strictly stronger than our error-tradeoff relation [9 and 10] (and stronger than Ozawa’s relation [11]). Furthermore, we show in SI Text, section C that it is tight when Graphic: For any A, B, and Graphic satisfying the constraints above, one can reach any values Graphic that saturate the inequality, using approximate measurements such that Graphic. The constraint that inequality [12] imposes on the possible values of Graphic is also illustrated in Fig. 1; note that contrary to our error-tradeoff relation [9 and 10], inequality [12] also bounds the possible values of Graphic from above (Fig. S1, Inset).

Let us finally mention that if one imposes the same-spectrum assumption on Graphic only (e.g., if one does not impose that Graphic in the specific error-disturbance scenario considered above has the same spectrum as A), one can also derive a similar tight error-disturbance relation (under the assumptions now that Graphic and Graphic), where only Graphic in our error-tradeoff relation [9 and 10] is replaced by Graphic [S20].

Example: Qubits.

As an illustration of our error-tradeoff and error-disturbance relations [9, 10, and 12], let us consider the simplest case of qubits. We choose Graphic to define the north pole of the Bloch sphere, and let Graphic and Graphic (where Graphic denotes a vector composed of the three Pauli matrices) be two ±1-valued qubit observables characterized by unit vectors Graphic and Graphic on the Bloch sphere, of polar and azimuthal angles Graphic and Graphic, respectively. We take Graphic, and we assume, for convenience, that Graphic.

For such a choice of Graphic, A, and B, one finds Graphic, Graphic, and Graphic. For Graphic, 10 then writes:Embedded Image

One can check that this error-tradeoff relation can simply be saturated by defining Graphic and Graphic to be projective measurements in the same eigenbasis, specified by any unit vector Graphic on the Bloch sphere with polar and azimuthal angles Graphic and Graphic. More specifically, for Graphic and Graphic, one obtainsEmbedded Image

Interestingly, Graphic and Graphic are independent of the polar angle θ of Graphic. In particular, note that one can thus have, for instance, Graphic even when Graphic is quite different from A; also, when Graphic comes close to the north or south pole of the Bloch sphere, one can have arbitrarily close projection directions Graphic leading to quite different values for Graphic and Graphic: in our case, Graphic for Graphic and Graphic for Graphic. These somewhat unexpected properties might only be artifacts of the particular definitions of errors we use; it would be interesting to investigate possible alternative definitions that do not exhibit such behaviors.

Let us now impose that Graphic and Graphic have the same spectrum as A and B (i.e., because A and B are here ±1-valued observables, Graphic). Furthermore, assuming that Graphic, we have Graphic. Inequality [12] then applies; it can be saturated in the error-disturbance scenario [with Graphic and Graphic] in the following way: Let Graphic for Graphic (i.e., Graphic with Graphic), and let Graphic be its (normalized) eigenvectors, corresponding to its eigenvalues ±1; we then define Graphic, Graphic with Graphic a unitary such that Graphic and Graphic [e.g., with Graphic, a CNOT unitary (29) in the Graphic basis], and Graphic. One then getsEmbedded Image

Two experiments by Erhart et al. (24) and Rozema et al. (25) were recently reported, showing a violation of the Heisenberg–Arthurs–Kelly relation [7] (more specifically, of its error-disturbance version, where Graphic is replaced by Graphic) and a verification of Ozawa’s error-disturbance relation [11] in qubit systems.

The first experiment (24) measured neutron spins, using the indirect method proposed by Ozawa (18) to estimate the rms errors and rms disturbances Graphic. Graphic was estimated from the measurement of Graphic on Graphic (the eigenstate of σZ, corresponding to its eigenvalue +1), and it was followed by the measurement of Graphic; note that Graphic, Graphic, and Graphic. The expected theoretical values for the rms errors and rms disturbances were Graphic and Graphic. These are plotted in Fig. 1; one can see that they are not optimal because they do not saturate our tight error-disturbance relation [12]. From the analysis above, it appears that adding a rotation Graphic before the measurement of B would be enough to allow the experimental setup used by Erhart et al. (24) to saturate inequality [12], however.

The second experiment (25) measured the polarization of single photons, using weak measurements as proposed by Lund and Wiseman (21) to estimate the rms errors and rms disturbances. A was approximated from a measurement of variable strength based on a CNOT unitary. Because the weak measurements used to estimate Graphic and Graphic are not infinitely weak, they slightly perturb the state of the photon, adding some noise. However, in an ideal implementation, the experiment of Rozema et al. (25) would saturate the bound of our error-disturbance relation [12].

To finish with, let us emphasize that no experiment will ever demonstrate the universal validity of an uncertainty relation (or error-tradeoff or error-disturbance relations), however, despite what the title of the article by Erhart et al. (24) suggests. First, note that in order for such experiments to be conclusive, one needs to trust the implementation perfectly; otherwise, systematic errors in the preparation of Graphic or in the estimation procedure for Graphic and Graphic could radically change the values of the different terms in the relation, leading to unjustified conclusions (and possibly even “showing” a violation of a valid relation). All one can do then is check that in that particular (perfectly trusted) implementation, for some particular A, B, and Graphic and for the particular approximations Graphic and Graphic implemented in that experiment, the error-tradeoff or error-disturbance relation of interest is satisfied. There is indeed no way experimentally to test all possible approximate joint measurement strategies, and the particular choice of Graphic and Graphic could be nonoptimal (e.g., as in ref. 24). It is, of course, trivial to obtain data satisfying an error-tradeoff relation if one does not try to optimize the values of Graphic: If the relation is universally valid, then any measurement strategy (e.g., outputting random results) will satisfy it. One can even similarly trivially violate the Heisenberg–Arthurs–Kelly relation [7] [e.g., by actually measuring A perfectly (so that Graphic) and outputting any values to approximate B (as long as Graphic)]. What is less trivial, and therefore more interesting, is to show experimentally that a tight error-tradeoff or error-disturbance relation can indeed be saturated.

Discussion

We have presented a state-dependent error-tradeoff relation [9 and 10] in the general framework of approximate joint measurements. Our relation is universally valid, whether the Hilbert spaces of interest are of finite, as in our qubit example, or infinite dimensions (provided Graphic is in the domains of Graphic and of all their products that are involved in the proof of 9 and 10), for example, for the measurement of position and momentum, as first considered by Heisenberg (1). Note also that although the framework for joint measurements was presented for pure states, it can easily be generalized to mixed states, and 9 and 10 still hold. Importantly, our new error-tradeoff relation was shown to be tight, and therefore to characterize fully the whole set of possible values of rms errors Graphic (in the case of pure states; our relation may in general not be tight for mixed states).

Error-tradeoff relations imply error-disturbance relations as a particular case. However, because of the same-spectrum assumption, strictly stronger relations can generally be derived in the error-disturbance scenario; we presented an example of such an error-disturbance relation, for ±1-valued observables with Graphic, allowing us to highlight a quantitative difference between the two scenarios. The derivation of a more general relation under the same-spectrum assumption is left for future work.

Our relations apply to the projective measurement of two observables A and B. It would be interesting to see if these could be generalized to some positive operator-valued measures (see refs. 15, 20, however, for the difficulties encountered) or to more observables (30). In the error-disturbance scenario, it may also be desirable to quantify the disturbance of the quantum state directly rather than that of the statistics of another observable; this is left as an open problem.

Our relations bound the rms errors of A and B, as defined in Eqs. 5 and 6. In the context of quantum information, one may prefer to use information-theoretic definitions for the quality of approximations, however. Developing such definitions, and deriving corresponding universally valid and tight error-tradeoff or error-disturbance relations would certainly be an interesting direction of research. This may indeed give a clearer operational meaning to such relations, and would be more adapted to their use in possible applications [in the same way, e.g., as entropic uncertainty relations are useful to prove the security of quantum cryptographic protocols (31, 32)]. This will involve radically different proof techniques, which may also allow one to consider error tradeoffs in general probabilistic theories not restricted to quantum theory and to its Hilbert space formalism. This will undoubtedly give more insight on the still puzzling, multifaceted uncertainty principle.

Methods

To prove our error-tradeoff and error-disturbance relations [9, 10, and 12], we start by introducing two general inequalities for real vectors.

Lemmas: Geometric Inequalities.

Let Graphic be two unit vectors of a Euclidean space Graphic, and let us define Graphic. We prove in SI Text, section B the following lemmas.

Lemma 1.

For any two orthogonal vectors Graphic and Graphic of Graphic, one hasEmbedded Image

Lemma 2.

For any two orthogonal unit vectors Graphic and Graphic of Graphic, defining Graphic and Graphic, one hasEmbedded Image

Proof of Our Error-Tradeoff Relation.

Let us now define, in the nontrivial case Graphic, the ket vectorsEmbedded ImageEmbedded Image

By writing these vectors in any orthonormal basis of Graphic (e.g., the common eigenbasis of Graphic and Graphic) and denoting by Re and Im their real and imaginary parts, respectively, one can define the following real vectors:Embedded ImageEmbedded Image

One then hasEmbedded ImageEmbedded ImageEmbedded ImageEmbedded ImageEmbedded ImageEmbedded Image

Hence, the (normalized) rms errors Graphic, Graphic can be interpreted as distances between vectors (17, 20), whereas the commutativity of Graphic and Graphic translates into an orthogonality condition for Graphic and Graphic.

The vectors Graphic, Graphic, Graphic, and Graphic thus satisfy the assumptions of Lemma 1, that Graphic and Graphic (Fig. 2). Together with Eqs. 24–26, inequality [16] implies our general error-tradeoff relation for joint measurements [10]. After multiplication by ΔA2 ΔB2, we obtain 9 (for which the case ΔA ΔB = 0 is trivial, because it implies CAB = 0).

Fig. 2.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig. 2.

Geometric construction used in the proof of our general error-tradeoff relation [9 and 10]. The real vectors Graphic, Graphic, Graphic, and Graphic satisfy the assumptions of Lemma 1; the particular choice of vectors illustrated here [for which Graphic, Graphic, and Graphic] saturates inequality [16], which quantifies the optimal tradeoff between the distance from the unit vector Graphic to an axis along a direction Graphic, and from the unit vector Graphic to an axis along a direction Graphic, orthogonal to Graphic.

Proof of Our Error-Disturbance Relation for the Case Where Graphic and 〈A〉 = 〈B〉 = 0.

With the assumptions that A2 = B2 = 1 and 〈A〉 = 〈B〉 = 0 (hence, ΔA = ΔB = 1) and that Graphic and Graphic have the same spectrum as A and B (hence, Graphic), the real vectors Graphic and Graphic defined as in 20 and 21 are now such that (with Graphic in the error-disturbance scenario)Embedded ImageEmbedded ImageEmbedded ImageEmbedded Image

The vectors Graphic, Graphic, Graphic, and Graphic thus satisfy the assumptions of Lemma 2 (Fig. 3). Together with Eqs. 29–31, inequality [17] gives our error-disturbance relation [12].

Fig. 3.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig. 3.

Geometric construction used in the proof of our error-disturbance relation [12] (for the case where Graphic and Graphic). The real vectors Graphic, Graphic, Graphic, and Graphic satisfy the assumptions of Lemma 2; the particular choice of vectors illustrated here (for which Graphic, Graphic, and Graphic) saturates inequality [17], which quantifies the optimal tradeoff between the distance from the unit vector Graphic to another unit vector Graphic, and from the unit vector Graphic to another unit vector Graphic, orthogonal to Graphic.

Acknowledgments

I thank M. J. W. Hall for fruitful discussions and comments on an earlier version of this manuscript. This work was supported by a University of Queensland postdoctoral research fellowship.

Footnotes

  • ↵1E-mail: c.branciard{at}physics.uq.edu.au.
  • Author contributions: C.B. designed research, performed research, and wrote the paper.

  • The author declares no conflict of interest.

  • This article is a PNAS Direct Submission.

  • This article contains supporting information online at www.pnas.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1073/pnas.1219331110/-/DCSupplemental.

Freely available online through the PNAS open access option.

View Abstract

References

  1. ↵
    1. Heisenberg W
    (1927) Über den anschaulichen Inhalt der quantentheoretischen Kinematik und Mechanik. Z Phys 43:172–198, trans Wheeler JA, Zurek WH (1983) Quantum Theory and Measurement (Princeton Univ Press, Princeton), pp 62–84. German.
    OpenUrl
  2. ↵
    1. Einstein A,
    2. Podolsky B,
    3. Rosen N
    (1935) Can quantum-mechanical description of physical reality be considered complete? Phys Rev 47(10):777–780.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  3. ↵
    1. Bell JS
    (2004) Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics (Cambridge Univ Press, Cambridge, UK), 2nd Ed.
  4. ↵
    (1971) Letter from Einstein to Max Born, 4 December 1926. The Born-Einstein Letters; Correspondence Between Albert Einstein and Max and Hedwig Born from 1916 to 1955, ed Born M (Walker, New York), pp 90–91.
  5. ↵
    (1971) Letter from Einstein to Max Born, 3 March 1947. The Born-Einstein Letters; Correspondence Between Albert Einstein and Max and Hedwig Born from 1916 to 1955, ed Born M (Walker, New York), pp 157–158.
  6. ↵
    1. Scarani V,
    2. et al.
    (2009) The security of practical quantum key distribution. Rev Mod Phys 81(3):1301–1350.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  7. ↵
    1. Robertson HP
    (1929) The uncertainty principle. Phys Rev 34(1):163–164.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  8. ↵
    1. Heisenberg W
    (1949) The Physical Principles of the Quantum Theory (Dover, New York).
  9. ↵
    1. von Neumann J
    (1955) Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics (Princeton Univ Press, Princeton).
  10. ↵
    1. Bohm D
    (1951) Quantum Theory (Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ).
  11. ↵
    1. Shilpp PA
    1. Bohr N
    (1949) in Albert Einstein: Philosopher-Scientist, Discussion with Einstein on epistemological problems in atomic physics, ed Shilpp PA (The Library of Living Philosophers, Evanston, IL), pp 200–241.
  12. ↵
    1. Ballentine LE
    (1970) The statistical interpretation of quantum mechanics. Rev Mod Phys 42(4):358–381.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  13. ↵
    1. Ozawa M
    (2003) Universally valid reformulation of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle on noise and disturbance in measurement. Phys Rev A 67(4):042105.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  14. ↵
    1. Ozawa M
    (2004) Uncertainty relations for joint measurements of noncommuting observables. Phys Lett A 320(5–6):367–374.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  15. ↵
    1. Hall MJW
    (2004) Prior information: How to circumvent the standard joint-measurement uncertainty relation. Phys Rev A 69(5):052113.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  16. ↵
    1. Bendjaballah C,
    2. Hirota O,
    3. Reynaud S
    1. Ozawa M
    (1991) in Quantum Aspects of Optical Communications, Lecture Notes in Physics, Quantum limits of measurements and uncertainty principle, eds Bendjaballah C, Hirota O, Reynaud S (Springer, Berlin), Vol 378, pp 1–17.
    OpenUrl
  17. ↵
    1. Ozawa M
    (2003) Physical content of Heisenberg’s uncertainty relation: Limitation and reformulation. Phys Lett A 318(1–2):21–29.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  18. ↵
    1. Ozawa M
    (2004) Uncertainty relations for noise and disturbance in generalized quantum measurements. Ann Phys 311(2):350–416.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  19. ↵
    1. Van Trees H
    (2001) Detection, Estimation, and Modulation Theory (Wiley, New York) Sect. 2.4, pp 52–86.
  20. ↵
    1. Hall MJW
    (2003) Algebra for generalised quantum observables. arXiv:quant-ph/0302007.
  21. ↵
    1. Lund AP,
    2. Wiseman HM
    (2010) Measuring measurement disturbance relationships with weak values. New J Phys 12:093011.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  22. ↵
    1. Werner RF
    (2004) The uncertainty relation for joint measurement of position and momentum. Quantum Information and Computation 4(6–7):546–562.
    OpenUrl
  23. ↵
    1. Koshino K,
    2. Shimizu A
    (2005) Quantum Zeno effect by general measurements. Phys Rep 412(4):191–275.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  24. ↵
    1. Erhart J,
    2. et al.
    (2012) Experimental demonstration of a universally valid error-disturbance uncertainty relation in spin measurements. Nat Phys 8:185–189.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  25. ↵
    1. Rozema LA,
    2. et al.
    (2012) Violation of Heisenberg’s measurement-disturbance relationship by weak measurements. Phys Rev Lett 109(10):100404.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  26. ↵
    1. Arthurs E,
    2. Kelly JLJ
    (1965) On the simultaneous measurement of a pair of conjugate observables. Bell Syst Tech J 44(4):725–729.
    OpenUrl
  27. ↵
    1. Arthurs E,
    2. Goodman MS
    (1988) Quantum correlations: A generalized Heisenberg uncertainty relation. Phys Rev Lett 60(24):2447–2449.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  28. ↵
    1. Ishikawa S
    (1991) Uncertainty relations in simultaneous measurements for arbitrary observables. Reports on Mathematical Physics 29(3):257–273.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  29. ↵
    1. Nielsen MA,
    2. Chuang IL
    (2000) Quantum Computation and Quantum Information (Cambridge Univ Press, Cambridge, UK).
  30. ↵
    1. Robertson HP
    (1934) An indeterminacy relation for several observables and its classical interpretation. Phys Rev 46(9):794–801.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  31. ↵
    1. Wehner S,
    2. Winter A
    (2010) Entropic uncertainty relations—A survey. New J Phys 12:025009.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  32. ↵
    1. Berta M,
    2. Christandl M,
    3. Colbeck R,
    4. Renes JM,
    5. Renner R
    (2010) The uncertainty principle in the presence of quantum memory. Nat Phys 6:659–662.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
PreviousNext
Back to top
Article Alerts
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on PNAS.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Error-tradeoff and error-disturbance relations for incompatible quantum measurements
(Your Name) has sent you a message from PNAS
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the PNAS web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Error-tradeoff relations for joint measurements
Cyril Branciard
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Apr 2013, 110 (17) 6742-6747; DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1219331110

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Request Permissions
Share
Error-tradeoff relations for joint measurements
Cyril Branciard
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Apr 2013, 110 (17) 6742-6747; DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1219331110
Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Mendeley logo Mendeley
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences: 110 (17)
Table of Contents

Submit

Sign up for Article Alerts

Article Classifications

  • Physical Sciences
  • Physics

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Approximate Joint Measurements
    • Error-Tradeoff Relations for Joint Measurements
    • Discussion
    • Methods
    • Acknowledgments
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & SI
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

You May Also be Interested in

Abstract depiction of a guitar and musical note
Science & Culture: At the nexus of music and medicine, some see disease treatments
Although the evidence is still limited, a growing body of research suggests music may have beneficial effects for diseases such as Parkinson’s.
Image credit: Shutterstock/agsandrew.
Scientist looking at an electronic tablet
Opinion: Standardizing gene product nomenclature—a call to action
Biomedical communities and journals need to standardize nomenclature of gene products to enhance accuracy in scientific and public communication.
Image credit: Shutterstock/greenbutterfly.
One red and one yellow modeled protein structures
Journal Club: Study reveals evolutionary origins of fold-switching protein
Shapeshifting designs could have wide-ranging pharmaceutical and biomedical applications in coming years.
Image credit: Acacia Dishman/Medical College of Wisconsin.
White and blue bird
Hazards of ozone pollution to birds
Amanda Rodewald, Ivan Rudik, and Catherine Kling talk about the hazards of ozone pollution to birds.
Listen
Past PodcastsSubscribe
Goats standing in a pin
Transplantation of sperm-producing stem cells
CRISPR-Cas9 gene editing can improve the effectiveness of spermatogonial stem cell transplantation in mice and livestock, a study finds.
Image credit: Jon M. Oatley.

Similar Articles

Site Logo
Powered by HighWire
  • Submit Manuscript
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • RSS Feeds
  • Email Alerts

Articles

  • Current Issue
  • Latest Articles
  • Archive

PNAS Portals

  • Anthropology
  • Chemistry
  • Classics
  • Front Matter
  • Physics
  • Sustainability Science
  • Teaching Resources

Information

  • Authors
  • Editorial Board
  • Reviewers
  • Librarians
  • Press
  • Site Map
  • PNAS Updates

Feedback    Privacy/Legal

Copyright © 2021 National Academy of Sciences. Online ISSN 1091-6490