Quick Navigation

Topics

Open Quantum Systems Decoherence Entanglement Theory Quantum Correlations

Disproving Heisenberg's error-disturbance relation

arXiv
Authors: Masanao Ozawa

Year

2013

Paper ID

33194

Status

Preprint

Abstract Read

~2 min

Abstract Words

104

Citations

N/A

Abstract

Recently, Busch, Lahti, and Werner (arXiv:1306.1565v1 [quant-ph]) claimed that Heisenberg's error-disturbance relation can be proved in its original form with new formulations of error and disturbance, in contrast to the theory proposed by the present author and confirmed by recent experiments. Despite their claim, it is shown here that a class of solvable models of position measurement with explicit interaction Hamiltonians escape the Busch-Lahti-Werner relation. It is also made clear where their proof fails. Those models have unambiguously defined zero root-mean-square error and finite root-mean-square disturbance in every input state and are naturally considered to violate Heisenberg's error-disturbance relation in any conceivable formulation.

Why This Paper Matters

  • This paper contributes to the Entanglement Theory & Quantum Correlations research area in the Quantum Articles archive.
  • It adds a 2013 reference point for readers tracking recent quantum research.
  • Recently, Busch, Lahti, and Werner (arXiv:1306.1565v1 [quant-ph]) claimed that Heisenberg's error-disturbance relation can be proved in its original form with new formulations...

Paper Tools

Become a member to use research tools

Sign in to open papers, visit source links, share, cite, compare, copy DOI links, request category corrections, and build your reading list.

Show Paper arXiv Publisher Share Cite This Paper Copy URL Compare Copy DOI Add to Reading List Category Correction Request

References & Citation Signals

Local Citation Graph (Related-Paper Links)

Current Paper #33194

External citation index: OpenAlex citation signal

Community Reactions

Quick sentiment from readers on this paper.

Score: 0
Likes: 0 Dislikes: 0

Sign in to react to this paper.

Discussion & Reviews (Moderated)

Average Rating: 0.0 / 5 (0 ratings)

No written reviews yet.