arxiv:quant-ph/ v2 27 Oct 2005

Transcription

1 Universal Uncertainty Principle in the Measureent Operator Foralis Masanao Ozawa Graduate School of Inforation Sciences, Tôhoku University, Aoba-ku, Sendai, , Japan arxiv:quant-ph/ v 7 Oct 005 Heisenberg s uncertainty principle has been understood to set a liitation on easureents; however, the long-standing atheatical forulation established by Heisenberg, Kennard, and Robertson does not allow such an interpretation. Recently, a new relation was found to give a universally valid relation between noise and disturbance in general quantu easureents, and it has becoe clear that the new relation plays a role of the first principle to derive various quantu liits on easureent and inforation processing in a unified treatent. This paper exaines the above developent on the noise-disturbance uncertainty principle in the odel-independent approach based on the easureent operator foralis, which is widely accepted to describe a class of generalized easureents in the field of quantu inforation. We obtain explicit forulas for the noise and disturbance of easureents given by the easureent operators, and show that projective easureents do not satisfy the Heisenberg-type noise-disturbance relation that is typical in the gaa-ray icroscope thought experients. We also show that the disturbance on a Pauli operator of a projective easureent of another Pauli operator constantly equals, and exaine how this easureent violates the Heisenberg-type relation but satisfies the new noise-disturbance relation. I. INTRODUCTION Heisenberg s uncertainty principle has been understood to set a liitation on easureents by asserting a lower bound of the product of the iprecision of easuring one observable and the disturbance caused on another non-couting observable. However, the long-standing atheatical forulation established by Heisenberg [1], Kennard [], and Robertson [3] neither allows such an interpretation, nor has served to provide a reliable and general precision liit of easureents. In fact, it has been clarified through the controversy [4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11] on the validity of the standard quantu liit for the gravitational wave detection [1, 13] that the purported reciprocal relation on noise and disturbance was not generally true [11, 14]. Although such a state of the art has undoubtedly resulted fro the lack of reliable general easureent theory, the rapid developent of the theory in the last two decades has ade it possible to establish a universally valid uncertainty principle [15] for the ost general class of quantu easureents, which will be useful for precision easureent and quantu inforation processing. In Ref. [16] it was shown that the statistical properties of any physically possible quantu easureent is described by a noralized copletely positive ap-valued easure (CP instruent), and conversely that any CP instruent arises in this way. Thus, we naturally conclude that easureents are represented by CP instruents, just as states are represented by density operators and observables by self-adjoint operators. We have clarified the eaning of noise in the general easureent odel and shown that this notion is equivalent to the distance of the probability operator-valued easure ozawa@ath.is.tohoku.ac.jp (POM) of the CP instruent fro the observable to be easured, and hence the noise is independent of particular odels but depends only on the POM of the instruent [17]. We have also shown that the disturbance in a given observable is deterined only by the tracepreserving copletely positive (TPCP) ap associated with CP instruent [17]. Under the above forulation, we have generalized the Heisenberg-type noise-disturbance relation to a relation that holds for any easureents, fro which conditions have been obtained for easureents to satisfy the original Heisenberg-type relation [15]. In particular, every easureent with the noise and the disturbance statistically independent fro the easured object is proven to satisfy the Heisenberg-type relation [17]. In this paper, we shall exaine the notions of noise and disturbance in the easureent operator foralis. The easureent operator foralis oderately generalizes the conventional projection operator approach to easureent and is often adopted in the field of quantu inforation [18]. In Section II, we discuss the uncertainty relation for standard deviations of non-couting observables. This is the first rigorous forulation of Heisenberg s uncertainty principle. However, this forulation doe not directly ean the liitation on easureent of quantu objects typically described by the trade-off between noise and disturbance in the γ-ray icroscope thought experient [1]. In Section III, we discuss the uncertainty relation for joint easureents. The original for of this relation due to Arthurs and Kelly [19] shows that the product of the standard deviations of two eter-outputs of a position-oentu joint easureent has, if the easureent is jointly unbiased, the lower bound twice as large as that of the position and oentu. Obviously, this increase of the lower bound should be attributed to the additional noise iposed by the easuring interaction. We discuss the reforulation due to Ishikawa [0] and the present author [1] showing

2 that the product of the root-ean-square noises iposed by the easuring interaction has the sae lower bound as the product of the pre-easureent standard deviations of position and oentu. Thus, the Heisenberg s original forulation of the uncertainty principle on the liitation of easureent has been proved rigorously for jointly unbiased joint easureents. We argue that this relation also leads to the noise-disturbance relation but we need the unreasonable assuption that the disturbance be unbiased. In order to develop the theory of noise and disturbance of easureents in the odelindependent forulation, in Section IV we introduce the concepts of CP instruents, POM, and CP aps to present the General Realization Theore that atheatically deterines the exact class of all the physically realizable easureents. Then, we introduce the easureent operator approach, which is widely accepted to describe a class of generalized easureents in the field of quantu inforation. We obtain explicit forulas for noise and disturbance of easureents given by the easureent operators. In Section V we show that projective easureents do not satisfy the Heisenbergtype noise-disturbance relation that is typical in the γ- ray icroscope thought experient. In Section VI we introduce the universal uncertainty principle for arbitrary easureents. Fro this, we give a general explicit criterion for easureents to satisfy the Heisenberg-type noise-disturbance relation. We also show that the disturbance on a Pauli operator of a projective easureent of another Pauli operator constantly equals to, and exaine how this easureent violates the Heisenbergtype relation but satisfies the new noise-disturbance relation. II. UNCERTAINTY PRINCIPLE WITHOUT MEASUREMENT THEORY A. Heisenberg s uncertainty principle: The original forulation In 197 Heisenberg [1] proposed a reciprocal relation for easureent noise and disturbance by the faous γ ray icroscope thought experient. Heisenberg s position-oentu uncertainty principle can be expressed by Q P h, (1) where Q stands for the position easureent noise, the ean error of Q, and P stands for the oentu disturbance, the discontinuous change of P. Heisenberg claied that the relation is a straightforward atheatical consequence of the rule QP PQ = i h. () However, his proof did not fully account for the easureent noise or disturbance []. B. Kennard s relation: Fro noise to standard deviation Iediately, Kennard [] reforulated the relation as the faous inequality for the standard deviations of position and oentu. Kennard s inequality is given by σ(q)σ(p) h, (3) where σ stands for the standard deviation, i.e., σ(x) = ( X X ) for any observable X. C. Robertson s relation: Fro conjugate observables to any Kennard s relation was soon generalized by Robertson [3] to arbitrary pairs of observables; see also [3]. Robertson s inequality is given by σ(a)σ(b) 1 [A, B], (4) where stands for the expectation value and [A, B] stands for the coutator, i.e., [A, B] = AB BA. Robertson s proof bridges the uncertainty principle and the coutation relation siply appealing to the Schwarz inequality. However, Robertson s inequality wants a direct relevance to easureent noise nor disturbance, since the standard deviations depend only on the syste s state but does not depend on the property of the easuring apparatus. After presenting Robertson s proof, von Neuann [4, p. 37] wrote as follows. With the foregoing considerations, we have coprehended only one phase of the uncertainty relations, that is, the foral one; for a coplete understanding of these relations, it is still necessary to consider the fro another point of view: fro that of direct physical experience. For the uncertainty relations bear a ore easily understandable and sipler relation to direct experience than any of the facts on which quantu echanics was originally based, and therefore the above, entirely foral, derivation does not do the full justice. Many text books have discuss a handful of thought experients after foral derivation of Robertson s relation. However, for correct understanding of the uncertainty principle, we certainly need a reliable easureent theory rather than collecting ore thought experients. III. UNCERTAINTY RELATIONS FOR JOINT MEASUREMENTS A. Measuring processes In order to obtain universally valid relations for easureent noise and disturbance, we should consider a

3 3 sufficiently general class of odels of easureents. Generalizing von Neuann s description of easuring processes [4], we have introduced the following definition [16]: A easuring process for a quantu syste S with state space (Hilbert space) H is a quadruple M = (K, ρ 0, U, {M 1,..., M n }) consisting of a Hilbert space K describing the state space of the probe P, a state (density operator) ρ 0 on K describing the initial state of the probe, a unitary operator U on H K describing the tie evolution of the coposite syste S+P during the easuring interaction, and a set of utually couting observables M 1,..., M n on K describing the probe observables to be detected in the state just after the easuring interaction. A easuring process M = (K, ρ 0, U, {M 1,...,M n }) is called pure if ρ 0 is a pure state. In the following, we shall deal with only the case n = 1 for siplicity of presentation; for the general definitions we refer the reader to Ref. [16]. The output probability distribution of easuring process M = (K, ρ 0, U, M) on input state ρ is naturally defined by Pr{x ρ} = Tr K [{I E M ( )}U(ρ ρ 0 )U ], (5) where x stands for the output of the easureent. Let ρ {x } be the state of S just after the easuring interaction given that the easureent leads to the output x in a Borel set. Then, ρ {x }, the output state on input ρ given x, is deterined by ρ {x } = Tr K[{I E M ( )}U(ρ ρ 0 )U ], (6) Pr{x ρ} provided that Pr{x ρ} > 0; otherwise ρ {x } stands for an indefinite state. The state transforation ρ ρ {x } is called the quantu state reduction deterined by the easuring process M. B. Arthurs and Kelly relation : Fro observables to eters Suppose that the syste S is a one-diensional ass with position Q and oentu P. Let M = (K, ρ 0, U, {M 1, M }) be a easuring process with two eter observables M 1, M. Let M Q = U (I M 1 )U and M P = U (I M )U the eter observables after the easuring interaction, the posterior eters. Then, we say that M is a jointly unbiased position-oentu joint easureent if Tr[M Q (ρ ρ 0 )] = Tr[Qρ], (7) Tr[M P (ρ ρ 0 )] = Tr[Pρ] (8) for any ρ S(H) with Tr[Q ρ], Tr[P ρ] <, where S(H) stands for the space of density operators on H. Then, Arthurs and Kelley [19] showed that every jointly unbiased position-oentu joint easureent satisfies σ(m Q )σ(m P ) h. (9) If we easure Q and P separately with ideal easuring apparatuses for any saples prepared in the sae state, then σ(q) and σ(p) can be considered as the standard deviations of the output of each easureent. However, σ(q) and σ(p) can by no eans be considered as the standard deviations of the outputs of a joint easureent carried out by a single apparatus. C. Arthurs and Goodan relation : Meter uncertainty relation The relation (9) has been generalized to arbitrary pairs of observables as follows. Let M = (K, ρ 0, U, {M 1, M }) be a easuring process with two eter observables M 1, M. Let A, B be two observables of S. Let M A = U (I M 1 )U and M B = U (I M )U be the posterior eters. Then, we say that M is a jointly unbiased joint easureent of the pair (A, B) if Tr[M A (ρ ρ 0 )] = Tr[Aρ], (10) Tr[M B (ρ ρ 0 )] = Tr[Bρ] (11) for any ρ S(H) with Tr[A ρ], Tr[B ρ] <. Then, Arthurs and Goodan [5] showed that any jointly unbiased joint easureent of pair (A, B) satisfies σ(m A )σ(m B ) [A, B]. (1) D. Ishikawa and Ozawa: Fro eter uncertainty to easureent noise Thus, the eter uncertainty product σ(m A )σ(m B ) has the lower bound twice as large as the observable uncertainty product σ(a) σ(b). This, increase of the uncertainty product can be considered to be yielded by the intrinsic noise fro the easuring process other than the initial deviation. In order to quantify the above intrinsic noise, we introduce noise operators N A, N B defined by N A = M A A I, (13) N B = M B B I. (14) Then, the easureent is jointly unbiased if and only if N A = N B = 0. Then, Ishikawa [0] and Ozawa [1] showed that any jointly unbiased joint easureent of pair (A, B) satisfies σ(n A )σ(n B ) 1 [A, B]. (15) E. Uncertainty principle for jointly unbiased joint easureents The root-ean-square noises are naturally defined as the root-ean-square of the noise operator, i.e., ǫ(a) = N A 1/, (16) ǫ(b) = N B 1/. (17)

4 4 Then, we have ǫ(a) σ(n A ) and ǫ(b) σ(n B ), so that we can conclude that the Heisenberg-type joint noise relation ǫ(a)ǫ(b) 1 [A, B] (18) holds for any jointly unbiased joint easureent of pair (A, B) [0, 1]. F. Fro joint noise relation to noise-disturbance relation The question why joint easureents have the inevitable noise ay be answered by the notion of disturbance caused by easureents. The above considerations can be applied to obtain the relation between easureent noise and disturbance as follows. Let (K, ρ 0, U, M) be a easuring process for the syste S. Let A, B be two observables on H. The noise operator N A and the disturbance operator D B are defined by N A = U (I M)U A I, (19) D B = U (B I)U B I. (0) The noise operator N A represents the noise in easuring A. The disturbance operator D B represents the disturbance caused on B during the easuring interaction. We naturally define the root-ean-square noise ǫ(a) and the root-ean-square disturbance η(b) by ǫ(a) = N A 1/, (1) η(b) = D B 1/. () We say that the easureent is an unbiased easureent of A if Tr[N A ρ] = 0 for all ρ S(H), and the easureent has unbiased disturbance if Tr[D B ρ] = 0 for all ρ S(H). Then, by the sae atheatics as above, we can show that unbiased easureents of A with unbiased disturbance on B satisfy [15] σ(n A )σ(d B ) 1 [A, B]. (3) Thus, unbiased easureents of A with unbiased disturbance on B satisfy the the Heisenberg-type noisedisturbance relation for (A, B) [15] ǫ(a)η(b) 1 [A, B]. (4) Fro the above, it is tepting to call an unbiased easureent with unbiased disturbance a good easureent and to state that every good easureent satisfies the Heisenberg-type noise-disturbance relation. However, this cannot be justified as shown in the later sections. IV. MODEL-INDEPENDENT APPROACH TO UNCERTAINTY PRINCIPLE A. Copletely positive instruents In order to describe the statistical properties of easuring processes by a unified atheatical object, we introduce soe atheatical definitions. A bounded linear transforation T on the space τc(h) of trace class operators on H is called a copletely positive (CP) ap if the trivial extension T id to τc(h H) is positive. Every CP ap T on τc(h) has a faily {Λ j } of bounded operators, called Kraus operators for T, such that Tρ = j Λ jρλ j for all ρ τc(h) [6, 7], and the converse is obviously true. A apping I fro each Borel set in the real line R to a bounded linear transforation I( ) on τ c(h) is called a CP instruent if it satisfies the following conditions [16]. (i) (Coplete positivity) The linear transforation I( ) is copletely positive for any Borel set. (ii) (Countable additivity) For any disjoint sequence of Borel sets j, we have I( j j )ρ = j I( j )ρ. (5) (iii) (Unity of total probability) For any density operator ρ, Tr[I(R)ρ] = 1. (6) Let M = (K, ρ 0, U, M) be a easuring process. The relation I( )ρ = Tr K [{I E M ( )}U(ρ ρ 0 )U ] (7) defines a CP instruent, called the instruent deterined by the easuring process M = (K, ρ 0, U, M). Then, fro Eq. (5) and Eq. (6) the instruent I represents both the output probability distribution and the quantu state reduction by Pr{x ρ} = Tr[I( )ρ], (8) ρ {x } = I( )ρ Tr[I( )ρ], (9) provided that Tr[I( )ρ] > 0 [16]. Given a CP instruent I and a Borel set, the dual CP ap I( ) on the space L(H) of bounded linear operators on H is defined by Tr[{I( ) A}ρ] = Tr[A{I( )ρ}] (30) for any A L(H) and ρ τc(h). If {Λ j } is Kraus operators of I( ), i.e, I( )ρ = j Λ jρλ j, we have I( ) A = j Λ j AΛ j. Then, it is easy to see that for any instruent I, the relation Π( ) = I( ) I (31)

5 5 for all Borel set defines a unique POM, the POM deterined by instruent I. Let I be the instruent deterined by easuring process M. Then, the POM deterined by the instruent I satisfies Π( ) = Tr K [U {I E M ( )}U(I ρ 0 )], (3) and we have the generalized Born statistical forula Corollary follows fro the General Realization Theore applied to a CP instruent such that I( ) I = Π( ); a trivial exaple is given by I( )ρ = Tr[Π( )ρ]ρ 0 where ρ 0 is a fixed state. Corollary 3 follows fro the General Realization Theore applied to a CP instruent such that I(R) = T; a trivial exaple is given by I( )ρ = µ( )T(ρ) where µ is a fixed probability easure. An equivalent for of Corollary 3 was found by Kraus [7]. Pr{x ρ} = Tr[Π( )ρ]. (33) For the case = R, the state transforation T : ρ ρ {x R} is called the nonselective state reduction. Fro Eq. (9), the nonselective state reduction T is a tracepreserving copletely positive (TPCP) ap deterined by and we have T = I(R), (34) Tρ = Tr K [U(ρ ρ 0 )U ], (35) T A = Tr K [U (A I)U(I ρ 0 )] (36) C. Measureent operator foralis In the field of quantu inforation, a particular description of easureents is coonly adopted [18]. A faily {M } of operators with one real paraeter is called a faily of easureent operators if M M = I (40) and is supposed to describe a easureent such that Pr{x = ρ} = Tr[M M ρ], (41) for all A L(H) and ρ τc(h). ρ {x=} = M ρm Tr[M M ρ] (4) B. General realization theore In the preceding subsections, we have shown that any easuring process deterines a CP instruent. Then, it is natural to ask whether the notion of easuring process is too restrictive or whether the notion of CP instruent is too general. The following theore shows that the notion of easuring process is general enough and the notion of CP instruents characterizes all the possible easureents [16, 8]. Theore 1. (General Realization Theore) For every copletely positive instruent I, there is a pure easuring process M = (K, ξ ξ, U, M) such that I is deterined by M. Before the above theore was found, there had been any proposals for atheatical description of easureents, but the theore definitely deterined which proposals are consistent with quantu echanics and which are not [14]. The General Realization Theore has the following corollaries [16]. Corollary. (Realization of POMs) Every POM Π can be represented as Π( ) = Tr K [U {I E M ( )}U(I ξ ξ )]. (37) Corollary 3. (Realization of TPCP aps) Every TPCP ap T can be represented as Tρ = Tr K [U(ρ ξ ξ )U ], (38) T A = Tr K [U (A I)U(I ξ ξ )]. (39) for all ρ. It is easy to judge whether this proposed description of easureent is consistent or not, in the light of the General Realization Theore as follows. It is easy to see that the relation I( )ρ = M ρm (43) defines a CP instruent; coplete positivity of I( ) follows fro the fact that {M } is a faily of Kraus operators of I( ), countable additivity follows fro the property of suation, and unity of probability follows fro Eq. (40). Thus, by the General Realization Theore, we have a easuring process M = (K, ξ ξ, U, M) such that M ρm = Tr K [(I E M )U(ρ ξ ξ )U ], (44) where E M = EM ({}), i.e., M = EM, so that we have Pr{x = ρ} = Tr[(I E M )U(ρ ξ ξ )U ], (45) ρ {x=} = Tr K[(I E M )U(ρ ξ ξ )U ] Tr[(I E M )U(ρ ξ ξ )U ]. (46) The POM of this easureent is given by Π( ) = Π, (47) Π = M M, (48)

6 6 where R. For any state vector ψ, we have ψ Π ψ = ψ M M ψ = Tr[M ψ ψ M ] = Tr[U (I E M )U( ψ ψ ξ ξ )] = ψ ξ U (I E M )U ξ K ψ, where K stands for the partial inner product over K. Thus, we have Π = ξ U (I E M )U ξ K. (49) The TPCP ap T describing the nonselective state reduction and its dual ap T are given by Tρ = T A = D. Noise of POMs M ρm, (50) M AM. (51) For any pure easuring process M = (K, ξ ξ, U, M), the root-ean-square noise ǫ(a) of M for easuring A on input ψ is given by ǫ(a) = ψ ξ (M A I) ψ ξ, (5) where M = U (I M)U. It is easy to rewrite the above forula as [17] ǫ(a) = ψ A ψ + ψ ξ (M ) ψ ξ + ψ ξ M ψ ξ + Aψ ξ M Aψ ξ (A + I)ψ ξ M (A + I)ψ ξ. (53) Thus, the root-ean-square noise of the easureent is deterined by the second and the first oents of the output probability distribution on input ψ, the first oents of the output probability distributions on inputs Aψ and (A + I)ψ; here, we oit obvious noralization factors of state vectors. Since those quantities are deterined only by the output probability distributions on several input states, so that it is clear that the root-eansquare noise is deterined solely by the POM Π of the easuring process. In Ref. [9] the case ǫ(a) = 0 is thoroughly studied coparing with the notion of precise easureent that is characterized by the condition that the posterior eter M and the easured observable A are perfectly correlated in the initial state ψ ξ, and it is shown that the easureent is precise on input ψ if and only if ǫ(a) = 0 for all states A n ψ with n = 1,,.... For a one-paraeter faily of easureent operators, {M }, through a realization given by Eq. (44) we have N A = ψ ξ (U (I M)U A I) ψ ξ = ψ ξ E M ψ ξ ψ ξ EM Aψ ξ Aψ ξ EM ψ ξ + ψ ξ A ψ ξ = ψ Π ψ ψ Π Aψ Aψ Π ψ + ψ A ψ = ψ Π Π A AΠ + AΠ A ψ = ψ M M M M A AM M + AM M A ψ = ψ (M M A) (M M A) ψ = M ( A)ψ, and we have ǫ(a) = ( M ( A)ψ ) 1/. (54) have M ( A)ψ = ( M A)ψ, (55) and hence we have Note that if the ranges of easureent operators M are utually orthogonal, by the Pythagoras theore we ǫ(a) = M ψ Aψ. (56)

7 7 E. Disturbance of TPCP aps For any pure easuring process M = (K, ξ ξ, U, M), it is easy to check that the root-ean-square disturbance η(b) of M caused in a bounded observable B on input ψ is given by [17] η(b) = ψ T (B ) BT (B) T (B)B + B ψ, (57) where T is the dual CP ap deterined by Eq. (36) with ρ 0 = ξ ξ. Thus, the root-ean-square disturbance η(b) is deterined by the TPCP ap T = I(R) deterined by the easuring process M. Let {M } be a faily of easureent operators and let Tρ = M ρm the corresponding TPCP ap. We have also D B = ψ ξ (U (B I)U B I) ψ ξ = ψ ξ U (B I) U ψ ξ ψ ξ U (B I)U Bψ ξ Bψ ξ U (B I)U ψ ξ + ψ B ψ = ψ T(B ) ψ ψ T(B) Bψ Bψ T(B) ψ + ψ B ψ = ψ = = M B M M BM B BM BM + ψ M B M M BM B BM BM + BM M B ψ ψ [M, B] [M, B] ψ BM M B ψ = [M, B]ψ. Thus, we have η(b) = ( [M, B]ψ ) 1/. (58) F. Model-independent approach to joint easureents To apply the results on joint easureents to the easureent operator foralis, we consider two-paraeter faily of easureent operators, {M a,b }, satisfying M a,b M a,b = I, (59) a,b with describes a easureent such that Pr{x = a,y = b ψ} = M a,b ψ, (60) ψ {x=a,y=b} = M a,bψ M a,b ψ (61) for any (pure) state ψ. Then, by the General Realization Theore, we have a easuring process M = (K, ξ ξ, U, {M 1, M }) such that M a,b ψ ψ M a,b = Tr K [(I Ea M1 EM b )U(I ξ ξ )U ]. (6) The instruent and the POM of this easureent are given by I( )ρ = Π( ) = (a,b) (a,b) M a,b ρm a,b, (63) Π a,b, (64) Π a,b = M a,b M a,b, (65) where R. We define the arginal POMs Π A and Π B by Π A ( ) = a Π A a, Π A a = b Π B ( ) = b Π B b, Π B b = a M a,b M a,b, M a,b M a,b, where R. For any state vector ψ, we have ψ Π A a ψ = b Tr[(I Ea M1 E M b )U( ψ ψ ξ ξ )U ] = Tr[U (I Ea M1 )U( ψ ψ ξ ξ )] = ψ ξ Ea MA ξ K ψ,

8 8 and the analogous relation also holds for Π B b. Thus, we have Π A a Π B b If ρ = ψ ψ and ρ 0 = ξ ξ, we have = ξ Ea MA ξ K, (66) = ξ E MB b ξ K. (67) We suarize the uncertainty relation for jointly unbiased joint easureent in the easureent operator foralis. Theore 4. Let {M a,b } be a two-paraeter faily of easureent operators. Let A = a,b am a,b M a,b and B = a,b bm a,b M a,b. Then, we have Tr[M A (ρ ρ 0 )] = a a ψ ξ Ea MA ξ K ψ ǫ(a)ǫ(b) 1 [A, B], (7) and analogously we have = ψ a = Tr[ a aπ A a ψ aπ A a ρ] and ǫ(a) = ( M a,b (a A)ψ ) 1/, a,b (73) ǫ(b) = ( M a,b (b B)ψ ) 1/. a,b (74) Tr[M B (ρ ρ 0 )] = Tr[ b bπ B b ρ]. It follows that M is a jointly unbiased joint easureent of (A, B) if and only if a aπa a = A and b bπb a = B. In this case, we have M A = A and M B = B, and σ(m A ) = a = a = a = a = a,b (a M A ) ψ ξ E MA a ψ ξ (a A ) ψ Π A a ψ ψ (a A ) Π A a ψ ψ (a A ) b (a A )M a,b ψ. M a,b M a,b ψ The analogous relation also holds for M B, and hence we have σ(m A ) = ( a,b σ(m B ) = ( a,b (a A )M a,b ψ ) 1/, (68) (b B )M a,b ψ ) 1/. (69) By calculations siilar to what lead to Eq. (54), we have N A = a,b M a,b (a A)ψ. The analogous relation also holds for M B. σ(n A ) = NA N A = NA, we have σ(n A ) = ( a,b σ(n B ) = ( a,b Since M a,b (a A)ψ ) 1/, (70) M a,b (b B)ψ ) 1/. (71) V. PROJECTIVE MEASUREMENTS DO NOT OBEY THE HEISENBERG-TYPE NOISE-DISTURBANCE RELATION One of the ost typical class of good easureents is the projective easureents defined as follows. A easureent with instruent I is called the projective easureent of a discrete observable A with spectral decoposition A = EA if I({})ρ = E A ρea. (75) Thus, the projective easureent of A is a easureent with easureent operators {M } = {E}, A and we have M = A. (76) Now we shall show the following Theore 5. No projective easureents satisfy the Heisenberg-type noise-disturbance relation for (A, B) if B is bounded and [A, B] 0. The proof runs as follows. First, we note that the projective easureent of A is a noiseless easureent of A. In fact, fro Eq. (56) and Eq. (76), we have ǫ(a) = M ψ Aψ = 0. (77) On the other hand, we can show the following. Lea 6. The disturbance of a bounded operator B caused by any TPCP ap T is at ost B, i.e., η(b) B. (78) To prove the above lea, we can assue without any loss of generality that {M } is a faily of Kraus

9 9 operators of T. Fro Eq. (58) we have η(b) = = [M, B]ψ M Bψ BM ψ M Bψ + BM ψ M Bψ + B Bψ + B ψ 4 B. M ψ Thus, we have proved Eq. (78). Fro the above arguent, we conclude that the projective easureent of A satisfies ǫ(a)η(b) = 0 (79) for any bounded observable B, so that the projective easureent of A do not satisfy the Heisenberg-type noise-disturbance relation for the noise in A easureent and the disturbance of B, provided that B is bounded and [A, B] 0. If the projective easureent were to have unbiased disturbance, then it should satisfy the Heisenberg-type noise-disturbance relation. Thus, we can also conclude that the projective easureent of any (discrete) observable A has no unbiased disturbance on a bounded observable B with [A, B] 0. B. When the Heisenberg-type noise-disturbance relation holds? We introduce the ean noise operator and the ean disturbance operator of the easuring process M = (K, ρ 0, U, M) by n A = Tr K [N A (I ρ 0 )], (8) d B = Tr K [D B (I ρ 0 )]. (83) The noise operator N A is said to be statistically independent of the object S if n A is scalar, and oreover the disturbance operator D B is statistically independent of the object syste S if d B is scalar. Then, we have the following characterizations of easureents that obey the Heisenberg-type noise-disturbance relation [17]. Theore 8. For any easuring process M and observables A, B, we have ǫ(a)η(b) + 1 [n A, B] [d B, A] 1 [A, B]. (84) Theore 9. If the noise and disturbance are statistically independent of the object syste, we have the Heisenberg-type noise-disturbance relation. For easureent operators {M }, we have Tr K [N A (I ξ ξ )] = ξ N A ξ K = ξ U (I M)U A I ξ K = ξ U (I M)U ξ K A = M M A. VI. UNIVERSALLY VALID REFORMULATION OF UNCERTAINTY PRINCIPLE Thus, we have n A = M M A. (85) A. Universal uncertainty principle We have argued that the Heisenberg-type noisedisturbance relation is often unreliable. Recently, the present author [15] proposed a new relation for noise and disturbance with a rigorous proof of the universal validity. Theore 7. (Universal Uncertainty Principle) For any easuring process M = (K, ρ 0, U, M) and observables A, B, we have ǫ(a)η(b) + ǫ(a)σ(b) + σ(a)η(b) 1 [A, B]. (80) A diensionless for of the universal uncertainty relation is given by [30] ǫ(a)η(b) σ(a)σ(b) + ǫ(a) σ(a) + η(b) σ(b) [A, B] σ(a)σ(b). (81) For further accounts on the universal uncertainty principle, including foundations and applications, we refer the reader to [17,, 31, 3, 33]. On the other hand, we have Tr K [D B (I ρ 0 )] = ξ D B ξ K = ξ U (B I)U B I ξ K = ξ U (B I)U ξ K B = T(B) B Thus, we have d B = = M BM B. M BM B. (86) Now, fro Theore 4 we have the following criterion for easureents satisfying the Heisenberg-type noisedisturbance uncertainty relation. Theore 10. A easureent with easureent operators {M } satisfies the Heisenberg-type noisedisturbance relation ǫ(a)η(b) 1 [A, B]

10 if we have [ M M A, B] = [ M BM B, A]. (87) 10 easureent operators are given by M 1 = (I Z)/, M 1 = (I + Z)/, and M = 0 if ±1. Let ψ be an arbitrary state vector. Then, fro Eq. (77) we have ǫ(z) = 0. (94) C. Typical violations of the Heisenberg-type noise-disturbance relation If the Heisenberg-type noise-disturbance relation were to hold for bounded observables A, B with [A, B] 0, we would have no precise easureents with ǫ(a) = 0 nor non-disturbing easureents with η(b) = 0. Fro the universal uncertainty principle, we have correct liitations on the noiseless or non-disturbing easureents [15]. The uncertainty principle for non-disturbing easureents, i.e., η(b) = 0, is given by ǫ(a)σ(b) 1 [A, B]. (88) The uncertainty principle for noiseless easureents, i.e., ǫ(a) = 0, is given by σ(a)η(b) 1 [A, B]. (89) Fro the above, we have the following stateents. Theore 11. For any easureent with easureent operators {M }, the relation holds if it satisfies for all, and the relation holds if it satisfies ǫ(a)σ(b) 1 [A, B] (90) [M, B]ψ = 0 (91) σ(a)η(b) 1 [A, B] (9) M ψ = M Aψ (93) for all. The assertions can be verified iediately, since η(b) = 0 follows fro Eq. (91) and ǫ(a) = 0 follows fro Eq. (93). On the other hand, we have η(x) = =±1 [M, X]ψ = [ I + Z, X]ψ + [ I Z, X]ψ = Y ψ, and since Y ψ = 1, we have η(x) =. (95) We actually have η(x) = = X as Eq. (78), and we have ǫ(z)η(x) = 0. Thus, the Heisenberg-type noise-disturbance relation is violated in the state with [X, Z] 0. On the other hand, the universal uncertainty relation holds, as we have ǫ(z)η(x) + ǫ(z)σ(x) + σ(z)η(x) = σ(z)η(x) = σ(z) σ(x)σ(z) 1 [Z, X]. In particular, we have and ( 1)M 1 = ( 1) I Z M 1 = I + Z = I Z Z = M 1 Z, (96) = Z + I Z = M 1 Z, (97) σ(z)η(x) 1 [Z, X]. (98) D. Projective easureents of Pauli operators In order to figure out the noise-disturbance relation for the qubit easureents, let X, Y, Z be the Pauli operators on the diensional state space C, and consider the projective easureent of Z. In this case, the Acknowledgents The author thanks J. Gea-Banacloche for valuable discussions and collaborations. This work was supported by the SCOPE Project of the MPHPT of Japan and by the Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research of the JSPS.

11 11 [1] W. Heisenberg, Z. Phys. 43, 17 (197). [] E. H. Kennard, Z. Phys. 44, 36 (197). [3] H. P. Robertson, Phys. Rev. 34, 163 (199). [4] H. P. Yuen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 51, 719 (1983), [see also ibid. p. 1603]. [5] K. Wodkiewicz, Phys. Rev. Lett. 5, 787 (1984). [6] H. P. Yuen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 5, 788 (1984), [see also ibid. p. 155]. [7] R. Lynch, Phys. Rev. Lett. 5, 179 (1984). [8] H. P. Yuen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 5, 1730 (1984). [9] R. Lynch, Phys. Rev. Lett. 54, 1599 (1985). [10] C. M. Caves, Phys. Rev. Lett. 54, 465 (1985). [11] M. Ozawa, Phys. Rev. Lett. 60, 385 (1988). [1] V. B. Braginsky, Y. I. Vorontsov, and K. S. Thorne, Science 09, 547 (1980). [13] C. M. Caves, K. S. Thorne, R. W. P. Drever, V. D. Sandberg, and M. Zierann, Rev. Mod. Phys. 5, 341 (1980). [14] M. Ozawa, in Squeezed and Nonclassical Light, edited by P. Tobesi and E. R. Pike (Plenu, New York, 1989), pp [15] M. Ozawa, Phys. Rev. A 67, (003). [16] M. Ozawa, J. Math. Phys. 5, 79 (1984). [17] M. Ozawa, Ann. Phys. (N.Y.) 311, 350 (004). [18] M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang, Quantu Coputation and Quantu Inforation (Cabridge University Press, Cabridge, 000). [19] E. Arthurs and J. L. Kelly, Jr., Bell. Syst. Tech. J. 44, 75 (1965). [0] S. Ishikawa, Rep. Math. Phys. 9, 57 (1991). [1] M. Ozawa, in Quantu Aspects of Optical Counications, edited by C. Bendjaballah, O. Hirota, and S. Reynaud (Springer, Berlin, 1991), pp [] M. Ozawa, Phys. Lett. A 318, 1 (003). [3] E. Schrödinger, Berliner Berichte 3, 96 (1930). [4] J. von Neuann, Matheatical Foundations of Quantu Mechanics (Princeton UP, Princeton, NJ, 1955), [English translation of Matheatische Grundlagen der Quantenechanik (Springer, Berlin, 193)]. [5] E. Arthurs and M. S. Goodan, Phys. Rev. Lett. 60, 447 (1988). [6] E. C. G. Sudarshan, P. M. Mathews, and J. Rau, Phys. Rev. 11, 90 (1961). [7] K. Kraus, Ann. Phys. (N.Y.) 64, 311 (1971). [8] M. Ozawa, in Probability Theory and Matheatical Statistics, Lecture Notes in Math. 101, edited by K. Itô and J. V. Prohorov (Springer, Berlin, 1983), pp [9] M. Ozawa, Phys. Lett. A 335, 11 (005). [30] H. Nakano (005), private counication. [31] M. Ozawa, Int. J. Quant. Inf. 1, 569 (003). [3] M. Ozawa, Phys. Lett. A 30, 367 (004). [33] M. Ozawa, in Quantu Counication, Measureent and Coputing:The Seventh International Conference on Quantu Counication, Measureent and Coputing, edited by S. M. Barnett, E. Andersson, J. Jeffers, P. Öhberg, and O. Hirota (Aerican Institute of Physics, Melville, 004), vol. 734 of AIP Conference Proceedings, pp