pith. sign in

arxiv: 2504.20404 · v5 · pith:IQDOS65Hnew · submitted 2025-04-29 · 🪐 quant-ph · cond-mat.stat-mech· hep-th· math-ph· math.MP

Beyond Robertson-Schr\"odinger: A General Uncertainty Relation Unveiling Hidden Noncommutative Trade-offs

Gen Kimura , Aina Mayumi , Hiromichi Ohno , Jaeha Lee , Dariusz Chru\'sci\'nski This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-22 19:16 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph cond-mat.stat-mechhep-thmath-phmath.MP
keywords uncertainty relationRobertson-Schrödingernoncommutativitycommutatormixed statestwo-level systemsquantum variance
0
0 comments X

The pith

The Robertson-Schrödinger uncertainty relation can be strengthened by adding the expectation value of the squared modulus of the commutator, becoming an exact equality for any state in two-level systems.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper establishes an improved version of the Robertson-Schrödinger uncertainty relation that adds a previously missing term arising from noncommutativity. This term takes the form of the expectation value of a positive observable built from the squared modulus of the commutator and grows larger as the state becomes more mixed. A sympathetic reader would care because the addition keeps the bound experimentally accessible while delivering a stricter lower limit on the product of variances. For two-level systems the new relation holds with equality for every state and every pair of observables. It also supplies a full proof of a general uncertainty bound that earlier work had only supported with numerical checks.

Core claim

The central claim is that the Robertson-Schrödinger lower bound on the product of variances can be supplemented by a new noncommutativity-induced term expressed as the expectation value of the squared modulus of the commutator. This term captures an overlooked quantum contribution that becomes more pronounced for mixed states. In two-level systems the supplemented relation turns into an exact equality that holds for any state and any pair of observables. As a corollary the construction supplies a rigorous proof of a broader uncertainty bound previously known only from numerical evidence.

What carries the argument

the expectation value of the squared modulus of the commutator, which adds a positive, state-dependent correction to the standard Robertson-Schrödinger lower bound

If this is right

  • The product of variances is bounded more tightly than by the original Robertson-Schrödinger expression for any mixed state.
  • In two-level systems the bound is saturated for every quantum state and every pair of observables.
  • A general uncertainty relation previously supported only numerically now receives a complete algebraic proof.
  • The new term remains an expectation value of an observable and therefore stays directly measurable in the laboratory.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same algebraic construction might be extended to derive sharpened bounds involving three or more observables.
  • Experimental tests in qutrit systems could quantify how much the extra term improves the bound as dimension increases.
  • The approach could be applied to time-energy uncertainty relations where mixed-state effects are often prominent.

Load-bearing premise

The extra term arises strictly from the algebraic properties of the commutator and requires no state-dependent fitting or post-selection when applied to general mixed states.

What would settle it

Direct computation of both sides of the proposed relation for a specific mixed state of a three-level system; if the measured variance product falls below the new lower bound, the claim is refuted.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.20404 by Aina Mayumi, Dariusz Chru\'sci\'nski, Gen Kimura, Hiromichi Ohno, Jaeha Lee.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: The averaged bounds given by the Robertson (Brown, DotDashed), Schr¨odinger [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_1.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We report a universal improvement to the standard Robertson--Schr\"odinger uncertainty relation. Our result shows that the Robertson--Schr\"odinger lower bound can be supplemented by a new noncommutativity-induced term. This term represents a previously overlooked quantum contribution and becomes more pronounced as the state becomes more mixed. Moreover, it is expressed as the expectation value of a positive observable, namely the squared modulus of the commutator, and therefore preserves the direct, experimentally accessible character of the Robertson--Schr\"odinger relation. For two-level quantum systems, our relation becomes an \emph{exact equality} for \emph{any} state and \emph{any} pair of observables, thereby ensuring the tightness of the bound in the strongest possible sense. The relation also yields, as a corollary, a complete proof of a general uncertainty bound that had previously been supported only by numerical evidence.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

0 major / 3 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a strengthened form of the Robertson-Schrödinger uncertainty relation obtained by supplementing the standard lower bound with an additional positive term given by the expectation value of the squared modulus of the commutator operator. The authors derive this term via direct algebraic expansion from the definitions of variance and the commutator, using the positivity of the operator C†C with C = [A, B]. For two-level systems the relation is claimed to hold as an exact equality for arbitrary states and arbitrary observables; as a corollary the authors supply a rigorous proof of a general uncertainty bound previously supported only by numerical evidence.

Significance. If the central derivation holds, the result is significant because it identifies a previously overlooked, noncommutativity-induced contribution that is experimentally accessible and grows with mixedness. The exact saturation for qubits is a strong feature that guarantees tightness without additional assumptions. The algebraic character of the proof, free of fitting parameters or post-selection, together with the resolution of the prior numerical bound, constitutes a clear advance in the study of uncertainty relations.

minor comments (3)
  1. The abstract and introduction should explicitly reference the original Robertson-Schrödinger paper and the specific numerical evidence that the corollary now proves rigorously.
  2. A short remark on the behavior of the new term when the state approaches a pure state (where it may vanish) versus highly mixed states would improve readability without altering the technical content.
  3. Notation for the 'squared modulus of the commutator' is introduced in the abstract; a single clarifying sentence in §2 linking it to the operator C†C would prevent any ambiguity for readers.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

0 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the positive and accurate summary of our manuscript, as well as for recommending minor revision. The referee correctly identifies the central algebraic derivation, the exact saturation for qubits, and the resolution of the previously numerical bound. We appreciate the recognition of the result's significance, particularly its experimental accessibility and the noncommutativity-induced term that grows with mixedness.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

Derivation is algebraic from definitions and self-contained

full rationale

The claimed improvement follows from expanding the standard variance expressions and invoking positivity of the operator |[A,B]|^2 (i.e., C†C with C=[A,B]). For two-level systems the equality is an identity forced by the four-dimensional Pauli algebra acting on any density operator. No parameter fitting, state-dependent post-selection, or load-bearing self-citation appears in the derivation chain; the corollary proof replaces prior numerical evidence with an explicit algebraic argument. The result is therefore independent of its own inputs.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The result rests on standard quantum-mechanical operator algebra and positivity of the squared commutator modulus; no free parameters, new entities, or ad-hoc axioms are mentioned in the abstract.

axioms (1)
  • standard math Standard properties of commutators and expectation values in quantum mechanics hold for any state and any pair of observables.
    Invoked implicitly when defining the new term as expectation value of squared commutator modulus.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5719 in / 1306 out tokens · 25615 ms · 2026-05-22T19:16:14.200180+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

98 extracted references · 98 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    Heisenberg

    W. Heisenberg. ¨Uber den anschaulichen Inhalt der quantentheoretischen Kinematik und Mechanik.Zeitschrift f¨ ur Physik, 43(3):172–198, March 1927

    work page 1927

  2. [2]

    Werner Karl Heisenberg.Die physikalischen Prinzipien der Quantentheorie. S. Hirzel Verlag, Leipzig, 1930

    work page 1930

  3. [3]

    E. H. Kennard. Zur Quantenmechanik einfacher Bewegungstypen.Zeitschrift f¨ ur Physik, 44:326, 1927

    work page 1927

  4. [4]

    Hirzel, Leipzig, 1928

    Hermann Weyl.Gruppentheorie und Quantenmechanik. Hirzel, Leipzig, 1928. English translation: The Theory of Groups and Quantum Mechanics, translated by H.P. Robertson, Dover Publications, New York, 1931

    work page 1928

  5. [5]

    H. P. Robertson. The uncertainty principle.Physical Review, 34:163, 1929

    work page 1929

  6. [6]

    Arthurs and M

    E. Arthurs and M. S. Goodman. Quantum Correlations: A Generalized Heisenberg Uncertainty Relation.Phys. Rev. Lett., 60(24):2447–2449, 6 1988

    work page 1988

  7. [7]

    Uncertainty relations for noise and disturbance in generalized quan- tum measurements.Annals of Physics, 311(2):350–416, 2004

    Masanao Ozawa. Uncertainty relations for noise and disturbance in generalized quan- tum measurements.Annals of Physics, 311(2):350–416, 2004

    work page 2004

  8. [8]

    Reinhard F. Werner. The uncertainty relation for joint measurement of position and momentum.Quant. Inf. Comput., 4(6–7):546–562, 2004

    work page 2004

  9. [9]

    Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle

    Paul Busch, Teiko Heinonen, and Pekka Lahti. Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle. Physics Reports, 452(6):155–176, 2007

    work page 2007

  10. [10]

    Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle for si- multaneous measurement of positive-operator-valued measures.Phys

    Takayuki Miyadera and Hideki Imai. Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle for si- multaneous measurement of positive-operator-valued measures.Phys. Rev. A, 78(5):052119, 11 2008

    work page 2008

  11. [11]

    Uncertainty relation revisited from quantum estimation theory.Phys

    Yu Watanabe, Takahiro Sagawa, and Masahito Ueda. Uncertainty relation revisited from quantum estimation theory.Phys. Rev. A, 84(4):042121, 10 2011

    work page 2011

  12. [12]

    Error-tradeoff and error-disturbance relations for incompatible quantum measurements.PNAS, 110(17):6742–6747, 2013

    Cyril Branciard. Error-tradeoff and error-disturbance relations for incompatible quantum measurements.PNAS, 110(17):6742–6747, 2013. 16

    work page 2013

  13. [13]

    A universal formulation of uncertainty relation for errors.Phys

    Lee Jaeha and Tsutsui Izumi. A universal formulation of uncertainty relation for errors.Phys. Lett. A, 526:129962, 2024

    work page 2024

  14. [14]

    Zum heisenbergschen unsch¨ arfeprinzip.Sitzungsberichte der Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Physikalisch-mathematische Klasse, 14:296–303, 1930

    Erwin Schr¨ odinger. Zum heisenbergschen unsch¨ arfeprinzip.Sitzungsberichte der Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Physikalisch-mathematische Klasse, 14:296–303, 1930

    work page 1930

  15. [15]

    Lorenzo Maccone and Arun K. Pati. Stronger uncertainty relations for all incompat- ible observables.Phys. Rev. Lett., 113:260401, Dec 2014

    work page 2014

  16. [16]

    Experimental investigation of the stronger uncertainty relations for all incompatible observables.Phys

    Kunkun Wang, Xiang Zhan, Zhihao Bian, Jian Li, Yongsheng Zhang, and Peng Xue. Experimental investigation of the stronger uncertainty relations for all incompatible observables.Phys. Rev. A, 93:052108, May 2016

    work page 2016

  17. [17]

    Stronger Schr¨ odinger-like uncertainty rela- tions.Physics Letters A, 380(37):2925–2930, 2016

    Qiu Cheng Song and Cong Feng Qiao. Stronger Schr¨ odinger-like uncertainty rela- tions.Physics Letters A, 380(37):2925–2930, 2016

    work page 2016

  18. [18]

    Stronger uncertainty relations of mixed states.Quantum Information Processing, 19(8):256, 2020

    Yajing Fan, Huaixin Cao, Liang Chen, and Huixian Meng. Stronger uncertainty relations of mixed states.Quantum Information Processing, 19(8):256, 2020

    work page 2020

  19. [19]

    Variance-based uncertainty relations.Phys

    Yichen Huang. Variance-based uncertainty relations.Phys. Rev. A, 86:024101, Aug 2012

    work page 2012

  20. [20]

    Heisenberg uncertainty relation for mixed states.Phys

    Shunlong Luo. Heisenberg uncertainty relation for mixed states.Phys. Rev. A, 72:042110, Oct 2005

    work page 2005

  21. [21]

    Y. M. Park. Improvement of uncertainty relations for mixed states.Journal of Mathematical Physics, 46(4):042109, 2005

    work page 2005

  22. [22]

    Wigner and Masami M

    Eugene P. Wigner and Masami M. Yanase. Information contents of distributions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 49(6):910–918, 1963

    work page 1963

  23. [23]

    Reformulating the quantum uncertainty relation

    Jun Li Li and Cong Feng Qiao. Reformulating the quantum uncertainty relation. Scientific Reports, 5(1):12708, 2015

    work page 2015

  24. [24]

    On Quantum Uncertainty Relations and Uncertainty Regions

    Paul Busch and Oliver Reardon Smith. On quantum uncertainty relations and un- certainty regions.arXiv preprint arXiv:1901.03695 [quant-ph], 2019

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1901

  25. [25]

    Uncertainty regions of observables and state-independent uncertainty relations.Quantum Information Pro- cessing, 20(11):357, October 2021

    Lin Zhang, Shunlong Luo, Shao Ming Fei, and Junde Wu. Uncertainty regions of observables and state-independent uncertainty relations.Quantum Information Pro- cessing, 20(11):357, October 2021

    work page 2021

  26. [26]

    Abbott, Pierre-Louis Alzieu, Michael J

    Alastair A. Abbott, Pierre-Louis Alzieu, Michael J. W. Hall, and Cyril Branciard. Tight state-independent uncertainty relations for qubits.Mathematics, 4(1), 2016

    work page 2016

  27. [27]

    Unified and Exact Framework for Variance-Based Uncertainty Relations.Scientific Reports, 10(1):150, 2020

    Xiao Zheng, Shao-Qiang Ma, Guo-Feng Zhang, Heng Fan, and Wu-Ming Liu. Unified and Exact Framework for Variance-Based Uncertainty Relations.Scientific Reports, 10(1):150, 2020

    work page 2020

  28. [28]

    S. Mal, T. Pramanik, and A. S. Majumdar. Detecting mixedness of qutrit systems using the uncertainty relation.Phys. Rev. A, 87:012105, Jan 2013. 17

    work page 2013

  29. [29]

    Variance-based uncertainty relation for incompat- ible observers.Quantum Information Processing, 16:167, 2017

    Xiao Zheng and Guo-Feng Zhang. Variance-based uncertainty relation for incompat- ible observers.Quantum Information Processing, 16:167, 2017

    work page 2017

  30. [30]

    Michael J. W. Hall. Exact uncertainty relations.Phys. Rev. A, 64:052103, Oct 2001

    work page 2001

  31. [31]

    Uncertainty in quantum measurements.Phys

    David Deutsch. Uncertainty in quantum measurements.Phys. Rev. Lett., 50:631–633, Feb 1983

    work page 1983

  32. [32]

    Hans Maassen and J. B. M. Uffink. Generalized entropic uncertainty relations.Phys. Rev. Lett., 60:1103–1106, Mar 1988

    work page 1988

  33. [33]

    K. Kraus. Complementary observables and uncertainty relations.Physical Review D, 35:3070–3075, 1987

    work page 1987

  34. [34]

    Renes, and Renato Renner

    Mario Berta, Matthias Christandl, Roger Colbeck, Joseph M. Renes, and Renato Renner. The uncertainty principle in the presence of quantum memory.Nature Physics, 6(9):659–662, September 2010

    work page 2010

  35. [35]

    Coles, Mario Berta, Marco Tomamichel, and Stephanie Wehner

    Patrick J. Coles, Mario Berta, Marco Tomamichel, and Stephanie Wehner. Entropic uncertainty relations and their applications.Rev. Mod. Phys., 89:015002, Feb 2017

    work page 2017

  36. [36]

    Michael J. W. Hall. Asymmetry and tighter uncertainty relations for r´ enyi en- tropies via quantum-classical decompositions of resource measures.Phys. Rev. A, 107:062215, Jun 2023

    work page 2023

  37. [37]

    On skew information.IEEE Transactions on In- formation Theory, 50(8):1778–1782, 2004

    Shunlong Luo and Qiang Zhang. On skew information.IEEE Transactions on In- formation Theory, 50(8):1778–1782, 2004

    work page 2004

  38. [38]

    Yanagi, S

    K. Yanagi, S. Furuichi, and K. Kuriyama. A generalized skew information and un- certainty relation.IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 51:4401–4404, 2005

    work page 2005

  39. [39]

    on skew information

    S. Luo and Q. Zhang. Correction to “on skew information”.IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 51(12):4432–4432, 2005

    work page 2005

  40. [40]

    H. Kosaki. Matrix trace inequality related to uncertainty principle.International Journal of Mathematics, 16:629–646, 2005

    work page 2005

  41. [41]

    D. Li, X. Li, F. Wang, H. Huang, X. Li, and L. C. Kwek. Uncertainty relation of mixed states by means of Wigner–Yanase–Dyson information.Physical Review A, 79:052106–1–052106–4, 2009

    work page 2009

  42. [42]

    Furuichi, K

    S. Furuichi, K. Yanagi, and K. Kuriyama. Trace inequalities on a generalized Wigner–Yanase skew information.Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applica- tions, 356(1):179–185, 2009

    work page 2009

  43. [43]

    Uncertainty relation on Wigner–Yanase–Dyson skew information

    Kenjiro Yanagi. Uncertainty relation on Wigner–Yanase–Dyson skew information. Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications, 365(1):12–18, May 2010

    work page 2010

  44. [44]

    Sum uncertainty relations based on Wigner–Yanase skew information.Quantum Information Processing, 15(6):2639– 2648, June 2016

    Bin Chen, Shao Ming Fei, and Gui Lu Long. Sum uncertainty relations based on Wigner–Yanase skew information.Quantum Information Processing, 15(6):2639– 2648, June 2016

    work page 2016

  45. [45]

    H. J. Landau and H. O. Pollak. Prolate spheroidal wave functions, fourier analysis and uncertainty — ii.The Bell System Technical Journal, 40(1):65–84, 1961. 18

    work page 1961

  46. [46]

    Generalized Landau-Pollak uncertainty relation

    Takayuki Miyadera and Hideki Imai. Generalized Landau-Pollak uncertainty relation. Phys. Rev. A, 76:062108, Dec 2007

    work page 2007

  47. [47]

    Uncertainty principle and quantum Fisher in- formation.Annals of the Institute of Statistical Mathematics, 59(1):147–159, March 2007

    Paolo Gibilisco and Tommaso Isola. Uncertainty principle and quantum Fisher in- formation.Annals of the Institute of Statistical Mathematics, 59(1):147–159, March 2007

    work page 2007

  48. [48]

    Tighter quantum uncertainty relations following from a general probabilistic bound.Phys

    Florian Fr¨ owis, Roman Schmied, and Nicolas Gisin. Tighter quantum uncertainty relations following from a general probabilistic bound.Phys. Rev. A, 92:012102, Jul 2015

    work page 2015

  49. [49]

    Improving sum uncertainty relations with the quantum Fisher information.Phys

    Shao Hen Chiew and Manuel Gessner. Improving sum uncertainty relations with the quantum Fisher information.Phys. Rev. Res., 4:013076, Jan 2022

    work page 2022

  50. [50]

    Uncertainty relations with the variance and the quantum Fisher information based on convex decompositions of density matrices

    G´ eza T´ oth and Florian Fr¨ owis. Uncertainty relations with the variance and the quantum Fisher information based on convex decompositions of density matrices. Phys. Rev. Res., 4:013075, Jan 2022

    work page 2022

  51. [51]

    Uncertainty relations for quantum coherence.Mathematics, 4(3), 2016

    Uttam Singh, Arun Kumar Pati, and Manabendra Nath Bera. Uncertainty relations for quantum coherence.Mathematics, 4(3), 2016

    work page 2016

  52. [52]

    Uncertainty-like relations of the relative entropy of coherence.Quantum Information Processing, 15(8):3459–3465, 2016

    Feng Liu, Fei Li, Jun Chen, and Wei Xing. Uncertainty-like relations of the relative entropy of coherence.Quantum Information Processing, 15(8):3459–3465, 2016

    work page 2016

  53. [53]

    Alexander Streltsov, Gerardo Adesso, and Martin B. Plenio. Colloquium: Quantum coherence as a resource.Rev. Mod. Phys., 89:041003, Oct 2017

    work page 2017

  54. [54]

    Quantum uncertainty relation using coherence.Phys

    Xiao Yuan, Ge Bai, Tianyi Peng, and Xiongfeng Ma. Quantum uncertainty relation using coherence.Phys. Rev. A, 96:032313, Sep 2017

    work page 2017

  55. [55]

    Rastegin

    Alexey E. Rastegin. Uncertainty relations for quantum coherence with respect to mutually unbiased bases.Frontiers of Physics, 13(1):130304, 2017

    work page 2017

  56. [56]

    Uncertainty relations for coherence.Communications in Theoretical Physics, 71(12):1443, dec 2019

    Shun Long Luo and Yuan Sun. Uncertainty relations for coherence.Communications in Theoretical Physics, 71(12):1443, dec 2019

    work page 2019

  57. [57]

    Springer, 1995

    Asher Peres.Quantum Theory: Concepts and Methods, volume 57 ofFundamental Theories of Physics. Springer, 1995

    work page 1995

  58. [58]

    Entropic uncertainty relations—a survey

    Stephanie Wehner and Andreas Winter. Entropic uncertainty relations—a survey. New Journal of Physics, 12(2):025009, feb 2010

    work page 2010

  59. [59]

    Theoretical and Mathematical Physics

    Paul Busch, Pekka Lahti, Juha-Pekka Pellonp¨ a¨ a, and Kari Ylinen.Quantum Mea- surement. Theoretical and Mathematical Physics. Springer, 2016

    work page 2016

  60. [60]

    The uncertainty principle.The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2024 Edition), 2024

    Jan Hilgevoord and Jos Uffink. The uncertainty principle.The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2024 Edition), 2024

    work page 2024

  61. [61]

    Uncertainty relations revisited.Physics Letters A, 494:129278, 2024

    Berthold-Georg Englert. Uncertainty relations revisited.Physics Letters A, 494:129278, 2024

    work page 2024

  62. [62]

    Uncer- tainty relations based on a state-dependent norm of a commutator.Phys

    Aina Mayumi, Gen Kimura, Hiromichi Ohno, and Dariusz Chru´ sci´ nski. Uncer- tainty relations based on a state-dependent norm of a commutator.Phys. Rev. A, 110:062215, Dec 2024. 19

    work page 2024

  63. [63]

    How big can the commutator of two matrices be and how big is it typically?Linear Algebra and its Applications, 403:216–228, 2005

    Albrecht B¨ ottcher and David Wenzel. How big can the commutator of two matrices be and how big is it typically?Linear Algebra and its Applications, 403:216–228, 2005

    work page 2005

  64. [64]

    B¨ ottcher- wenzel inequality for weighted frobenius norms and its application to quantum physics.Linear Algebra and its Applications, 700:35–49, 2024

    Aina Mayumi, Gen Kimura, Hiromichi Ohno, and Dariusz Chru´ sci´ nski. B¨ ottcher- wenzel inequality for weighted frobenius norms and its application to quantum physics.Linear Algebra and its Applications, 700:35–49, 2024

    work page 2024

  65. [65]

    S. W. Vong and X. Q. Jin. Proof of B¨ ottcher and Wenzel’s conjecture.Oper. Matrices, 2(3):435–442, 2008

    work page 2008

  66. [66]

    The frobenius norm and the commutator

    Albrecht B¨ ottcher and David Wenzel. The frobenius norm and the commutator. Linear Algebra and its Applications, 429(8):1864–1885, 2008

    work page 2008

  67. [67]

    K. M. R. Audenaert. Variance bounds, with an application to norm bounds for commutators.Linear Algebra Appl., 432(5):1126–1143, 2010

    work page 2010

  68. [68]

    J. J. Sakurai and Jim Napolitano.Modern Quantum Mechanics. Pearson, 2 edition, 2017

    work page 2017

  69. [69]

    Experimental test of tight state-independent preparation uncertainty relations for qubits.Phys

    Stephan Sponar, Armin Danner, Kazuma Obigane, Simon Hack, and Yuji Hasegawa. Experimental test of tight state-independent preparation uncertainty relations for qubits.Phys. Rev. A, 102:042204, Oct 2020

    work page 2020

  70. [70]

    Private communication

    Yuji Hasegawa. Private communication

    work page

  71. [71]

    Experimental test of uncertainty relations for general unitary operators.Opt

    Lei Xiao, Kunkun Wang, Xiang Zhan, Zhihao Bian, Jian Li, Yongsheng Zhang, Peng Xue, and Arun Kumar Pati. Experimental test of uncertainty relations for general unitary operators.Opt. Express, 25(15):17904–17910, Jul 2017

    work page 2017

  72. [72]

    D. J. Wineland, C. Monroe, W. M. Itano, D. Leibfried, B. E. King, and D. M. Meekhof. Experimental issues in coherent quantum-state manipulation of trapped atomic ions.Journal of Research of the National Institute of Standards and Technol- ogy, 103(3):259–328, 1998

    work page 1998

  73. [73]

    Schmidt-Kaler, S

    F. Schmidt-Kaler, S. Gulde, M. Riebe, T. Deuschle, A. Kreuter, G. Lancaster, C. Becher, J. Eschner, H. H¨ affner, and R. Blatt. The coherence of qubits based on single ca+ ions.Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics, 36(3):623, jan 2003

    work page 2003

  74. [74]

    A quantum information processor with trapped ions.New Journal of Physics, 15(12):123012, dec 2013

    Philipp Schindler, Daniel Nigg, Thomas Monz, Julio T Barreiro, Esteban Martinez, Shannon X Wang, Stephan Quint, Matthias F Brandl, Volckmar Nebendahl, Chris- tian F Roos, Michael Chwalla, Markus Hennrich, and Rainer Blatt. A quantum information processor with trapped ions.New Journal of Physics, 15(12):123012, dec 2013

    work page 2013

  75. [75]

    Toyoda, H

    K. Toyoda, H. Shiibara, S. Haze, R. Yamazaki, and S. Urabe. Experimental study of the coherence of a terahertz-separated metastable-state qubit in 40Ca+.Phys. Rev. A, 79:023419, Feb 2009

    work page 2009

  76. [76]

    J. A. Sherman, M. J. Curtis, D. J. Szwer, D. T. C. Allcock, G. Imreh, D. M. Lucas, and A. M. Steane. Experimental recovery of a qubit from partial collapse.Phys. Rev. Lett., 111:180501, Oct 2013. 20

    work page 2013

  77. [77]

    Campbell

    Anthony Ransford, Conrad Roman, Thomas Dellaert, Patrick McMillin, and Wes- ley C. Campbell. Weak dissipation for high-fidelity qubit-state preparation and mea- surement.Phys. Rev. A, 104:L060402, Dec 2021

    work page 2021

  78. [78]

    Sletten, John Gaebler, James Hostetter, and Grahame Vittorini

    Fangzhao Alex An, Anthony Ransford, Andrew Schaffer, Lucas R. Sletten, John Gaebler, James Hostetter, and Grahame Vittorini. High fidelity state preparation and measurement of ion hyperfine qubits withI≥ 1 2.Phys. Rev. Lett., 129:130501, Sep 2022

    work page 2022

  79. [79]

    Burgers, Guido Pupillo, Shruti Puri, and Jeff D

    Shuo Ma, Genyue Liu, Pai Peng, Bichen Zhang, Sven Jandura, Jahan Claes, Alex P. Burgers, Guido Pupillo, Shruti Puri, and Jeff D. Thompson. High-fidelity gates and mid-circuit erasure conversion in an atomic qubit.Nature, 622(7982):279–284, 2023

    work page 2023

  80. [80]

    Nakamura, Yu

    Y. Nakamura, Yu. A. Pashkin, and J. S. Tsai. Coherent control of macroscopic quantum states in a single-cooper-pair box.Nature, 398(6730):786–788, 1999

    work page 1999

Showing first 80 references.