Physicists solve uncertainty about uncertainty principle
September 10, 2012

Taking on Heisenberg: Quantum optics graduate students Dylan Mahler (l) and Lee Rozema (r) prepare pairs of entangled photons to study the disturbance the photons experience after they are measured. Kids, don’t try this at home without special googles! (Credit: Dylan Mahler)
The Heisenberg uncertainty principle is one of the cornerstones of quantum mechanics: it’s impossible to measure anything without disturbing it.
For instance, any attempt to measure a particle’s position must change its momentum.
But never mind all that. It’s wrong, University of Toronto physicists say they have just proven.
(This has important implications for quantum information and especially quantum cryptography, where it is fundamental to the security of certain protocols.)
E pur non si muove
Here’s how PhD candidate Lee Rozema states the problem: “We designed an apparatus to measure a property — the polarization — of a single photon. We then needed to measure how much that apparatus disturbed that photo. To do this, we would need to measure the photon before the apparatus — but that measurement would also disturb the photon.”
To overcome this well-known impasse, Rozema and his colleagues used a technique known as “weak measurement” in which the effect of the measuring device is itself too weak to measure. Here’s how it worked:

Left: weak measurement of X or Z; center: strong measurement to determine Z; right: verification measurement of X (credit: L. Rozema et al.)
1. Before each photon is sent to the standard measurement apparatus, measure two forms of polarization, X and Z, weakly, then measure the Z polarization (strongly), and then measure the X polarization again (right), noting the effect of the Z measurement on the X polarization.
2 Measure it again, with the same setup, noting the results.
3. Repeat many times and compare the measurements.
Result: the disturbance induced by the measurement of Z was in fact less than Heisenberg’s precision-disturbance relation would require. (Actually, it was more complicated than that — see the open-access ArXiv paper for details.)
The findings build on recent challenges to Heisenberg’s principle by scientists the world over. Nagoya University physicist Masanao Ozawa suggested in 2003 that Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle does not apply to measurement, but could only suggest an indirect way to confirm his predictions. A validation of the sort he proposed was carried out last year by Yuji Hasegawa’s group at the Vienna University of Technology.
In 2010, Griffith University scientists Austin Lund and Howard Wiseman showed that weak measurements could be used to characterize the process of measuring a quantum system. However, there were still hurdles to clear as their idea effectively required a small quantum computer, which is difficult to build.
“In the past, we have worked experimentally both on implementing weak measurements, and using a technique called ‘cluster state quantum computing’ to simplify building quantum computers. The combination of these two ideas led to the realization that there was a way to implement Lund and Wiseman’s ideas in the lab,” says Rozema.
Implications
“The results force us to adjust our view of exactly what limits quantum mechanics places on measurement,” says Rozema. “These limits are important to fundamental quantum mechanics and also central in developing ‘quantum cryptography’ technology, which relies on the uncertainty principle to guarantee that any eavesdropper would be detected due to the disturbance caused by her measurements.
“The quantum world is still full of uncertainty, but at least our attempts to look at it don’t have to add as much uncertainty as we used to think!”
The research is supported by funding from Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada and the Canadian Institute for Advanced Research.
References:
- Lee A. Rozema, Ardavan Darabi, Dylan H. Mahler, Alex Hayat, Yasaman Soudagar, and Aephraim M. Steinberg, The Certainty of Uncertainty. Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 100404 (2012)
- Lee A. Rozema et al. Violation of Heisenberg's Measurement-Disturbance Relationship by Weak Measurements. ArXiv. Aug. 15, 2012 (open access)
Comments (23)
by NakedApe
This article makes me uncertain…
by Bri
Are you sure you uncertain?
by Caidland
If Heisenberg uncertainty principle is wrong,
will electrons start falling into the nucleus now, are we doomed ?
by george
Just a couple of comments on the article:
Using interchangeably the “Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle” and the “Heisenberg Measurement-Disturbance Relationship” as the article does is quite wrong and gives the very wrong idea as to what the scientists did.
The uncertainty principle has been proven quite some time ago and is considered inviolable (no experiment up to today has violated it). On the other hand Heisenberg’s idea that the uncertainty between measurables in quantum system comes from disturbances due to our measurement (the Heisenberg Measurement-Disturbance Relationship) was shown to be mathematically wrong (at least the way Heisenberg postulated it) in 1970.
What this work has done is to show that our naive notion (which unfortunately is still taught in Universities) that quantum uncertainty arises from measurement disturbances (a rather classical way of thinking) is actually wrong. This experiment shows (what theory has already suggested) that you can measure as gentle as you like (much more gentle than what it would take to disturb the system) yet the measurements between measurables whose operators don’t commute will still be uncertain.
So DrDubious this experiment doesn’t show that “finally” they found out how to tare the scales. Quite the opposite, they showed that the last idea of a classical explanation into why the scales are fundamentally “untarable” is actually wrong.
Welcome to quantum mechanics.
B. DiPaolo polarization can be used in exactly the same way as spin. It has 2 states (horizontal and vertical) and it can be measured in three spatial axes, pretty much like spin. What is non commutable is the operators along orthonormal (in space) axes. Meaning that if you know for certain the state (H or V) in one axis (lets say X) and then measure the polarization in any of the other axes (Y or Z) then you will get H or V with 50% chance. So if you start lets say knowing that in 1000 photons in X their state is H and you measure their states in Y you will get about 500 of them being H and about 500 being V.
by SmartAndSober
Prof Hugo de Garis is apparently not aware of the new breakthrough.
His lecture on Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7MvBpLH4nm4
Someone please inform him.
by Xander
It’s going to take a lot more than what this article produces to excuse Heisenberg from the discussion.
“However, there were still hurdles to clear as their idea effectively required a small quantum computer, which is difficult to build.”
That quote implies that measuring the disturbance and quantifying it is possible; which is fine. It does not imply that measurements do not affect the system being measured. There are decades of research and application of physics that hinge on the validity of HUP in order to work. But I only state that with a certain level of certainty.
by DrDubious
So they figured out how to tare a scale? What’s so new about that?
by Aaron
Very interesting. We’re makinng a lot of strides in quantum mechanics. The clearer the science gets, the sooner we’ll see useful, real-world applications that everyone can enjoy.
by andmar74
Sure, there is full access to the article, but who can understand it ?
by Brett
I’m just a retired welder. Please excuse my ignorance but what does this mean for the cat?
by Editor
I was going to reply, but I was of two minds — no, scratch that … Hey, ever think about converting your welding helmet into a stereo EyeTap? I hear there’s a big market for them in French fast-food joints: http://www.kurzweilai.net/an-state-of-the-art-augmented-reality-helmet
by cscouten
For a retired welder you came up with Schrodinger’s cat very neatly.
by Marcos Marin
heh, finally, out of the myriad ways to easily prove it wrong one would think it should have been so much earlier. Though only after Gödel is properly attacked I will consider regaining any respect for earthlings.
by Editor
Yes, the attacks have been strangely, ah, incomplete
by Marcos Marin
hahaha… yes, and self referential. :-)
by egore
Marcos speak with crooked finger.
by Marcos Marin
Sorry, your sentence did not compile. Since English is not my native language (I speak binary) I shall grant you the benefit of the doubt and consider a few possible meanings for your idiomatic expression:
Did you mean: (Google(C))
1) Literal? sorry, I’m EXTREMELY healthy; [you missed an S]
2) Metaphorical? sorry, I’m EXTREMELY amused by my own speakingS; [you missed an S]
3) the/a Mafious? sorry, Gödel is already dead :-( I would gladly oblige though if I wasn’t so young. He sure deserved it for bamboozling so many mathematicians for the best of the century with an, granted, amazing sophism; [you missed the capitalization]
4) digitus tertius? sure, the head of the organization always has something more interesting to say. [you actually wrote it correctly under this semantics, kudos!]
Again, sorry if I missed any meaning, think of me as a Watson of sorts :) Those were my top 4 probabilities and we all realize how amusing Watson can be when calculating those =) so I hope you are laughing too…
by SmartAndSober
People like you should contribute to ArXiv.org.
Please do so now.
by XK
Why would anyone want to attack Gödel?
by B. DiPaolo
I didn’t know polarization was one of the properties subject to the uncertainty principle. (Not implying it isnt; just admitting my ignorance.) What is its conjugate variable? The article is unclear. What are the ” two forms of polarization, X and Z”?
by Editor
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1208.0034v2.pdf (open access) has the full details.
by Marcos Marin
itself?
by Kim
Clockwise and anti-clockwise polarization as well.
Next time you go to the cinema and watch a 3d movie look at your self in the mirror while wearing the glasses (which are polarized in this manner). Clockwise polarization is mirrored on reflection unlike horizontal or vertical. So if you close the left eye, the right eye will not be able to see back through the right eye piece but will see through the left in the reflection of the mirror if that makes sense.
Very cool stuff.