Quantum dynamics of simultaneously measured non-commuting observables

Abstract

In quantum mechanics, measurements cause wavefunction collapse that yields precise outcomes, whereas for non-commuting observables such as position and momentum Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle limits the intrinsic precision of a state. Although theoretical work1 has demonstrated that it should be possible to perform simultaneous non-commuting measurements and has revealed the limits on measurement outcomes, only recently2,3 has the dynamics of the quantum state been discussed. To realize this unexplored regime, we simultaneously apply two continuous quantum non-demolition probes of non-commuting observables to a superconducting qubit. We implement multiple readout channels by coupling the qubit to multiple modes of a cavity. To control the measurement observables, we implement a ‘single quadrature’ measurement by driving the qubit and applying cavity sidebands with a relative phase that sets the observable. Here, we use this approach to show that the uncertainty principle governs the dynamics of the wavefunction by enforcing a lower bound on the measurement-induced disturbance. Consequently, as we transition from measuring identical to measuring non-commuting observables, the dynamics make a smooth transition from standard wavefunction collapse to localized persistent diffusion and then to isotropic persistent diffusion. Although the evolution of the state differs markedly from that of a conventional measurement, information about both non-commuting observables is extracted by keeping track of the time ordering of the measurement record, enabling quantum state tomography without alternating measurements. Our work creates novel capabilities for quantum control, including rapid state purification4, adaptive measurement5,6, measurement-based state steering and continuous quantum error correction7. As physical systems often interact continuously with their environment via non-commuting degrees of freedom, our work offers a way8,9 to study how notions of contemporary quantum foundations10,11,12,13,14 arise in such settings.

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

Figure 1: Multimode single quadrature measurement (SQM).
Figure 2: Validation of simultaneous non-commuting measurements.
Figure 3: Probability distribution of the density matrix.
Figure 4: Magnitude of the quantum back-action.

References

  1. 1

    Arthurs, E. & Kelly, J. L. On the simultaneous measurement of a pair of conjugate observables. Bell Syst. Tech. J. 44, 725–729 (1965)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2

    Jordan, A. N. & Büttiker, M. Continuous quantum measurement with independent detector cross correlations. Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 220401 (2005)

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3

    Ruskov, R., Korotkov, A. N. & Mølmer, K. Qubit state monitoring by measurement of three complementary observables. Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 100506 (2010)

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4

    Ruskov, R., Combes, J., Mølmer, K. & Wiseman, H. M. Qubit purification speed-up for three complementary continuous measurements. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A 370, 5291–5307 (2012)

    ADS  MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5

    Jacobs, K. How to project qubits faster using quantum feedback. Phys. Rev. A 67, 030301 (2003)

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6

    Wiseman, H. M. Adaptive phase measurements of optical modes: going beyond the marginal Q distribution. Phys. Rev. Lett. 75, 4587–4590 (1995)

    CAS  ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7

    Ahn, C., Doherty, A. C. & Landahl, A. J. Continuous quantum error correction via quantum feedback control. Phys. Rev. A 65, 042301 (2002)

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8

    Luis Pedro Garca-Pintos, J. D. Probing quantumness with joint continuous measurements of non-commuting qubit observables. Preprint at http://arXiv.org/abs/1606.07934 (2016)

  9. 9

    Nishizawa, A. & Chen, Y. Universally valid error-disturbance relations in continuous measurements. Preprint at http://arXiv.org/abs/1506.00304 (2015)

  10. 10

    Kirchmair, G. et al. State-independent experimental test of quantum contextuality. Nature 460, 494–497 (2009)

    CAS  ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11

    Kochen, S. & Specker, E. P. The problem of hidden variables in quantum mechanics. J Math. Mech. 17, 59–87 (1968)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  12. 12

    Erhart, J. et al. Experimental demonstration of a universally valid error-disturbance uncertainty relation in spin measurements. Nat. Phys. 8, 185–189 (2012)

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13

    Dressel, J. & Nori, F. Certainty in Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle: revisiting definitions for estimation errors and disturbance. Phys. Rev. A 89, 022106 (2014)

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14

    Ozawa, M. Universally valid reformulation of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle on noise and disturbance in measurement. Phys. Rev. A 67, 042105 (2003)

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15

    Koch, J. et al. Charge-insensitive qubit design derived from the Cooper pair box. Phys. Rev. A 76, 042319 (2007)

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16

    Gambetta, J. et al. Quantum trajectory approach to circuit QED: quantum jumps and the Zeno effect. Phys. Rev. A 77, 012112 (2008)

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17

    Hatridge, M. et al. Quantum back-action of an individual variable-strength measurement. Science 339, 178–181 (2013)

    CAS  ADS  MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18

    Murch, K. W., Weber, S. J., Macklin, C. & Siddiqi, I. Observing single quantum trajectories of a superconducting quantum bit. Nature 502, 211–214 (2013)

    CAS  ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19

    Caves, C. M., Thorne, K. S., Drever, R. W., Sandberg, V. D. & Zimmermann, M. On the measurement of a weak classical force coupled to a quantum-mechanical oscillator. Rev. Mod. Phys. 52, 341–392 (1980)

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20

    Hertzberg, J. B. et al. Back-action-evading measurements of nanomechanical motion. Nat. Phys. 6, 213–217 (2010)

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21

    Murch, K. W. et al. Cavity-assisted quantum bath engineering. Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 183602 (2012)

    CAS  ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22

    Didier, N., Bourassa, J. & Blais, A. Fast quantum nondemolition readout by parametric modulation of longitudinal qubit-oscillator interaction. Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 203601 (2015)

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23

    Nielson, M. A. & Chuang, I. L. Quantum Computation and Quantum Information (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2010)

  24. 24

    Six, P. et al. Quantum state tomography with noninstantaneous measurements, imperfections, and decoherence. Phys. Rev. A 93, 012109 (2016)

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25

    MacCone, L. & Pati, A. K. Stronger uncertainty relations for all incompatible observables. Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 260401 (2014)

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26

    Vool, U. et al. Continuous quantum nondemolition measurement of the transverse component of a qubit. Preprint at http://arXiv.org/abs/1605.08004 (2011)

  27. 27

    Combes, J., Wiseman, H. M. & Scott, A. J. Replacing quantum feedback with open-loop control and quantum filtering. Phys. Rev. A 81, 020301 (2010)

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28

    Dressel, J. Indirect Observable Measurement: an Algebraic Approach. 52 PhD thesis, Univ. Rochester (2013)

  29. 29

    Castellanos-Beltran, M. A., Irwin, K. D., Hilton, G. C., Vale, L. R. & Lehnert, K. W. Amplification and squeezing of quantum noise with a tunable Josephson metamaterial. Nat. Phys. 4, 929–931 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 30

    Macklin, C. et al. A near quantum-limited Josephson traveling-wave parametric amplifier. Science 350, 307–310 (2015)

    CAS  ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  31. 31

    Korotkov, A. N. Quantum Bayesian approach to circuit QED measurement. Preprint at http://arXiv.org/abs/1111.4016 (2011)

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank J. Dressel, A. Jordan, A. Korotkov, J. Combes, M. Sarovar, U. Vool and J. Atalaya for discussions, and MIT Lincoln laboratories for fabrication of the travelling wave parametric amplifier. L.S.M. and V.V.R. acknowledge support from the National Science Foundation (graduate fellowship grant 1106400). L.S.M. additionally acknowledges support from a Berkeley Fellowship for Graduate Study. This work was supported by the Air Force Office of Scientific Research (grant FA9550-12-1-0378) and the Army Research Office (grant W911NF-15-1-0496).

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

S.H.-G. and L.S.M. wrote the manuscript, conducted the experiment and analysed the data. S.H.-G., L.S.M., E.F. and I.S. conceived of the experiment. S.H.-G. and L.S.M. constructed the experimental set-up with assistance from V.V.R. and E.F. S.H.-G. fabricated the qubit and LJPAs. L.S.M. performed theoretical analysis with assistance from S.H.-G. All authors contributed to discussions and preparation of the manuscript. All work was carried out under the supervision of K.B.W. and I.S.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Shay Hacohen-Gourgy.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Extended data figures and tables

Extended Data Figure 1 SQM versus tomographic validation.

Tomographic validation of a set of trajectories initialized in the state y = −1 and tracked for 3 μs, with the axes being perpendicular. Horizontal axis (‘SQM’) indicates Bloch sphere coordinate as predicted by trajectory reconstruction. Vertical axis (‘tomography’) represents the coordinate reconstructed from post-selected tomography data. Error bars (s.e.m.) are derived from the Poisson statistics of the qubit measurement. Data are staggered vertically to allow for clearer visualization by adding one of seven arbitrary offsets. These offsets are chosen according to the number of measurements contributing to each data point.

Extended Data Figure 2 SQM calibration.

Calibration of the SQM phase at the target Rabi frequency using the integrated SQM signal versus the measurement axis (SQM phase) and the Rabi amplitude index. Colour bar is scaled to the outcomes in which the qubit is aligned or anti-aligned to the measurement axis. Rabi amplitude index sweep is performed by sweeping the modulation amplitude to drive approximately 40-MHz Rabi oscillations. The red dashed line indicates the index at which the Rabi frequency was determined to be 40 MHz.

PowerPoint slides

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hacohen-Gourgy, S., Martin, L., Flurin, E. et al. Quantum dynamics of simultaneously measured non-commuting observables. Nature 538, 491–494 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1038/nature19762

Download citation

Further reading

Comments

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.

Search

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter for a daily update on COVID-19 science.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing