Researchers at the University of Rochester and the University of Ottawa have applied a recently developed technique to directly measure for the first time the polarization states of light. Their work both overcomes some important challenges of Heisenberg's famous Uncertainty Principle and also is applicable to qubits, the building blocks of quantum information theory.

They report their results in a paper published this week in *Nature Photonics*.

The direct measurement technique was first developed in 2011 by scientists at the National Research Council, Canada, to measure the wavefunction – a way of determining the state of a quantum system.

Such direct measurements of the wavefunction had long seemed impossible because of a key tenet of the uncertainty principle – the idea that certain properties of a quantum system could be known only poorly if certain other related properties were known with precision. The ability to make these measurements directly challenges the idea that full understanding of a quantum system could never come from direct observation.

The Rochester/Ottawa researchers, led by Robert Boyd, who has appointments at both universities, measured the polarization states of light - the directions in which the electric and magnetic fields of the light oscillate. Their key result, like that of the team that pioneered direct measurement, is that it is possible to measure key related variables, known as "conjugate" variables, of a quantum particle or state directly. The polarization states of light can be used to encode information, which is why they can be the basis of qubits in quantum information applications.

"The ability to perform direct measurement of the quantum wavefunction has important future implications for quantum information science," explained Boyd, Canada Excellence Research Chair in Quantum Nonlinear Optics at the University of Ottawa and Professor of Optics and Physics at the University of Rochester. "Ongoing work in our group involves applying this technique to other systems, for example, measuring the form of a "mixed" (as opposed to a pure) quantum state."

Previously, a technique called quantum tomography has allowed researchers to measure the information contained in these quantum states, but only indirectly. Quantum tomography requires intensive post-processing of the data, and this is a time-consuming process that is not required in the direct measurement technique. Thus, in principle, the new technique provides the same information as quantum tomography but in significantly less time.

"The key to characterizing any quantum system is gathering information about conjugate variables," said co-author Jonathan Leach, who is now a lecturer at Heriot-Watt University, UK. "The reason it wasn't thought possible to measure two conjugate variables directly was because measuring one would destroy the wavefunction before the other one could be measured."

The direct measurement technique employs a "trick" to measure the first property in such a way that the system is not disturbed significantly and information about the second property can still be obtained. This careful measurement relies on the "weak measurement" of the first property followed by a "strong measurement" of the second property.

First described 25 years ago, weak measurement requires that the coupling between the system and what is used to measure it be, as its name suggests, "weak", which means that the system is barely disturbed in the measurement process. The downside of this type of measurement is that a single measurement only provides a small amount of information, and to get an accurate readout, the process has to be repeated multiple times and the average taken.

Boyd and his colleagues used the position and momentum of the light as the indicator of the polarization state. To couple the polarization to the spatial degree of freedom they used birefringent crystals: when light goes through such a crystal, there is a spatial separation introduced for different polarizations. For example, if light is made of a combination of horizontally and vertically polarized component, the positions of the individual components will spread out when it goes through the crystal according to its polarization. The thickness of the crystal can control the strength of the measurement, weak or strong, and determine the degree of separation, correspondingly small or large.

In this experiment, Boyd and his colleagues passed polarized light through two crystals of differing thicknesses: the first, a very thin crystal that "weakly" measures the horizontal and vertical polarization state; the second, a much thicker crystal that "strongly" measures the diagonal and anti-diagonal polarization state. As the first measurement was performed weakly, the system is not significantly disturbed, and therefore, information gained from the second measurement was still valid. This process is repeated several times to build up accurate statistics. Putting all of this together gives a full, direct characterization of the polarization states of the light.

**Explore further:**
Canadian researchers devise method to directly measure the quantum wavefunction

## policetac

## Alphonso

## ValeriaT

## Infinum

Exactly. This experiment does not really "save" any time as the "weak" measurement has to be repeated many times to build up the certainty about the "weak" result.

With single measurement one gets 1 "strong" i.e. certain result and 1 "weak" i.e. uncertain result, which is 100% in accordance with Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.

## vacuum-mechanics

This is interesting; unfortunately the problem is that we cannot visualize how the 'abstract' wave function. Also it is interesting to note that even we know that we cannot measure the momentum and position with a greater accuracy of the uncertainty principle, but the problem is that why it is so, or what is its mechanism? Maybe this physical view could help us to understand it.

http://www.vacuum...19〈=en

## LarryD

'...This process is repeated several times to build up accurate statistics...'

How I interpret the article is that have found a way to get more accurate figures from perhaps less trials. Would that be correct?

## rubberman

## LarryD

rubberman, thanks for the comment. However,since phase and group velocities are '...properties...' of the wave form surely they would affect any result...or perhaps the other way round; the method of the determination would alter the properties...

I am still tied with the 'classical' uncertainty principle in that it would be impossible to get beyond a certain limit of accuracy because we wouldn't know how the system was affected by the determination. Surely also the system under investigation would affect the properties of the 'determinant' wave thus adding complication to any method.

## rubberman

## LarryD

Thanks again rubberman. The above quote does concern me a bit 'self sustaining', isn't that like someything being 'Perpetual'?

'...The Heisenberg uncertainty principle's prime flaw is that it allows for a probability distribution of zero as a valid "position" for a waveform...'

Are we talking about the Heisenberg Picture here and the Energy State, delta E? This would not be 0 at the extremes.

## SethD

Just as Einstein said.

## rubberman

Well...perpetual is a pretty strong word. I believe the oldest ones we can detect are in the 13 billion year old range...

## policetac

## policetac

## ValeriaT

## ValeriaT

## LarryD

I would agree that HUP might only be an approximation but surely in the end we would still be left pobabilities.

## CQT

The way humans measure at a point where humans measure puts a stop to any or all probabilities in play before or after this point.

"The wavefunction in quantum mechanics evolves deterministically according to the Schrödinger equation as a linear superposition of different states, but actual measurements always find the physical system in a definite state."

http://en.wikiped..._problem]http://en.wikiped..._problem[/url]

(This "definite state" is the absence of probability.)

"If observers and their measuring apparatus are themselves described by a deterministic wave function, why can we not predict precise results for measurements, but only probabilities?"

http://en.wikiped..._problem]http://en.wikiped..._problem[/url]

We have no absolute unit of measure. An arbitrary chosen unit can not be deterministic. We undermined a deterministic wave and what that wave describes with our measure - our choice of measure is random.