Abstract
The uncertainty principle generally prohibits simultaneous measurements of certain pairs of observables and forms the basis of indeterminacy in quantum mechanics^{1}. Heisenberg’s original formulation, illustrated by the famous γray microscope, sets a lower bound for the product of the measurement error and the disturbance^{2}. Later, the uncertainty relation was reformulated in terms of standard deviations^{3,4,5}, where the focus was exclusively on the indeterminacy of predictions, whereas the unavoidable recoil in measuring devices has been ignored^{6}. A correct formulation of the error–disturbance uncertainty relation, taking recoil into account, is essential for a deeper understanding of the uncertainty principle, as Heisenberg’s original relation is valid only under specific circumstances^{7,8,9,10}. A new error–disturbance relation, derived using the theory of general quantum measurements, has been claimed to be universally valid^{11,12,13,14}. Here, we report a neutronoptical experiment that records the error of a spincomponent measurement as well as the disturbance caused on another spincomponent. The results confirm that both error and disturbance obey the new relation but violate the old one in a wide range of an experimental parameter.
Main
The uncertainty relation was first proposed by Heisenberg^{2} in 1927 as a limitation of simultaneous measurements of canonically conjugate variables owing to the backaction of the measurement: the measurement of the position Qof the electron with the error ε(Q), or ‘the mean error’, induces the disturbance η(P), or ‘the discontinuous change’, of the momentum P so that they always satisfy the relation
where ℏis Planck’s constant divided by 2π (here, we use ℏ/2 for consistency with modern treatments). In a mathematical derivation of the above relation from the commutation relation Q P−P Q=iℏ, Heisenberg^{2} used the reciprocal relation σ(Q)σ(P)≥ℏ/2 for standard deviations σ(Q), σ(P) of position and momentum, which was proved shortly afterwards in ref. 3 for arbitrary wavefunctions. This relation was generalized to arbitrary pairs of observables A, B by Robertson^{4} as
in any states with . Here, [A,B]represents the commutator [A,B]=A B−B A and the standard deviation is defined as σ(A)^{2}=〈ψA^{2}ψ〉−〈ψAψ〉^{2}. Note that a positive definite covariance term can be added to the righthand side of equation (2), if squared, as discussed by Schrödinger^{5}. For our experimental setting, this term vanishes. Robertson’s relation (equation (2)) for standard deviations has been confirmed by many different experiments. In a singleslit diffraction experiment^{15} the uncertainty relation, as expressed in equation (2), has been confirmed. A tradeoff relation appears in squeezing coherent states of radiation fields^{16}, and many experimental demonstrations have been carried out^{17}.
Robertson’s relation (equation (2)) has a mathematical basis, but has no immediate implications for limitations on measurements. This relation is naturally understood as limitations on state preparation or limitations on prediction from the past. On the other hand, the proof of the reciprocal relation for the error ε(A) of an A measurement and the disturbance η(B) on observable B caused by the measurement, in a general form of Heisenberg’s error–disturbance relation
is not straightforward, as Heisenberg’s proof^{2} used an unsupported assumption on the state just after the measurement^{12}, despite successful justifications for the Heisenbergtype relation for unbiased joint measurements^{8,9,10}. Recently, rigorous and general theoretical treatments of quantum measurements have revealed the failure of Heisenberg’s relation (equation (1)), and derived a new universally valid relation^{11,12,13,14} given by
Here, the error ε(A) is defined as the root mean squared (r.m.s.) of the difference between the output operator O_{A}actually measured and the observable A to be measured, whereas the disturbance η(B) is defined as the r.m.s. of the change in observable B during the measurement^{11,13} (see Methods, ‘Universally valid uncertainty relation’, for details). The additional second and third terms result mathematically from noncommutativity between B (A) and the error (disturbance) operator (Equation (235) in ref. 13) and imply a new accuracy limit ε(A)≥(1/2)〈ψ[A,B]ψ〉σ(B)^{−1} for nondisturbing (η(B)=0) measurements and a new disturbance limit η(B)≥(1/2)〈ψ[A,B]ψ〉σ(A)^{−1} for noisefree (ε(A)=0) measurements, instead of or as derived from the Heisenbergtype relation (equation (3)). Note that the above relations (equations (3) and (4)) are based on the statedependent formulation of error and disturbance for arbitrary observables. For the position–momentum case, there are different approaches based on the stateindependent formulation^{18,19,20}, where the lower bound for error–disturbance inequality depends strongly on the measures used.
We have experimentally tested the universally valid error–disturbance relation (equation (4)) for neutronspin measurements^{21}. We set A and B as the x and y components of the neutron 1/2 spin. (For simplicity, ℏ/2 is omitted for each spin component.) The error ε(A) and the disturbance η(B) are defined for a measuring apparatus called M1, so that apparatus M1 measures the observable A=σ_{x} with error ε(A)and disturbs the observable B=σ_{y} with disturbance η(B)during the measurement, where σ_{x} and σ_{y} denote the Pauli matrices. To control the error ε(A) and the disturbance η(B), apparatus M1 is designed to actually carry out the projective measurement of O_{A}=σ_{ϕ}=σ_{x}cosϕ+σ_{y}sinϕinstead of exactly measuring A=σ_{x}by detuning the azimuthal angle ϕ of σ_{ϕ} between 0 and π/2, which is an experimentally controlled parameter, so that ε(A) and η(B)are determined as a function of ϕ (see Methods for details). As the output operator O_{A} and the observable A to be measured are not simultaneously measurable, their difference is not a directly detectable quantity, and neither is the change of the observable B. On this ground, the notions of the error ε(A) and the disturbance η(B) have been often claimed to be experimentally inaccessible^{19,22}. To overcome this difficulty, we use the method proposed in ref. 13 to determine the error ε(A) and the disturbance η(B) from experimentally available data (see Methods for details). A different method for the experimental demonstration of the same relation (equation (4)), which exploits the weakmeasurement technique used for measuring momentum transfer in ref. 23, was recently proposed in ref. 24.
In our experiment, a neutron beam passes a preparation stage of the initial state . The error ε(A) is determined by the data from the apparatus M1, and the disturbance η(B) is determined by the data from another apparatus called M2, which carries out the projective measurement of B on the state just after the M1 measurement. Thus, the experiment is based on the successive projective measurements of two noncommuting observables O_{A} in M1 and B in M2 as depicted in Fig. 1. The apparatus M1 has two possible outcomes, that is +1 and −1, corresponding to measurement operators E^{ϕ}(±1)=(1/2)(I±σ_{ϕ}). The apparatus M2 also yields either +1 or −1, corresponding to measurement operators E^{y}(±1)=(1/2)(I±σ_{y}). Thus, the successive measurements carried out by M1 and M2 finally result in four intensities denoted as (+ +), (+ −), (− +) and (− −). The setup of the neutron spin experiment is depicted in Fig. 2. In the actual experiment the spin analysers select only one spin component. Hence, the four possible outcomes are recorded not at the same time, as in an ideal projective measurement, but one after the other. As seen from equations (7) and (8), error ε(A) and disturbance η(B) for the state are obtained by making the successive measurements of O_{A} and B on the state as well as the auxiliary states , and .
The experiment was carried out at the research reactor facility TRIGA Mark II of the Vienna University of Technology. The monochromatic neutron beam with a mean wavelength of 1.96 Å propagates in the +y direction. The beam is approximately 99% polarized crossing a bent Co–Ti supermirror array (polarizer)^{25}. Two analysing supermirrors (analysers) are adjusted to higher incident angles so that the secondorder harmonics in the incident beam are suppressed. The final intensity was about 90 neutrons s^{−1} at a beam crosssection of 10 (vertical) × 5 (horizontal) mm^{2}. A ^{3}He monitor detector is used for normalization to correct statistical fluctuations evoked by the reactor power. A BF_{3} detector with high efficiency (more than 99%) is used for the experiment. To avoid unwanted depolarization, a static guide field pointing in the +z direction with a strength of about 10 Gauss permeates rectangular Helmholtz coils. In addition, the guide field induces Larmor precession, which, together with four appropriately placed d.c. spin rotator coils, enables state preparation and projective measurements of O_{A} in M1 and B in M2 (see Methods for details).
To test the universally valid uncertainty relation stated in equation (4), the standard deviations σ(A) and σ(B), the error ε(A) and the disturbance η(B) are determined. The measurements of the standard deviations σ(A) and σ(B) are carried out by M1 and M2 separately, whereas error ε(A) and disturbance η(B) are determined by successive projective measurements using M1 and M2.
Typical experimental data sets, for miscellaneous detuning angles ϕ, are depicted in Fig. 3. The resulting values of ε(A) and η(B), together with the theoretical predictions ε(A)=2sin(ϕ/2) and (Methods), are plotted as a function of the detuning parameter ϕ in Fig. 4. The tradeoff relation of ε(A) and η(B) is in good agreement with theory: when one observable is measured more precisely, the other is more disturbed. The calculated expectation values are normalized owing to the limiting efficiency of the entire apparatus (∼96%), so that expectation values are bounded between ±1 (Methods). Errors are calculated using error propagation from the standard deviation of the count rates and considering inaccuracies of the Larmor precession angles (∼1.5°): the latter stem mainly from inhomogeneity of the guide field along the beam.
From the terms obtained above (error ε(A), disturbance η(B), standard deviations σ(A) and σ(B)), the Heisenberg error–disturbance product ε(A)η(B)and the universally valid expression ε(A)η(B)+ε(A)σ(B)+σ(A)η(B), that is, the lefthand side of (equation (4)), are plotted as a function of the detuned azimuthal angle ϕ in Fig. 5a. This figure illustrates the fact that the Heisenberg product is always below the calculated limit, and that the universally valid expression is always larger than the limit in the scanned range of ϕ.
The invalidity of the naive Heisenberg limit for projective measurements of bounded observables, as in the present experiment, has been discussed in ref. 14. In fact, the projective measurements of A and B achieve ε(A)=0 and η(B)=0, respectively, whereas we have 0≤η(B),ε(A)≤2 for any measurement. Thus, at least some region around these points (ϕ=0 and ϕ=π/2) is expected to exhibit the violation of equation (3). Moreover, owing to our choice of observables and the initial state, we keep the Heisenberg product ε(A)η(B) below the limit throughout the entire range of ϕ.
Although the error is experimentally controlled by a single parameter here, it is easily extendable for uncontrolled and fluctuating parameters. Here, we concentrate on the situation where the full tradeoff relation between error ε(A) and disturbance η(B) occurs. It is worth noting that the mean value of the observable A is correctly reproduced for any detuning angle ϕ, that is, 〈+zO_{A}+z〉=〈+zA+z〉, so that the projective measurement of O_{A} reproduces the correct probability distribution of A, whereas we can detect the nonzero r.m.s. error ε(A) for ϕ≠0. What has been shown by the uncertainty principle is the existence of an unavoidable tradeoff between measurement accuracy and disturbance, but this principle has eluded a satisfactory quantitative description for a long time. Our demonstration is the first evidence for the validity of the new relation (equation (4)) proposed as a universally valid error–disturbance relation^{11,12,13,14}; moreover the failure of the old relation (equation (3)) is also illustrated. Our result demonstrates that the new relation solves a longstanding problem of describing the relation between measurement accuracy and disturbance, and sheds light on fundamental limitations of quantum measurements, for instance on the debate of the standard quantum limit for monitoring freemass position^{26,27,28}.
Methods
Universally valid uncertainty relation.
Any measuring apparatus M is, in principle, modelled by the unitary operator U describing the time evolution of the composite system of the measured object S and the probe system P during the measuring interaction and the meter observable M of P actually measured after the measuring interaction^{13}. If the initial states of the object and the apparatus are and , respectively, the r.m.s. error ε(A) of Mfor measuring an observable A of Sand the r.m.s. disturbance η(B) of M caused on an observable B of S are defined as
where denotes the norm of the state vector and I stands for the identity operator. Then, it is mathematically proved^{11,13} that equation (4) holds for any unitary operator U for S+P, observable M of P and state vectors of S and of P. Suppose that the apparatus M has a family {M_{m}} of measurement operators^{29}. This means that the measuring apparatus M has possible outcomes m with probability and the state of the object Safter the measurement with outcome m is . In this case, the r.m.s. error and r.m.s. disturbance are given by^{14}
If {M_{m}} consists of mutually orthogonal projections, the measurement is called a projective measurement. In this case, equation (5) can be simplified as by the Pythagorean theorem, where is called the output operator.
Error and disturbance in spin measurements: theoretical determination.
In the experiment, we test the universally valid uncertainty relation (equation (4)) for observables A=σ_{x} and B=σ_{y}, where the initial state is +z〉and the measuring apparatus M=M1 is considered to carry out the projective measurement of O_{A}=σ_{ϕ}=cosϕ σ_{x}+sinϕ σ_{y}. Thus, the apparatus M1 is described by measurement operators E^{ϕ}(+1)=(1+σ_{ϕ})/2 and E^{ϕ}(−1)=(1−σ_{ϕ})/2 with . From equations (5) and (6), we have
Experimental determination of error and disturbance.
In the experiment, we determine ε(A) and η(B) from statistically available data obtained by successive neutron spin measurements. According to the former theoretical analysis (refs. 13, p. 387), the error ε(A)is determined by mean values of O_{A} in three different states as
where we have used the following abbreviations: and . As apparatus M1 carries out the projective measurement of O_{A}, to determine ε(A) for the basic initial state we need only to measure the intensities from apparatus M1 in the three auxiliary incident states of M1 corresponding to . The expectation values expressed in equation (7) are calculated from the measured intensities, depicted in Fig. 3, using
To detect the disturbance on B caused by apparatus M1, apparatus M2 carries out the projective measurement of B in the state just after the M1 measurement. The modified output operators of apparatus M2 for the initial state of M1 are given by and , which describe the mean and the second moment of the M2 measurement for the initial state of M1. Then, from Eqs. (189) and (227) of ref. 13 the disturbance η(B)is also determined by mean values of O_{B} in three different states as
where the similar notations B ψ〉 and (B+I)ψ〉 are used as before and the expectation values are given by
Thus η(B) is determined in the same manner as ε(A). By the relations , , , , and , where we set and , the required states in equations (7) and (8) are generated by spinor rotations in the experiment (Fig. 2); the normalization factors are confirmed experimentally in spinrotation measurement. Note that for a general observable X the state can be prepared with success probability by applying a ‘completely positive operation’^{30}. Thus, the states and can be prepared in principle without knowing what the state is.
State preparation and successive neutron spin measurements.
By using a supermirror polarizer, the incoming monochromatic neutron beam (Δλ/λ≃0.02) is highly polarized (∼99%) in the +z direction. The state of the neutrons is controlled basically by four d.c. coil spinturners (Fig. 2). The first d.c. coil (d.c.1) produces a magnetic field in the x direction (B_{x}), which can be used to rotate the inital polarization vector about the x axis. By further exploiting Larmor precession about the +z axis, induced by the static guide field present throughout the entire setup, and varying the position of d.c.1, arbitrary initial states can be produced at the end of the preparation stage (up to an irrelevant phase factor). In our particular configuration the required states are and . For the generation of d.c.1 is switched off, whereas the spin is flipped by d.c.1 for preparation. The state is generated by applying a π/2 rotation around the x axis and the state is produced by further moving the position of d.c.1 by onequarter of the Larmor rotation period. The projective measurement of observable O_{A} is realized by similar mechanisms: the prepared state rotates about the z axis owing to Larmor precession. Hence, by properly placing the d.c.2 coil, the spin component to be measured can be projected towards the +z direction, where it is reflected by the supermirror analyser1. After passing through this first analyser in the +z state, d.c.3 produces the eigenstate of σ_{ϕ} so that the apparatus M1 makes the projective measurement of O_{A}to obtain the mean values of O_{A} in equation (7). In the same manner, apparatus M2 makes the measurement of observable B on the eigenstate , which detects the disturbance on the observable B. Hence we obtain the mean values of O_{B} in equation (8) from apparatus M2. The combination of the projective measurements of σ_{ϕ} and σ_{y} gives four count rates at the neutron detector in the downstream of the beam. Note that the measurement made by apparatus M2 is the errorfree B measurement on the state just after the measurement carried out by M1.
Change history
12 March 2012
In the version of this Letter originally published, in Fig. 5a a factor of ℏ/2 appeared incorrectly against the label 'Heisenberg lower limit' and in the figure caption. This error has been corrected in the HTML and PDF versions of the Letter.
01 August 2012
In the version of this Letter originally published, in the Methods section under the heading 'Error and disturbance in spin measurements: theoretical determination' the equation defining η(B) was incorrect — the term σ_{ϕ} should have been divided by 2. This error has been corrected in the HTML and PDF versions of the Letter.
References
Wheeler, J. A. & Zurek, W. H. (eds) in Quantum Theory and Measurement (Princeton Univ. Press, 1983).
Heisenberg, W. Über den anschaulichen Inhalt der quantentheoretischen Kinematik und Mechanik. Z. Phys. 43, 172–198 (1927).
Kennard, E. H. Zur Quantenmechanik einfacher Bewegungstypen. Z. Phys. 44, 326–352 (1927).
Robertson, H. P. The uncertainty principle. Phys. Rev. 34, 163–164 (1929).
Schrödinger, E. Zum Heisenbergschen Unschärfeprinzip. Sitz. Preuss. Akad. Wiss. 14, 296–303 (1930).
Ballentine, L. E. The statistical interpretation of quantum mechanics. Rev. Mod. Phys. 42, 358–381 (1970).
Arthurs, E. & Kelly, J. L. Jr On the simultaneous measurement of a pair of conjugate observables. Bell Syst. Tech. J. 44, 725–729 (1965).
Arthurs, E. & Goodman, M. S. Quantum correlations: A generalized Heisenberg uncertainty relation. Phys. Rev. Lett. 60, 2447–2449 (1988).
Ishikawa, S. Uncertainty relations in simultaneous measurements for arbitrary observables. Rep. Math. Phys. 29, 257–273 (1991).
Ozawa, M. in Quantum Aspects of Optical Communications. (eds Bendjaballah, C., Hirota, O. & Reynaud, S.) (Lecture Notes in Physics, Vol. 378, 3–17, Springer, 1991).
Ozawa, M. Universally valid reformulation of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle on noise and disturbance in measurements. Phys. Rev. A 67, 042105 (2003).
Ozawa, M. Physical content of the Heisenberg uncertainty relation: Limitation and reformulation. Phys. Lett. A 318, 21–29 (2003).
Ozawa, M. Uncertainty relations for noise and disturbance in generalized quantum measurements. Ann. Phys. 311, 350–416 (2004).
Ozawa, M. Universal uncertainty principle in measurement operator formalism. J. Opt. B 7, S672–S681 (2005).
Shull, C. G. Single slit diffraction of neutrons. Phys. Rev. 179, 752–754 (1969).
Yuen, H. P. Twophoton coherent states of the radiation field. Phys. Rev. A 13, 2226–2243 (1976).
Breitenbach, G., Schiller, S. & Mlynek, J. Measurement of the quantum states of squeezed light. Nature 387, 471–475 (1997).
Appleby, D. M. The error principle. Int. J. Theor. Phys. 37, 2557–2572 (1998).
Werner, R. F. The uncertainty relation for joint measurement of position and momentum. Quant. Inf. Comput. 4, 546–562 (2004).
Busch, P., Heinonen, T. & Lahti, P. Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle. Phys. Rep. 452, 155–176 (2007).
Klepp, J. et al. Observation of nonadditive mixedstate phases with polarized neutrons. Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 150404 (2008).
Koshino, K. & Shimizu, A. Quantum Zeno effect by general measurements. Phys. Rep. 412, 191–275 (2005).
Mir, R. et al. A doubleslit ‘whichway’ experiment on the Complementarity–uncertainty debate. New J. Phys. 9, 287 (2007).
Lund, A. P. & Wiseman, H. M. Measuring measurement–disturbance relationships with weak values. New J. Phys. 12, 093011 (2010).
Williams, G. Polarized Neutrons (Oxford Univ. Press, 1988).
Yuen, H. P. Contractive states and the standard quantum limit for monitoring freemass positions. Phys. Rev. Lett. 51, 719–722 (1983).
Ozawa, M. Measurement breaking the standard quantum limit for freemass position. Phys. Rev. Lett. 60, 385–388 (1988).
Maddox, J. Beating the quantum limits. Nature 331, 559 (1988).
Nielsen, M. A. & Chuang, I. Quantum Computation and Quantum Information (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2000).
Kraus, K. States, Effects, and Operations: Fundamental Notions of Quantum Theory (Lecture Notes in Physics, Vol. 190, Springer, 1983).
Acknowledgements
We acknowledge support by the Austrian Science Fund (FWF), the European Research Council (ERC), the Japan Science and Technology Agency (JST) and The Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT) in Japan. We thank H. Rauch, M. Arndt (Vienna) and A. Hosoya (Tokyo) for their helpful comments.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
J.E., G.S. and S.S. carried out the experiment and analysed the data; G.B. contributed to the development at the early stage of the experiments; M.O. supplied the theoretical part and conceived the experiment; Y.H. conceived and carried out the experiment; all authors cowrote the paper.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing financial interests.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Erhart, J., Sponar, S., Sulyok, G. et al. Experimental demonstration of a universally valid error–disturbance uncertainty relation in spin measurements. Nature Phys 8, 185–189 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1038/nphys2194
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nphys2194
This article is cited by

Approaching optimal entangling collective measurements on quantum computing platforms
Nature Physics (2023)

Strong majorization uncertainty relations and experimental verifications
npj Quantum Information (2023)

Specific relativistic uncertainty in light transmission with angular orientation nonzero
Applied Physics B (2023)

Uncertainty relations for triples of observables and the experimental demonstrations
Science China Physics, Mechanics & Astronomy (2023)

Improved unitary uncertainty relations
Quantum Information Processing (2022)