Timing in quantum measurements of position and momentum

Physical Review A - Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics

Volumn 82, Issue 4, 2010, Pages

  Bußhardt, Michael ^a   Freyberger, Matthias ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ULM   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CONJUGATE VARIABLES; INTERACTION STRENGTH; MASSIVE PARTICLES; MEASUREMENT PROCESS; QUANTUM MEASUREMENT; QUANTUM PARTICLES; SIMULTANEOUS MEASUREMENT; TIME-DEPENDENT;

UNCERTAINTY ANALYSIS;

EID: 78650936245     PISSN: 10502947     EISSN: 10941622     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevA.82.042117     Document Type: Article

References (38)

1. W. Heisenberg, Z. Phys. EPJAFV 1434-6001 10.1007/BF01397280 43, 172 (1927).
2. E. Arthurs and J. L. Kelly Jr., Bell Syst. Tech. J. 44, 725 (1965).
3. C. Y. She and H. Heffner, Phys. Rev. PHRVAO 0031-899X 10.1103/PhysRev.152.1103 152, 1103 (1966).
4. M. G. Raymer, Am. J. Phys. AJPIAS 0002-9505 10.1119/1.17657 62, 986 (1994).
5. See the discussion in K. Camilleri, Heisenberg and the Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2009), Chap. 5.
6. W. K. Wootters and W. H. Zurek, Phys. Rev. D PRVDAQ 1550-7998 10.1103/PhysRevD.19.473 19, 473 (1979).
7. E. H. Kennard, Z. Phys. EPJAFV 1434-6001 10.1007/BF01391200 44, 326 (1927).
8. H. P. Robertson, Phys. Rev. PHRVAO 0031-899X 10.1103/PhysRev.34.163 34, 163 (1929).
9. Another early route toward simultaneous measurements has been taken in C. Y. She and H. Heffner, Phys. Rev. PHRVAO 0031-899X 10.1103/PhysRev.152.1103 152, 1103 (1966), where the knowledge about the postmeasurement state is maximized.
10. P. Busch, Int. J. Theor. Phys. IJTPBM 0020-7748 10.1007/BF00670074 24, 63 (1985).
11. R. Y. Levine and R. R. Tucci, Found. Phys. FNDPA4 0015-9018 10.1007/BF00734523 19, 161 (1989).
12. S. L. Braunstein, C. M. Caves, and G. J. Milburn, Phys. Rev. A PLRAAN 1050-2947 10.1103/PhysRevA.43.1153 43, 1153 (1991).
13. S. Stenholm, Ann. Phys. (NY) APNYA6 0003-4916 10.1016/0003-4916(92)90086- 2 218, 233 (1992).
14. P. Busch, M. Grabowski, and P. J. Lahti, Operational Quantum Physics (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1995).
15. P. Törmä, S. Stenholm, and I. Jex, Phys. Rev. A PLRAAN 1050-2947 10.1103/PhysRevA.52.4812 52, 4812 (1995).
16. P. Busch, T. Heinonen, and P. Lahti, Phys. Rep. PRPLCM 0370-1573 10.1016/j.physrep.2007.05.006 452, 155 (2007).
17. J. von Neumann, Mathematische Grundlagen der Quantenmechanik (Springer, Berlin, 1932).
18. The influence of the size of the measurement apparatus and of the existence of conservation laws limiting the measurement precission of a single observable in such a setup has been discussed in detail in the literature. See, for example, E. Wigner, Z. Phys. EPJAFV 1434-6001 10.1007/BF01948686 133, 101 (1952);
19. H. Araki and M. M. Yanase, Phys. Rev. PHRVAO 0031-899X 10.1103/PhysRev.120.622 120, 622 (1960);
20. M. Ozawa, Phys. Rev. Lett. PRLTAO 0031-9007 10.1103/PhysRevLett.67.1956 67, 1956 (1991).
21. E. Arthurs and M. S. Goodman, Phys. Rev. Lett. PRLTAO 0031-9007 10.1103/PhysRevLett.60.2447 60, 2447 (1988).
22. M. Ozawa, Phys. Lett. A PYLAAG 0375-9601 10.1016/j.physleta.2003.12.001 320, 367 (2004).
23. V. Bužek, C. H. Keitel, and P. L. Knight, Phys. Rev. A PLRAAN 1050-2947 10.1103/PhysRevA.51.2575 51, 2575 (1995);
24. V. Bužek, C. H. Keitel, and P. L. Knight, Phys. Rev. A 1050-2947 10.1103/PhysRevA.51.2594 51, 2594 (1995).
25. D. M. Appleby, J. Phys. A JPHAC5 0305-4470 10.1088/0305-4470/31/30/009 31, 6419 (1998).
26. R. F. Werner, in Quantum Information, Statistics and Probability, edited by, O. Hirota, (Rinton Press, Paramus, NJ, 2004), p. 153.
27. N. G. Walker and J. E. Carroll, Electron. Lett. ELLEAK 0013-5194 10.1049/el:19840668 20, 981 (1984);
28. N. G. Walker and J. E. Carroll, Opt. Quantum Electron. OQELDI 0306-8919 10.1007/BF02032562 18, 355 (1986);
29. N. G. Walker, J. Mod. Opt. JMOPEW 0950-0340 10.1080/09500348714550131 34, 15 (1987);
30. J. W. Noh, A. Fougères, and L. Mandel, Phys. Rev. Lett. PRLTAO 0031-9007 10.1103/PhysRevLett.67.1426 67, 1426 (1991).
31. W. L. Power, S. M. Tan, and M. Wilkens, J. Mod. Opt. 44, 2591 (1997).
32. A different aspect of dynamic behavior in the Arthurs and Kelly model has been described in C. M. Caves and G. J. Milburn, Phys. Rev. A PLRAAN 1050-2947 10.1103/PhysRevA.36.5543 36, 5543 (1987);
33. A. J. Scott and G. J. Milburn, Phys. Rev. A PLRAAN 1050-2947 10.1103/PhysRevA.63.042101 63, 042101 (2001).
34. There, a continuous monitoring is obtained by a sequence of pointlike interactions between system and pointers.
35. Another route was taken in Ref. [13], where a δ -peak interaction is assumed. This approach is, however, completely equivalent.
36. E. Schrödinger, Sitzungsber. Preuss. Akad. Wiss. 24, 296 (1930).
37. C. Cohen-Tannoudji, B. Diu, and F. Laloe, Quantum Mechanics (Wiley Interscience, New York, 1977).
38. Note that the feedback terms in Eqs. (18) and (21) are not a consequence of the quantum description of the model, but also emerge if the system and its pointers are assumed to be classical.