Parameterized Multi-observable Sum Uncertainty Relations
Abstract
The uncertainty principle is one of the fundamental features of quantum mechanics and plays an essential role in quantum information theory. We study uncertainty relations based on variance for arbitrary finite quantum observables. We establish a series of parameterized uncertainty relations in terms of the parameterized norm inequalities, which improve the exiting variance-based uncertainty relations. The lower bounds of our uncertainty inequalities are non-zero unless the measured state is a common eigenvector of all the observables. Detailed examples are provided to illustrate the tightness of our uncertainty relations.
I Introduction
The uncertainty principle is one of the cornerstones of quantum mechanics, which reveals the intrinsic differences between classical and quantum world. The uncertainty principle was firstly introduced by Heisenberg in 1927 Heisenberg (1927). It shows that if one measures the momentum of a particle with certainty, one can not measure its position with certainty at the same time. Since then a lot of research works have been dedicated to interpret the uncertainty relations via different forms, such as in terms of quantum variance Nielsen and Chuang (2002); Robertson (1929a); Schrödinger (1930); Maccone and Pati (2014); Kennard (1927); Schrödinger (1930); Robertson (1929b); Mondal et al. (2017); Chiew and Gessner (2022); Tóth and Fröwis (2022), entropy Maassen and Uffink (1988); Wu et al. (2009); Coles et al. (2017), noise and disturbance Busch et al. (2013), successive measurement Deutsch (1983); Distler and Paban (2013), majorization technique Puchała et al. (2013); Friedland et al. (2013), skew information Luo (2003); Zhang et al. (2021a); Zhang and Fei (2021); Ma et al. (2022) etc. These uncertainty relations play an important role in a wide range of applications such as entanglement detection Gühne (2004); Zhang and Fei (2020); Zhang et al. (2021b), quantum metrology Giovannetti et al. (2006), quantum steering Schneeloch et al. (2013), quantum gravity Hall (2005) and quantum cryptography Fuchs and Peres (1996).
Robertson Robertson (1929a) generalized the variance-based uncertainty relation for position and momentum to any two observables and ,
(1) |
where stands for the standard deviation of the observable with respect to a fixed state and represents the commutator of the observables and . Eq. (1) was later improved by Schrödinger Schrödinger (1930),
(2) |
Here, the lower bounds of the inequalities (1) and (2) may vanish even if the observables and are not commutative. For instance, when the measured state is an eigenvector of either or , the right hands of the inequality (1) and (2) are trivially zero. To overcome the flaw, uncertainty relations with respect to the sum of variances have been presented by Maccone and Pati Maccone and Pati (2014),
(3) | ||||
(4) |
where the signs on the right-hand side of (3) are taken so that the is positive, satisfies . The lower bound in (3) is nonzero for most choices of if and are not commutative.
Besides the variance-based uncertainty relations with respect to pairs of non-commutative observables, the uncertainty relations related to three non-commutative observables such as the three components of spins and angular momentums Kechrimparis and Weigert (2014); Dammeier et al. (2015); Ma et al. (2017) have been also investigated. The variance-based uncertainty relations for general multiple observables have been further studied either in summation form Chen et al. (2016); Chen and Fei (2015); Chen et al. (2019) or in product form Qin et al. (2016); Xiao and Jing (2016). For instance, Song derived an elegant variance-based uncertainty relation in Song et al. (2017),
(5) |
Recently, based on the inequalities of vector norm, Zhang Zhang et al. (2023) proposed an improved variance-based sum uncertainty relation for arbitrary incompatible observables,
(6) | ||||
This paper is aimed to improve these uncertainty relations for arbitrary observables. Motivated by the skew information-based uncertainty relations proposed in Zhang et al. (2023) and Li et al. (2022), we combine the parameterized parallelogram law of vector norm with Cauchy-Schwarz inequality to improve the lower bounds of uncertainty relations for observables.
II uncertainty relations via variance
Denote the Hilbert space with dimension. Let be a rectangular matrix with entries . The vectorization of is given by the vector with denoting the transpose. It is verified that for any matrix and identity in suitable size. The quantum variance of any quantum state on with respect to an observable is defined by
(7) | ||||
where is the identity operator in , , denotes the vectorization of and the -norm of a vector. Especially, when the quantum state is pure, that is , one has . By using the parallelogram law of vector -norm,
(8) |
for a set of vectors , , we have the following uncertainty relation.
Theorem 1
For arbitrary observables , the following variance-based sum uncertainty relation holds for any quantum state ,
(9) | ||||
where is any non-negative real number.
[Proof] For all and , the following parameterized parallelogram equality holds for -norm of any vectors ,
(10) | ||||
Using the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality,
(11) |
we obtain
(12) | ||||
Set and . We have
(13) | ||||
Namely, .
Theorem 1 provides a series of uncertainty relations depending on the values of the parameter . We can obtain more stringent bound on the uncertainty relations by selecting the optimal parameters . The uncertainty relations (6) is a special case of Theorem 1 corresponding to . Note that the lower bound of Theorem 1 is non-zero unless the measured state is a common eigenvector of all . That is to say, no matter whether the observables are commutable or not, the lower bound of Theorem 1 does not vanish if is not a common eigenvector of all observables.
In fact, the lower bound in Theorem 1 should be understood under the permutation of the observables. Let be an arbitrary -element permutation. Define
(14) | ||||
The following variance-based uncertainty relation under the element permutation of all observables holds,
(15) |
According to the following equalities,
(16) |
and
(17) |
one has Li et al. (2022),
(18) | ||||
where both are arbitrary real numbers.
Theorem 2
Let be arbitrary observables. For any quantum state , we have the following uncertainty relation satisfied by quantum variances,
(19) |
where
(20) | ||||
and
(21) | ||||
for ,
(22) | ||||
for .
[Proof] For all , by using (18) and the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality (11), we get
(23) | ||||
and
(24) | ||||
When , due to , we obtain
(25) | ||||
Substituting and into the inequalities (23)-(25), we complete the proof.
In Theorem 2 we note that, for a given amount of observables , the larger and the smaller mean larger and given by (20) and (22), respectively. Nevertheless, the larger and the smaller correspond to larger given by (21). If one takes in Theorem 2, the lower bound of Theorem 2 is coincident to that of (6). If one respectively takes for X and for Y, the lower bound of Theorem 2 is tighter than that of (6). In Li et al. (2022), Li proved that (23) and (24) are strictly tighter than those of norm inequalities related to (5) and (6) for appropriate and .
In particular, when one takes and for (20), and for (21) and (22), then , and respectively reduce to
(26) | ||||
(27) | ||||
(28) | ||||
For convenience, we consider the above special scenario of Theorem 2 in following concrete examples. We compare the lower bounds and respectively given in Theorem 1 and 2 with the ones given in (5) and (6).
Example 1 Consider the qubit mixed state given by Bloch vector ,
(29) |
where the components of the vector are the standard Pauli matrices, is identity matrix. We choose Pauli matrices , and as the observables , and , respectively.
As shown in Fig. 1, we can obtain more stringent bound on the uncertainty relations in most choices of parameter . Especially, set in Theorem 1, the results are shown in Fig. 1. Obviously, the lower bounds LB1 and LB2 are strictly tighter than the bounds of (5) and (6) in this case. In fact, our lower bonds depend on both the parameter and the given set of observables. Generally it is difficult to find an analytical relation among the optimal lower bonds, the parameter and the arbitrary set of observables. To illustrate their relationships, we consider two fixed states with and to show how our lower bounds change with the , see Fig. 1 and Fig. 1.




Example 2 Consider the following class of quantum states given by convex combination of the maximally entangled state and the maximally mixed state,
(30) |
with and . Consider two-qubit case () and take , and as the observables , and , respectively.
As shown in Fig. 2, we can obtain more stringent bound on the uncertainty relations by selecting the appropriate parameter . For comparison, set in Theorem 1, the results are shown in Fig. 2, the comparison among our bounds, Song and Zhang ’s lower bounds is depicted in Fig. 2.


Example 3 Consider the following pure state of spin-1 system,
(31) |
where and . We respectively take , and as the observables and , where and are the angular momentum operators ():
(32) |
Set . We show in Fig. 3 the comparison among our lower bounds of Theorem 1 and Theorem 2, and those of (5) and (6). In this scenario, it is easily seen that our bounds are tighter than others by selecting the appropriate parameter .


III Conclusion
We have studied tighter variance-based sum uncertainty relations for arbitrary observables. By employing the parameterized norm identities and Cauchy-Schwarz inequalities we have derived more general and tighter sum uncertainty relations. Furthermore, we have showed that the bounds of our uncertainty relations are tighter than the existing variance-based uncertainty ones. These results and the simple approaches used in this article may highlight further investigations on related uncertainty relations.
Acknowledgments This work is supported by NSFC (Grant Nos. 12075159, 12171044), Beijing Natural Science Foundation (Z190005) and the Academician Innovation Platform of Hainan Province.
Data availability Data sharing not applicable to this article as no data sets were generated or analyzed during the current study.
References
- Heisenberg (1927) W. Heisenberg, Zeitschrift für Physik 43, 198 (1927).
- Nielsen and Chuang (2002) M. A. Nielsen and I. Chuang, Quantum computation and quantum information (2002).
- Robertson (1929a) H. P. Robertson, Phys. Rev. 34, 163 (1929a).
- Schrödinger (1930) E. Schrödinger, Acad. Wiss p. 296 (1930).
- Maccone and Pati (2014) L. Maccone and A. K. Pati, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 260401 (2014).
- Kennard (1927) E. H. Kennard, Zeitschrift für Physik 44, 326 (1927).
- Schrödinger (1930) E. Schrödinger, Sitzungsberichte der Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Physikalisch-mathematische Klasse 14, 296 (1930).
- Robertson (1929b) H. P. Robertson, Phys. Rev. 34, 163 (1929b).
- Mondal et al. (2017) D. Mondal, S. Bagchi, and A. K. Pati, Physical Review A 95, 052117 (2017).
- Chiew and Gessner (2022) S.-H. Chiew and M. Gessner, Phys. Rev. Research 4, 013076 (2022).
- Tóth and Fröwis (2022) G. Tóth and F. Fröwis, Phys. Rev. Research 4, 013075 (2022).
- Maassen and Uffink (1988) H. Maassen and J. B. M. Uffink, Phys. Rev. Lett. 60, 1103 (1988).
- Wu et al. (2009) S. Wu, S. Yu, and K. Mølmer, Phys. Rev. A 79, 022104 (2009).
- Coles et al. (2017) P. J. Coles, M. Berta, M. Tomamichel, and S. Wehner, Rev. Mod. Phys. 89, 015002 (2017).
- Busch et al. (2013) P. Busch, P. Lahti, and R. F. Werner, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 160405 (2013).
- Deutsch (1983) D. Deutsch, Phys. Rev. Lett. 50, 631 (1983).
- Distler and Paban (2013) J. Distler and S. Paban, Phys. Rev. A 87, 062112 (2013).
- Puchała et al. (2013) Z. Puchała, Ł. Rudnicki, and K. Życzkowski, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical 46, 272002 (2013).
- Friedland et al. (2013) S. Friedland, V. Gheorghiu, and G. Gour, Physical review letters 111, 230401 (2013).
- Luo (2003) S. Luo, Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 180403 (2003).
- Zhang et al. (2021a) Q.-H. Zhang, J.-F. Wu, and S.-M. Fei, Laser Physics Letters 18, 095204 (2021a).
- Zhang and Fei (2021) Q.-H. Zhang and S.-M. Fei, Quantum Information Processing 20, 1 (2021).
- Ma et al. (2022) X. Ma, Q.-H. Zhang, and S.-M. Fei, Laser Physics Letters 19, 055205 (2022).
- Gühne (2004) O. Gühne, Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 117903 (2004).
- Zhang and Fei (2020) Q.-H. Zhang and S.-M. Fei, Laser Physics Letters 17, 065202 (2020).
- Zhang et al. (2021b) J.-B. Zhang, T. Li, Q.-H. Zhang, S.-M. Fei, and Z.-X. Wang, Scientific reports 11, 1 (2021b).
- Giovannetti et al. (2006) V. Giovannetti, S. Lloyd, and L. Maccone, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 010401 (2006).
- Schneeloch et al. (2013) J. Schneeloch, C. J. Broadbent, S. P. Walborn, E. G. Cavalcanti, and J. C. Howell, Phys. Rev. A 87, 062103 (2013).
- Hall (2005) M. J. Hall, General Relativity and Gravitation 37, 1505 (2005).
- Fuchs and Peres (1996) C. A. Fuchs and A. Peres, Phys. Rev. A 53, 2038 (1996).
- Kechrimparis and Weigert (2014) S. Kechrimparis and S. Weigert, Physical Review A 90, 062118 (2014).
- Dammeier et al. (2015) L. Dammeier, R. Schwonnek, and R. F. Werner, New Journal of Physics 17, 093046 (2015).
- Ma et al. (2017) W. Ma, B. Chen, Y. Liu, M. Wang, X. Ye, F. Kong, F. Shi, S.-M. Fei, and J. Du, Physical Review Letters 118, 180402 (2017).
- Chen et al. (2016) B. Chen, N.-P. Cao, S.-M. Fei, and G.-L. Long, Quantum Information Processing 15, 3909 (2016).
- Chen and Fei (2015) B. Chen and S.-M. Fei, Scientific reports 5, 1 (2015).
- Chen et al. (2019) Z.-X. Chen, H. Wang, J.-L. Li, Q.-C. Song, and C.-F. Qiao, Scientific Reports 9, 1 (2019).
- Qin et al. (2016) H.-H. Qin, S.-M. Fei, and X. Li-Jost, Scientific Reports 6, 1 (2016).
- Xiao and Jing (2016) Y. Xiao and N. Jing, Scientific Reports 6, 1 (2016).
- Song et al. (2017) Q.-C. Song, J.-L. Li, G.-X. Peng, and C.-F. Qiao, Scientific Reports 7, 1 (2017).
- Zhang et al. (2023) Q.-H. Zhang, J.-F. Wu, X. Ma, and S.-M. Fei, Quantum Information Processing 22, 1 (2023).
- Li et al. (2022) H. Li, T. Gao, and F. Yan, Physica Scripta 98, 015024 (2022).