# Unifying decoherence and the Heisenberg Principle

- 497 Downloads

## Abstract

We exhibit three inequalities involving quantum measurement, all of which are sharp and state independent. The first inequality bounds the performance of joint measurement. The second quantifies the trade-off between the measurement quality and the disturbance caused on the measured system. Finally, the third inequality provides a sharp lower bound on the amount of decoherence in terms of the measurement quality. This gives a unified description of both the Heisenberg uncertainty principle and the collapse of the wave function.

## Keywords

Decoherence CP-maps Uncertainty relations Quantum measurement## Mathematics Subject Classification

81P40## 1 Introduction

### Initial Remark

Modulo minor modifications, this manuscript has been on the ArXiv since 2006, under the identifier quant-ph/0606093. Since that time, several results have found their way into the literature [17, 18, 19, 20, 24, 25]. This convinced me to submit the manuscript for publication.

In quantum mechanics, observables are modelled by self-adjoint operators *A* on a Hilbert space \(\mathscr {H}\), and a quantum mechanical system is described by the von Neumann algebra \(\mathscr {A}\) generated by its observables. A normal state \(\rho \in \mathscr {S}(\mathscr {A})\) on \(\mathscr {A}\) induces a probability measure on the spectrum \(\mathbf{Spec }(A)\) of an observable *A*, and it is the objective of a *quantum measurement* to portray this probability measure as faithfully as possible.

For the more detailed results of Sects. 5 and 6, we will assume that \(\mathscr {A}\) is the algebra \(B(\mathscr {H})\) of all bounded operators on a separable Hilbert space \(\mathscr {H}\), an assumption which is justified for quantum systems consisting of finitely many particles. In this case, all normal states on \(\mathscr {A}\) are of the form \(\rho (A) := \mathbf {tr}(rA)\), where \(r \in \mathscr {T}_{1,+}(\mathscr {H})\) is a positive normalized trace class operator on \(\mathscr {H}\), the *density operator*.

- (I)
The impossibility of perfect

*joint measurement*. It is not possible to perform a simultaneous measurement of two noncommuting observables in such a way that both measurements have perfect quality. - (II)
The

*Heisenberg Principle*, (see [5]). In this paper, this means that quantum information cannot be extracted from a system without disturbing that system. (There are various other formulations of the Heisenberg Principle in the literature, but throughout the paper, it will exclusively have the above meaning.) - (III)
The

*collapse of the wave function*. When information is extracted from a quantum system, a so-called decoherence is experimentally known to occur on this system.

The subject of uncertainty relations in quantum measurement is already endowed with an extensive literature. For example, the Heisenberg Principle and the impossibility of joint measurement are quantitatively illustrated in [2, 4, 8, 22].

However, the inequalities in these papers depend on the state \(\rho \), which somewhat limits their practical use. Indeed, the bound on the measurement quality can only be calculated if the state \(\rho \) is known, in which case there is no need for a measurement in the first place.

Our state-independent figures of merit (Sects. 2, 3) will lead us quite naturally to state-independent bounds on the performance of measurement. In order to illustrate their practical use, we will give some applications. We investigate the beamsplitter, resonance fluorescence and nondestructive qubit measurement.

In Sect. 4, we will prove a sharp, state-independent bound on the performance of jointly unbiased measurement. This generalizes the impossibility of perfect joint measurement.

In Sect. 5, we will prove a sharp, state-independent bound on the performance of a measurement in terms of the maximal disturbance that it causes. This generalizes the Heisenberg Principle.

In contrast to the Heisenberg Principle and its abundance of inequalities, the phenomenon of decoherence has mainly been investigated in specific examples (see, e.g. [6, 11, 32]). Although there are some bounds on the remaining coherence in terms of the measurement quality (see [10, 27]), a sharp, information-theoretic inequality does not yet appear to exist.

We will provide such an inequality in Sect. 6, where we will prove a sharp upper bound on the amount of coherence which can survive information transfer. Not only does this generalize the collapse of the wave function, it also shows that no information can be extracted if all coherence is left perfectly intact. It is therefore a *unified* description of both the Heisenberg Principle and the collapse of the wave function.

## 2 Information transfer

In quantum mechanics, a system is described by a von Neumann algebra \(\mathscr {A}\) of bounded operators on a Hilbert space \(\mathscr {H}\). The space \(\mathscr {S}(\mathscr {A})\) of *normal states* of the system \(\mathscr {A}\) is formed by the linear functionals \(\rho :\mathscr {A}\rightarrow \mathbb {C}\) which are positive (i.e. \(\rho (A^{\dagger }A) \ge 0\) for \(A \in \mathscr {A}\)), normalized (i.e. \(\rho (\mathbf {1}) = 1\)) and normal (i.e. weakly continuous on the unit ball \(\mathscr {A}_{1}\)). If \(\mathscr {A}\) is the algebra \(B(\mathscr {H})\) of all bounded operators on a separable Hilbert space \(\mathscr {H}\), then every normal state on \(\mathscr {A}\) is of the form \(\rho (A) := \mathbf {tr}(rA)\), with \(r \in \mathscr {T}_{1,+}(\mathscr {H})\) a positive normalized (\(\mathbf {tr}(r) = 1\)) trace class operator on \(\mathscr {H}\) (cf. [13, Ch. 7]), the *density operator*. With the system in state \(\rho \in \mathscr {S}(\mathscr {A})\), observation of an (Hermitean) observable \(A \in \mathscr {A}\) is postulated to yield the average value \(\rho (A)\).

### Definition 1

Let \(\mathscr {A}\) and \(\mathscr {B}\) be von Neumann algebras. A map \(T : \mathscr {B}\rightarrow \mathscr {A}\) is called *Completely Positive* (or CP for short) if it is linear, normalized (i.e. \(T(\mathbf {1}) = \mathbf {1}\)), positive (i.e. \(T(X^{\dag }X) \ge 0\) for all \(X \in \mathscr {B}\)) and if, moreover, the extension \(\mathrm {id}_{n} \otimes T : M_n \otimes \mathscr {B}\rightarrow M_n \otimes \mathscr {A}\) is positive for all \(n \in {\mathbb {N}}\), where \(M_n\) is the algebra of complex \(n \times n\)-matrices. In this paper, we will require CP-maps to be weakly continuous on the unit ball \(\mathscr {B}_{1}\) unless specified otherwise.

*T*, each state \(\rho \in \mathscr {S}(\mathscr {A})\) is again mapped to a state \(T^* (\rho ) \in \mathscr {S}(\mathscr {B})\). Secondly, linearity implies that \(T^*\) satisfies

*stochastic equivalence principle*: a system which is in state \(\rho _1\) with probability

*p*and in state \(\rho _2\) with probability \((1-p)\) cannot be distinguished from a system in state \(p \rho _1 + (1-p) \rho _2\). Finally, it is possible to extend the systems \(\mathscr {A}\) and \(\mathscr {B}\) under consideration with another system \(M_n\), on which the operation acts trivially. Due to complete positivity, states in \({\mathscr {S}(M_n \otimes \mathscr {A})}\) are once again mapped to states in \({\mathscr {S}(M_n \otimes \mathscr {B})}\). Incidentally, any CP-map

*T*automatically satisfies \(T(X^{\dag }) = T(X)^{\dag }\) and \(\Vert T(X)\Vert \le \Vert X\Vert \) for all \(X \in \mathscr {B}\).

### 2.1 General, unbiased and perfect information transfer

Suppose that we are interested in the distribution of the observable \(A \in \mathscr {A}\), with the system \(\mathscr {A}\) in some unknown state \(\rho \). We perform the operation \(T^* : \mathscr {S}(\mathscr {A}) \rightarrow \mathscr {S}(\mathscr {B})\) and then observe the ‘pointer’ *B* in \(\mathscr {B}\) in order to obtain information on *A*. One may (see [4]) take the position that *any* CP-map \(T : \mathscr {B}\rightarrow \mathscr {A}\) is an information transfer from *any* observable \(A \in \mathscr {A}\) to *any* pointer \(B \in \mathscr {B}\). The following is a figure of demerit for the quality of such an information transfer.

### Definition 2

*measurement infidelity*\(\delta \) in transferring information from

*A*to the pointer

*B*is defined as

*S*runs over the Borel subsets of \(\mathbb {R}\).

It measures how accurately probability distributions on the measured observable *A* are copied to the pointer *B*.

The initial state \(\rho \) defines a probability distribution \(\mathbb {P}_{i}\) on the spectrum of *A* by \(\mathbb {P}_{i}(S) := \rho (\mathbf {1}_{S}(A))\), where \(\mathbf {1}_{S}(A)\) denotes the spectral projection of *A* associated with the set *S*. Similarly, the final state \(T^*(\rho )\) defines a probability distribution \(\mathbb {P}_{f}\) on the spectrum of *B*. \(\delta \) is now the maximum distance between \(\mathbb {P}_{i}\) and \(\mathbb {P}_{f}\), where the maximum is taken over all initial states \(\rho \). That is, \(\delta = \sup _{\rho } D(\mathbb {P}_{i} , \mathbb {P}_{f} )\).

*trace distance*(a.k.a. variational distance or Kolmogorov distance) is defined as

*S*occurs in the distribution \(\mathbb {P}_{i}\) and the probability that it occurs in the distribution \(\mathbb {P}_{f}\), for the worst-case Borel set

*S*. Writing out this definition, we see that indeed

In this paper, we will devote considerable attention to the class of unbiased information transfers.

### Definition 3

A CP-map \(T : \mathscr {B}\rightarrow \mathscr {A}\) is called an *unbiased information transfer* from the Hermitean observable \(A \in \mathscr {A}\) to a Hermitean \(B \in \mathscr {B}\) if \(T(B) = A\).

Recall that we are interested in the distribution of *A*, with the system \(\mathscr {A}\) in some unknown state \(\rho \in \mathscr {S}(\mathscr {A})\). We perform the operation \(T^* : \mathscr {S}(\mathscr {A}) \rightarrow \mathscr {S}(\mathscr {B})\) and then observe the ‘pointer’ *B* in \(\mathscr {B}\). Since \(T^*(\rho )(B) = \rho (T(B)) \) by definition of the dual, and \(\rho (T(B)) = \rho (A)\) by definition of unbiased information transfer, the expectation value of *B* in the final state \(T^*(\rho )\) is the same as that of *A* in the initial state \(\rho \). We conclude that the expectation of *A* was transferred to *B*.

### Definition 4

An information transfer \(T : \mathscr {B}\rightarrow \mathscr {A}\) from \(A \in \mathscr {A}\) to \(B \in \mathscr {B}\) is called *perfect* if \(\delta = 0\). Equivalently, it is perfect if \(T(B) = A\), and if the restriction of *T* to \(B''\), the von Neumann algebra generated by *B*, is a \({}^*\)-homomorphism \(B'' \rightarrow A''\).

The entire probability distribution of *A* is then transferred to *B*, rather than merely its average value. Indeed, for all moments \(\rho (A^n)\), we have \(T^*(\rho ) (B^n) = \rho (T(B^n)) = \rho (T(B)^n) = \rho (A^n)\). Everything there is to know about *A* in the initial state \(\rho \) can be obtained by observing the ‘pointer’ *B* in the final state \(T^*(\rho )\).

### 2.2 Example: von Neumann qubit measurement

Let \(\varOmega := \{ +1 , -1 \}\). Denote by \(\mathscr {C}(\varOmega )\) the (commutative) algebra of \(\mathbb {C}\)-valued random variables on \(\varOmega \). A state on \(\mathscr {C}(\varOmega )\) is precisely the expectation value \(\mathbb {E}\) w.r.t. a probability distribution \(\mathbb {P}\) on \(\varOmega \), in which context \(\rho (f)\) is denoted \(\mathbb {E}(f)\). Define the probability distributions \(\mathbb {P}_{\pm }\) to assign probability 1 to \(\pm 1\).

*T*is a perfect (and thus unbiased) information transfer from \(\sigma _z \in M_2\) to the pointer \(\mathbf {1}\otimes (\delta _{+1} - \delta _{-1}) \in M_2 \otimes \mathscr {C}(\varOmega )\).

### 2.3 CP-maps and POVMs

Quantum measurements are often (e.g. [4, 7]) modelled by positive operator-valued measures or POVMs. From the above CP-map *T*, we may distil the POVM \({\mu : \varOmega \rightarrow M_2}\) by \(\mu (\omega ) := T(\mathbf {1}\otimes \delta _{\omega })\), i.e. \(\mu (+1) = P_+\) and \(\mu (-1) = P_-\).

This procedure is fully general: given a CP-map \(T :\mathscr {B}\rightarrow \mathscr {A}\) and a ‘pointer’ \({B\in \mathscr {B}}\), we obtain an \(\mathscr {A}\)-valued POVM \(\mu _{B,T}\) on \(\mathbf{Spec }(B)\) by \(\mu _{T,B}(S) := T(\mathbf {1}_{S})\). (This is why we require CP-maps to be weakly continuous on the unit ball \(\mathscr {B}_{1}\).) Conversely, any \(\mathscr {A}\)-valued POVM \(\mu \) on \(\varOmega \) gives rise to the CP-map \(T_{\mu } :L^{\infty }(\varOmega ) \rightarrow \mathscr {A}\) by integration, \(T_{\mu }(f) = \int _{\varOmega }f(\omega )\mu (d\omega )\).

A CP-map can thus be seen as an extension of a POVM that keeps track of the system output as well as the measurement output. Since we will be interested in disturbance of the system, it is imperative that we consider the full CP-map rather than merely its POVM.

## 3 Maximal added variance

*X*in the state \(\rho \) is defined as

*added*by the measurement procedure. This second part determines how well the measurement performs.

The maximal added variance (where the maximum is taken over the input states \(\rho \)) will be our figure of demerit. For example, perfect information transfer from *A* to *B* satisfies \(\mathbf {Var}(B,T^*(\rho )) = \mathbf {Var}(A,\rho )\), so that the maximal added variance is 0. There is uncertainty in the measurement outcome, but all uncertainty ‘comes from’ the quantum state, and none is added by the measurement procedure.

### Definition 5

*maximal added variance*of an unbiased information transfer

*T*is defined as

### Definition 6

### Lemma 1

### Proof

By Stinespring’s theorem (see [28]), we may assume without loss of generality that *T* is of the form \(T(X) = V^\dag X V \) for some contraction *V*. Writing this out, we obtain \((X,Y) = V^\dag X^\dag (\mathbf {1}- VV^\dag ) YV\). Defining \(g(X) := \sqrt{\mathbf {1}- VV^\dag } X V\), we have \((X,Y) = g(X)^\dag g(Y)\). Hence \((X,Y)(Y,X) = g(X)^\dag g(Y) g(Y)^\dag g(X)\), which is less or equal than \( \Vert g(Y)\Vert ^2 g(X)^\dag g(X) = \Vert (Y,Y)\Vert (X,X)\). \(\square \)

If an information transfer is perfect, then of course \(\varSigma ^2 = \Vert (B,B)\Vert = 0\). (No variance is added.) We will now show that the converse also holds: if \(\varSigma ^2 = 0\), then *T* is a \({}^*\)-homomorphism on \(B''\). (Compare this with the fact that probability distributions of zero variance are concentrated in a single point.)

### Theorem 1

- 1.
\((B,B) = 0\).

- 2.
The restriction of

*T*to \(B''\), the von Neumann algebra generated by*B*, is a \({}^*\)-homomorphism \(B'' \rightarrow T(B)''\). - 3.
\((f(B), f(B)) = 0\) for all measurable functions

*f*on the spectrum of*B*. - 4.
T maps the relative commutant \(B' = \{X \in \mathscr {A}; [X,B] = 0\}\) into \(T(B)'\).

### Proof

For \((1) \Rightarrow (2)\), use Cauchy–Schwarz (Lemma 1) to find \(T(B^n) - T(B)T(B^{n-1}) \) \(\le \) \(\Vert (B,B)\Vert (B^{n-1}, B^{n-1}) \) \(=\) 0. By induction, we have \(T(B^n) = T(B)^n\), and by linearity \(T(f(B)) = f(T(B))\) for all polynomials *f*. Thus, *T* is a \({}^*\)-homomorphism from the algebra of polynomials on the spectrum of *B* to that on *T*(*B*). Since *T* is positive, it is norm continuous, hence extends to a \(C^{*}\)-algebra homomorphism between the algebras \(C(\mathbf{Spec }(B))\) and \(C(\mathbf{Spec }(A))\) of continuous functions on the spectra. Moreover, since we require CP-maps to be continuous in the weak operator topology on the unit ball and since every measurable function on the spectrum can be approximated weakly by a uniformly bounded sequence of continuous functions, the statement even extends to the algebras of measurable functions on the spectra of *B* and *T*(*B*), isomorphic to \(B''\) and \(T(B)''\), respectively. For \((2)\Rightarrow (3)\), note that \(T(f(B)^2) = T(f(B))^2\). For \((3)\Rightarrow (1)\), take \(f(x)=x\). Finally, we prove \((1)\Rightarrow (4)\). Suppose that \([A,B] = 0\). Then \([T(B), T(A)] = T([A,B]) - [T(A), T(B)] = (A^\dag ,B) - (B^\dag , A)\) (*B* is Hermitean). By Cauchy–Schwarz, the last term equals zero if (*B*, *B*) does. \(\square \)

We see that the maximal added variance \(\varSigma ^2\) equals 0 if and only if *T* is a perfect information transfer. We shall take \(\varSigma \) to parametrize the imperfection of unbiased information transfer.

## 4 Joint measurement

In a jointly unbiased measurement, information on two observables *A* and \(\tilde{A}\) is transferred to two *commuting* pointers *B* and \(\tilde{B}\). If *A* and \(\tilde{A}\) do not commute, then it is not possible for both information transfers to be perfect. (See [29, 30].) Indeed, the degree of imperfection is determined by the amount of noncommutativity.

Let \(T: \mathscr {B}\rightarrow \mathscr {A}\) be a CP-map, and let \(B, \tilde{B} \in \mathscr {B}\) be Hermitean observables in \(\mathscr {B}\). Set \(A := T(B)\), \(\tilde{A} := T(\tilde{B})\), \(\varSigma _{B}^2 := \Vert (B,B)\Vert \), and \(\varSigma _{\tilde{B}}^2 := \Vert (\tilde{B},\tilde{B})\Vert \).

### Theorem 2

*B*and \(\tilde{B}\) commute, then

### Proof

Since \([B, \tilde{B}] = 0\), we have \([\tilde{A}, A] = T([B,\tilde{B}]) - [T(B), T(\tilde{B})] = (B,\tilde{B}) - (\tilde{B} ,B)\). By Cauchy–Schwarz, the latter is at most \(2 \varSigma _{B} \varSigma _{\tilde{B}}\) in norm.\(\square \)

### Remark 1

The \(\mathscr {A}\)-valued POVMs \(\mu _i\) on \(\varOmega _{i} \subseteq \mathbb {R}\) are called jointly measurable (e.g. [15, §2 and 7]) if there exists a POVM \(\mu \) on \(\varOmega \) and measurable functions \(B_i :\varOmega \rightarrow \varOmega _{i}\) such that \(\mu _i = \mu \circ B^{-1}_{i}\). If the sets \(\varOmega _i\) are bounded, we can apply Theorem 2 to the CP-map \(T_{\mu } :L^{\infty }(\varOmega ) \rightarrow \mathscr {A}\) obtained by integrating against \(\mu \). Since \(\varSigma ^2_{B_i, T_{\mu }} = \varSigma ^2_{x, T_{\mu _i}}\), we find \(\varSigma _{x,T_{\mu _i}}\cdot \varSigma _{x,T_{\mu _j}} \ge \frac{1}{2}\Vert [A_i,A_j]\Vert \). Here, \(\varSigma ^2_{x,T_{\mu _i}} = \Vert \int _{\varOmega _i}x^2 \mu _i(dx) - (\int _{\varOmega _i}x \mu _i(dx))^2\Vert \) is the maximal added variance of \(T_{\mu _i}\) as an unbiased measurement of \(A_i := \int _{\varOmega _i}x\mu _i(dx)\).

We now show that the bound (1) is sharp in the sense that for all *S*, \(\tilde{S} > 0\), there exist *T*, *B*, \(\tilde{B}\) such that (1) attains equality with \(\varSigma _{B} = S\), \(\varSigma _{\tilde{B}} = \tilde{S}\).

### 4.1 Application: The beamsplitter as a joint measurement

*beamsplitter*is a device which takes two beams of light as input. A certain fraction of each incident beam is refracted and the rest is reflected, in such a way that the refracted part of the first beam coincides with the reflected part of the second and vice versa (cf. Fig. 1). We will show that the beamsplitter serves as an optimal joint unbiased measurement.

In cavity QED, a single mode in the field is described by a Hilbert space \(\mathscr {H}\) of a harmonic oscillator, with creation and annihilation operators \(a^{\dag }\) and *a* satisfying \([a,a^{\dag }] = 1\), as well as \(x = \frac{a + a^{\dag }}{\sqrt{2}}\) and \(p = \frac{a - a^{\dag }}{\sqrt{2}i}\). The coherent states \(|\alpha \rangle = e^{-|\alpha |^2/2} \sum _{n=0}^{\infty } \frac{\alpha ^n}{\sqrt{n!}} |n\rangle \) are dense in \(\mathscr {H}\), and satisfy \(a|\alpha \rangle = \alpha |\alpha \rangle \).

*U*on \(\mathscr {H}\otimes \mathscr {H}\), given by \(U = \exp ( \theta ( a^{\dag } \otimes {a} - a \otimes a^{\dag } ))\). In terms of the coherent vectors, we have \(U |\alpha \rangle \otimes |\beta \rangle = |\alpha \cos (\theta ) + \beta \sin (\theta ) \rangle \otimes |-\alpha \sin (\theta ) + \beta \cos (\theta ) \rangle \). Note that \({U^{\dag } a\otimes \mathbf {1}U} = \cos (\theta ) a\otimes \mathbf {1}+ \sin (\theta ) \mathbf {1}\otimes a \) and that \(U^{\dag } \mathbf {1}\otimes a U = - \sin (\theta ) a\otimes \mathbf {1}+ \cos (\theta ) \mathbf {1}\otimes a \). (This can be seen by sandwiching both sides between coherent vectors.) Since the map \(Y \mapsto U^{\dag }YU\) respects \(+\), \(\cdot \) and \({}^{\dag }\), we readily calculate

*r*, the other input being the vacuum. The dual of this is the CP-map \(T : \mathscr {B}(\mathscr {H}) \otimes \mathscr {B}(\mathscr {H}) \rightarrow \mathscr {B}(\mathscr {H})\) defined by \(T(Y) := \mathrm {id} \otimes \phi _0 ( U^{\dag }YU )\), with \(\phi _0\) the vacuum state \(\phi _0(X) = \langle 0| X |0\rangle \).

Take \(B = \cos ^{-1}(\theta ) x \otimes \mathbf {1}\) for instance. Then \(T(B) = x\langle 0|\mathbf {1}|0\rangle + \tan (\theta ) \mathbf {1}\langle 0|x |0\rangle = x\). Similarly, with \(\tilde{B} = -\sin ^{-1}(\theta ) \mathbf {1}\otimes p\), we have \(T(\tilde{B}) = p\). Apparently, splitting a beam of light in two parts, measuring \(x\otimes \mathbf {1}\) in the first beam and \(\mathbf {1}\otimes p\) in the second, and then compensating for the loss of intensity provides a *simultaneous unbiased measurement* of *x* and *p* in the original beam. Since \([x,p] = i\), we must^{1} have \(\varSigma _{B} \varSigma _{\tilde{B}} \ge {\textstyle \frac{1}{2}}\).

We now calculate \(\varSigma _{B}\) and \(\varSigma _{\tilde{B}}\) explicitly. From \(\langle 0|x^2|0\rangle = {\textstyle \frac{1}{2}}\), we see that \(T(B^2) = x^2 + {\textstyle \frac{1}{2}}\tan ^2(\theta ) \mathbf {1}\). Thus, \(\varSigma _{B}^2 = \Vert (B,B) \Vert = {\textstyle \frac{1}{2}}\tan ^2 (\theta )\). Similarly, \(\varSigma _{\tilde{B}}^2 = {\textstyle \frac{1}{2}}\tan ^{-2}(\theta )\). We see that \(\varSigma _{B}\varSigma _{\tilde{B}} = {\textstyle \frac{1}{2}}\), so that the beamsplitter is indeed an optimal jointly unbiased measurement.

By scaling *B*, optimal joint measurements can be found for arbitrary values of \(\varSigma _{B}\) and \(\varSigma _{\tilde{B}}\), which shows the bound in Theorem 2 to be sharp. It may therefore be used to evaluate joint measurement procedures. For example, it was shown in [9] that homodyne detection of the spontaneous decay of a two-level atom constitutes a joint measurement with \(\varSigma \varSigma ' = 1.056\), slightly above the bound \(\varSigma \varSigma ' \ge 1\) provided by Theorem 2.

The beamsplitter is an optimal joint measurement in the sense that it minimizes \(\varSigma \varSigma '\). It also performs well with other figures of merit. For example, if the quality of joint measurement is judged by the state-dependent cost \(R(T):= \mathbf {Var}(B,T^*(\rho )) + \mathbf {Var}(\tilde{B},T^*(\rho ))\), then at least for Gaussian \(\rho \), the optimal measurement is again the above beamsplitter with \(\theta = \pi /4\). (See [7].)

## 5 The Heisenberg Principle

This alludes to an information transfer from an initial system \(\mathscr {A}\) to a final system consisting of two parts: the system \(\mathscr {A}\) and an ancilla \(\mathscr {B}\), containing the pointer

If all states are left intact, no quantum information can be extracted from a system.

*B*. We thus have an information transfer \(T: \mathscr {A}\otimes \mathscr {B}\rightarrow \mathscr {A}\) from

*A*to \(\mathbf {1}\otimes B\).

An initial state \(\rho \in \mathscr {S}(\mathscr {A})\) gives rise to a final state \(T^*(\rho ) \in \mathscr {S}(\mathscr {A}\otimes \mathscr {B})\). Restricting this final state to the system \(\mathscr {A}\simeq \mathscr {A}\otimes \mathbf {1}\subseteq \mathscr {A}\otimes \mathscr {B}\) (this is called *taking the partial trace over * \(\mathscr {B}\)) yields a ‘residual’ state \(R^*(\rho ) \in \mathscr {S}(\mathscr {A})\), whereas taking the partial trace over \(\mathscr {A}\) yields the final state \(Q^*(\rho ) \in \mathscr {S}(\mathscr {B})\) of the ancilla. We define the CP-maps \(R: \mathscr {A}\rightarrow \mathscr {A}\) by \(R(A) := T(A \otimes \mathbf {1})\) and \(Q: \mathscr {B}\rightarrow \mathscr {A}\) by \(Q(B) := T(\mathbf {1}\otimes B)\). The map *R* describes what happens to \(\mathscr {A}\) if we forget about the ancilla \(\mathscr {B}\), and *Q* describes the ancilla, neglecting the original system \(\mathscr {A}\).

We wish to find a quantitative version of the Heisenberg Principle, i.e. we want to relate the imperfection of the extracted quantum information to the amount of state disturbance.

### Definition 7

*maximal disturbance*\(\varDelta \) of a map \(R : \mathscr {A}\rightarrow \mathscr {A}\) is given by

*P*occurs in the state \(\tau \), and the probability \(\rho (P)\) that it occurs in the state \(\rho \), for the worst-case event (projection operator)

*P*. For short, \(D( \tau , \rho ) := \sup _{P} \{ | \tau (P) - \rho (P) | \}\). If \(\tau \) and \(\rho \) correspond to density operators

*t*and

*r*, then \(D(\tau , \rho ) = {\textstyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathbf {tr}(|t - r|)\) (see, e.g. [21]).

### 5.1 Heisenberg Principle for unbiased information transfer

We first turn our attention to unbiased information transfer. The imperfection of the information is then captured in the maximal added variance \(\varSigma ^2\).

*A*is ‘quantum’ is given by its distance to the centre \(d(A,\mathscr {Z}) = \inf _{Z \in \mathscr {Z}} \Vert A - Z\Vert \).

The centre is then simply \(\mathbb {C} \mathbf {1}\). Since normal states \(\rho \in \mathscr {S}(B(\mathscr {H}))\) are given by density operators \(r \in \mathscr {T}_{1,+}\) as \(\rho (A) = \mathbf {tr}(rA)\), the dual \(T^* :\mathscr {S}(B(\mathscr {H})) \rightarrow \mathscr {S}(B(\mathscr {H}'))\) of a CP-map \(T :B(\mathscr {H}') \rightarrow B(\mathscr {H})\) yields a map \(\mathscr {T}_{1,+}(\mathscr {H}) \rightarrow \mathscr {T}_{1,+}(\mathscr {H}')\), which we denote by \(T_*\). We then have

In the rest of the paper, we will take the algebra of observables to be\(B(\mathscr {H})\)for some separable Hilbert space\(\mathscr {H}.\)

### Theorem 3

*R*the restriction of

*T*to \(B(\mathscr {H}) \otimes \mathbf {1}\). Then

*T*and

*A*for which (2) attains equality.

### Proof

For the sharpness, see Sect. 6.5. As for the bound, we may assume \(\varDelta < {\textstyle \frac{1}{2}}\), since inequality (2) is trivially satisfied otherwise. Denote the spectrum of *A* by \(\mathbf{Spec }(A)\). Let \(x := \sup (\mathbf{Spec }(A))\) and \(y := \inf (\mathbf{Spec }(A))\), so that \(d(A,\mathscr {Z}) = \frac{x - y}{2}\). Without loss of generality, assume that there exist normalized eigenvectors \(\psi _x\) and \(\psi _y\) satisfying \(A \psi _x = x \psi _x\) and \(A \psi _y = y \psi _y\). (If this is not the case, choose \(x'\) and \(y'\) in \(\mathbf{Spec }(A)\) arbitrarily close to *x* and *y* and complete the proof using approximate eigenvectors.) Define \(\psi _{-} := \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} (\psi _x + \psi _y)\), \(\tilde{B} := |\psi _-\rangle \langle \psi _-|\) and \(\tilde{A} := T(\tilde{B} \otimes \mathbf {1})\).

*T*is a contraction and \(0 \le \tilde{B} \le 1\), we have \(0 \le a \le 1\). Without loss of generality, assume that there exists a normalized eigenvector \(\psi _a\) such that \(\tilde{A} \psi _a = a \psi _a\). (Again, if this is not the case, one may use approximate eigenvectors.) Decompose \(\psi _a\) over the eigenspaces of \(\tilde{B}\), i.e., write \(\psi _a = \chi _1 + \chi _0 \), with \(\chi _1 \perp \chi _0\), \(\tilde{B} \chi _1 = \chi _1\) and \(\tilde{B} \chi _0 = 0\). Then, we have

In the case of no disturbance, \(\varDelta = 0\), we see that \(\varSigma \rightarrow \infty \). No information transfer from \(\mathscr {A}\) is allowed if all states on \(\mathscr {A}\) are left intact. This is Werner’s (see [31]) formulation of the Heisenberg Principle. In the opposite case of perfect information transfer, \({\varSigma = 0}\), inequality 2 shows that \(\varDelta \) must equal at least one half. We shall see in Sect. 6 that this corresponds with a so-called collapse of the wave function.

### 5.2 Heisenberg Principle for general information transfer

We now prove a version of the Heisenberg Principle for general information transfer. Let \(T : B(\mathscr {H}) \otimes \mathscr {B}\rightarrow B(\mathscr {H})\) be a CP-map, and let \(A \in B(\mathscr {H})\) and \(B \in \mathscr {B}\) be Hermitean, with \(A \notin \mathscr {Z}= \mathbb {C} \mathbf {1}\). Define \(\varDelta := \sup _{P} \{ \Vert R(P) - P \Vert \}\), with *R* the restriction of *T* to \(B(\mathscr {H}) \otimes \mathbf {1}\). Define \(\delta := \sup _{S} \{ \Vert T(\mathbf {1}\otimes \mathbf {1}_{S}(B)) - \mathbf {1}_{S}(A)\Vert \}\). In this setting, we find:

### Corollary 1

*T*for which (4) attains equality.

### Proof

*S*of \(\mathbf{Spec }(A)\), and put \(P := \mathbf {1}\otimes \mathbf {1}_{S}(B)\). Since \( {\Vert T(P) - \mathbf {1}_{S}(A) \Vert \le \delta }\) and \(\mathbf{Spec }(\mathbf {1}_{S}(A)) = \{0,1\}\), we find that \(\mathbf{Spec }(T(P)) \subseteq [0,\delta ] \cup [1-\delta , 1]\) (cf. the proof of Theorem 3). Thus \(\varSigma ^2 = \Vert T(P) - T(P)^2 \Vert \le \delta (1-\delta )\). Similarly, \(d(T(P), \mathscr {Z}) \ge {\textstyle \frac{1}{2}}- \delta \) since \(\mathbf{Spec }(T(P))\) contains points in both \([0,\delta ]\) and \([1 - \delta ,1]\). Applying Theorem 3 to the pointer

*P*, we obtain

### 5.3 Application: Resonance fluorescence

Corollary 1 may be used to determine the minimum amount of disturbance if the quality of the measurement is known. Alternatively, if the system is only mildly disturbed, one may find a bound on the attainable measurement quality. Let us concentrate on the latter option.

*any*EM measurement of \(\sigma _x\), \(\sigma _y\) or \(\sigma _z\) will have a measurement infidelity of at least

#### 5.3.1 Unitary evolution on the closed system

*forward*and a

*side*channel, each described by a bosonic Fock space \(\mathscr {F}\). The laser is put on the forward channel, which is thus initially in the coherent state with frequency \(\omega \) and strength \(\varOmega \), described by the density matrix \(\phi _\varOmega \). (The field strength is parametrized by the frequency of the induced Rabi oscillations). The side channel starts in the vacuum state, described by the density matrix \(\phi _0\). If the two-level atom starts in the state described by the density matrix

*r*, then the state at time

*t*is given by the density matrix

*T*. Yet if \(\hat{B} := U_2^{\dag }B U_2\), then \(\hat{T}(\mathbf {1}_S (\hat{B})) = T(\mathbf {1}_S(B))\), so that

#### 5.3.2 Master equation for the open system

*restricted to the two-level system*is both well known and uncomplicated. If we use \(\lambda ^{-2}\) as a unit of time, then the restricted evolution \(\hat{R}_{t*}(r) := \mathbf {tr}_{\mathscr {F}\otimes \mathscr {F}} \hat{T}_{t*} (r)\) of the two-level system is known (see [3]) to satisfy the Master equation

*E*is the energy spacing of the two-level atom and \(V^\dag = \sigma _+\), \(V = \sigma _-\) are its raising and lowering operators. In the case \(\omega = E\) of

*resonance fluorescence*, we obtain

*t*is in units of \(\lambda ^{-2}\)).

## 6 Collapse of the wave function

The ‘collapse of the wave function’ may be seen as the flip side of the Heisenberg Principle. It states that if information is extracted from a system, then its states undergo a very specific kind of perturbation, called decoherence.

### 6.1 Collapse for unbiased information transfer

We start out by investigating unbiased information transfer. We prove a sharp upper bound on the amount of remaining coherence in terms of the measurement quality. Let \(T : \mathscr {A}\otimes \mathscr {B}\rightarrow \mathscr {A}\) be a CP-map. Let \(B \in \mathscr {B}\) be Hermitian, and define \(A := T(\mathbf {1}\otimes B)\).

### Theorem 4

*A*with different eigenvalues

*x*and

*y*, respectively. Define \(R: \mathscr {A}\rightarrow \mathscr {A}\) to be the restriction of

*T*to \(\mathscr {A}\otimes \mathbf {1}\), and put \(\varSigma ^2 := \Vert (B,B)\Vert \). Then for all \(\alpha ,\beta \in \mathbb {C}\) with \(|\alpha |^2 + |\beta |^2 = 1\), we have

*T*, \(\psi _x\), \(\psi _y\), \(\alpha \) and \(\beta \) for which (6) attains equality.

### Proof

*P*. Now \((x-y) \langle \psi _x,R(P) \psi _y\rangle = \langle \psi _x,[A,R(P)] \psi _y\rangle \), and \([A,R(P)] = {(P \otimes \mathbf {1}, \mathbf {1}\otimes B)} - {(\mathbf {1}\otimes B, P \otimes \mathbf {1})}\). Thus,

Now consider the other extreme of a measurement which leaves all states intact, i.e. \(R^*(\rho ) = \rho \) for all \(\rho \). Then there exist states for which the l.h.s. of Eq. (6) equals \({\textstyle \frac{1}{2}}\), forcing \(\varSigma \rightarrow \infty \); no information can be obtained. This is Werner’s formulation of the Heisenberg Principle [31].

This agrees with physical intuition: decoherence between \(\psi _x\) and \(\psi _y\) is expected to occur in case the information transfer is able to distinguish between the two. This is the case if the variance is small w.r.t. the differences in mean.

### 6.2 Application: Perfect qubit measurement

*T*of \(\sigma _z\) with pointer \(\mathbf {1}\otimes (\delta _+ - \delta _-)\) which leaves \(|\! \uparrow \,\rangle \langle \, \uparrow \!|\) and \(|\! \downarrow \,\rangle \langle \, \downarrow \!|\) in place, i.e. \(R_*(|\! \uparrow \,\rangle \langle \, \uparrow \!|) = |\! \uparrow \,\rangle \langle \, \uparrow \!|\) and \(R_*(|\! \downarrow \,\rangle \langle \, \downarrow \!|) = |\! \downarrow \,\rangle \langle \, \downarrow \!|\). (Such a measurement is called nondestructive.) Theorem 4 then readsillustrated in Fig. 6.

Incidentally, the trace distance between the centre of the Bloch sphere and its surface is \({\textstyle \frac{1}{2}}\), so that we read off \(\varDelta = \sup \{ D(R^*(\rho ),\rho ) ; \rho \in \mathscr {S}(M_2) \} = {\textstyle \frac{1}{2}}\). This was predicted by Theorem 3.

### 6.3 Collapse of the wave function for general measurement

We will prove a sharp bound on the remaining coherence in general information transfer. For technical convenience, we will focus attention on nondestructive measurements. A measurement of *A* is called ‘nondestructive’ (or ‘conserving’ or ‘quantum nondemolition’) if it leaves the eigenstates of *A* intact, so that repetition of the measurement will yield the same result. For example, the measurement in Sect. 2.2 is nondestructive, the one in Sect. 5.3 is destructive. Restriction to nondestructive measurements is quite common in quantum measurement theory (see [23]).

Let \(T : B(\mathscr {H}) \otimes \mathscr {B}\rightarrow B(\mathscr {H})\) be a CP-map, let \(A \in B(\mathscr {H})\) and \(B \in \mathscr {B}\) be Hermitean and suppose that \(\{ \psi _{i}\}\) is an orthogonal basis of eigenvectors of *A*, with eigenvalues \(a_i\). Define the measurement infidelity \(\delta := \sup _{S} \{ \Vert T(\mathbf {1}\otimes \mathbf {1}_{S}(B)) - \mathbf {1}_{S}(A)\Vert \}\).

### Corollary 2

*T*is nondestructive, i.e. \(R_*(|\psi _{i}\rangle \langle \psi _{i}|) = |\psi _{i}\rangle \langle \psi _{i}|\) for all \(\psi _{i}\), with

*R*the restriction of

*T*to \(B(\mathscr {H}) \otimes \mathbf {1}\). Then if \(\delta \in \big [0 , {\textstyle \frac{1}{2}}\big ]\), and \(a_i \ne a_j\),

*T*, \(\psi _{i}\), \(\psi _{j}\), \(\alpha \) and \(\beta \) for which (8) attains equality.

### Proof

For sharpness, see Sect. 6.5. Choose a set *S* such that \(a_i \in S\) and \(a_j \notin S\). *T* is an unbiased measurement of \(T(\mathbf {1}\otimes \mathbf {1}_{S}(B))\) with pointer \(\mathbf {1}_{S}(B)\) and maximal added variance \(\varSigma ^2 \le \delta (1 - \delta )\) (cf. the proof of Corollary 1). We will prove that \(\psi _{i}\) and \(\psi _{j}\) are eigenvectors of \(T(\mathbf {1}\otimes \mathbf {1}_{S}(B))\) with eigenvalues *x* and *y* which differ at least \(1 - 2\delta \).

*T*is nondestructive, we have \(\langle \psi _{j}, R(P_{i}) \psi _{j}\rangle = \langle \psi _{j}, P_{i} \, \psi _{j}\rangle \) for all

*j*. Apparently, \(R(P_{i})\) has only one nonzero diagonal element, a 1 at position (

*i*,

*i*). Since \(R(P_{i}) \ge 0\), this implies \(R(P_{i}) = P_{i}\). Then \({(P_{i} \otimes \mathbf {1}, P_{i} \otimes \mathbf {1})} = 0\), so that by Cauchy–Schwarz \((P_{i} \otimes \mathbf {1}, \mathbf {1}\otimes \mathbf {1}_{S}(B)) = 0\). Since \(P_{i} = T( P_{i} \otimes \mathbf {1})\), we have

*x*, say. By a similar reasoning, \(\psi _{j}\) is also an eigenvector, denote its eigenvalue by

*y*.

*T*being nondestructive. On the r.h.s., we substitute \(\varSigma = \sqrt{\delta (1-\delta )}\) and \(|x - y| = (1 - 2\delta )\). Strikingly enough, this yields the bound

### 6.4 Application: Nondestructive qubit measurement

Current single-qubit read-out technology is now in the regime where the bound (8) becomes significant; in [16], a nondestructive measurement of a SQUID-qubit was described, with experimentally determined measurement infidelity \(\delta = 0.13\). The bound then equals 0.336.

### 6.5 Sharpness of the bounds

*T*to \(M_2\) and find

## 7 Conclusion

- (I)
Theorem 2 provides a sharp, state-independent bound on the performance of unbiased joint measurement of noncommuting observables. In the case of perfect (\(\varSigma =0\)) measurement of one observable, it implies that no information whatsoever (\(\varSigma ' = \infty \)) can be gained on the other.

- (II)
Theorem 3 (for unbiased information transfer) and Corollary 1 (for general information transfer) provide a sharp, state-independent bound on the performance of a measurement in terms of the maximal disturbance that it causes. In the case of zero disturbance, when all states are left intact, it follows that no information can be obtained. This is the Heisenberg Principle.

- (III)
Theorem 4 (for unbiased information transfer) and Corollary 2 (for general information transfer) provide a sharp upper bound on the amount of coherence which can survive information transfer. For perfect information transfer, all coherence vanishes. This clearly proves that decoherence on a system is a mathematical consequence of information transfer out of this system. If, on the other hand, all states are left intact, then it follows that no information can be obtained. This is the Heisenberg Principle. Theorem 4 and Corollary 2 connect these two extremes in a continuous fashion; they form a unified description of the Heisenberg Principle and the collapse of the wave function.

## Footnotes

- 1.
We neglect the technical complication of

*x*and*p*being unbounded operators.

## Notes

### Acknowledgements

Open access funding provided by Max Planck Society. I would like to thank Hans Maassen for his invaluable guidance and advice.

## References

- 1.Accardi, L., Frigerio, A., Lu, Y.G.: The weak coupling limit as a quantum functional central limit. Commun. Math. Phys.
**131**, 537–570 (1990)ADSMathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar - 2.Arthurs, E., Kelly, J.: On simultaneous measurement on a pair of conjugate observables. Bell Syst. Tech. J.
**44**, 725 (1965)CrossRefGoogle Scholar - 3.Bouten, L., Guţă, M., Maassen, H.: Stochastic Schrödinger equations. J. Phys. A
**37**, 3189–3209 (2004)ADSMathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar - 4.Hall, M.: Prior information: how to circumvent the standard joint-measurement uncertainty relation. Phys. Rev. A
**69**, 052113 (2004)ADSMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 5.Heisenberg, W.: Über den anschaulichen Inhalt der quantentheoretischen Kinematik und Mechanik. Z. Phys.
**43**, 172–198 (1927)ADSCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar - 6.Hepp, K.: Quantum theory of measurement and macroscopic observables. Helv. Phys. Acta
**45**, 237–248 (1972)Google Scholar - 7.Holevo, A.S.: Probabilistic and Statistical Aspects of Quantum Theory. North Holland Publishing Company, Amsterdam (1982)MATHGoogle Scholar
- 8.Ishikawa, S.: Uncertainty relations in simultaneous measurements for arbitrary observables. Rep. Math. Phys.
**29**, 257–273 (1991)ADSMathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar - 9.Janssens, B., Bouten, L.: Optimal pointers for joint measurement of \(\sigma _x\) and \(\sigma _z\) via homodyne detection. J. Phys. A
**39**, 2773–2790 (2006)ADSMathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar - 10.Janssens, B., Maassen, H.: Information transfer implies state collapse. J. Phys. A: Math. Gen.
**39**, 9845–9860 (2006)ADSMathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar - 11.Joos, E., Zeh, H.: The emergence of classical properties through interaction with the environment. Z. Phys. B
**59**, 223–243 (1985)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 12.Kadison, R.V.: A generalized Schwarz inequality and algebraic invariants for operator algebras. Ann. Math.
**2**(56), 494–503 (1952)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar - 13.Kadison, R.V., Ringrose, J.R.: Fundamentals of the Theory of Operator Algebras, Volume II, Advanced Theory. Academic Press, Cambridge (1986)MATHGoogle Scholar
- 14.Kennard, E.: Zur Quantenmechanik einfacher Bewegungstypen. Z. Phys.
**44**, 326–325 (1927)ADSCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar - 15.Lahti, P.: Coexistence and joint measurability in quantum mechanics. Int. J. Theor. Phys.
**42**(5), 893–906 (2003)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar - 16.Lupaşcu, A.E.A.: High-contrast dispersive readout of a superconducting flux qubit using a nonlinear resonator. Phys. Rev. Lett.
**96**, 127003 (2006)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 17.Majgier, K., Maassen, H., Życzkowski, K.: Protected subspaces in quantum information. Quantum Inf. Process.
**9**(3), 343–367 (2010)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar - 18.Miyadera, T., Imai, H.: Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle for simultaneous measurement of positive operator-valued measures. Phys. Rev. A
**78**, 052119 (2008)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 19.Miyadera, T.: Relation between strength of interaction and accuracy of measurement for a quantum measurement. Phys. Rev. A
**83**, 052119 (2011)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 20.Miyadera, T., Loveridge, L., Busch, P.: Approximating relational observables by absolute quantities: a quantum accuracy-size trade-off. J. Phys. A: Math. Theor.
**49**, 185301 (2016)ADSMathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar - 21.Nielsen, M., Chuang, I.: Quantum Computation and Quantum Information. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2000)MATHGoogle Scholar
- 22.Ozawa, M.: Universally valid reformulation of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle on noise and disturbance in measurement. Phys. Rev. A
**67**, 042105 (2003)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 23.Peres, A.: Quantum Theory: Concepts and Methods. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (1993)MATHGoogle Scholar
- 24.Polterovich, L.: Quantum unsharpness and symplectic rigidity. Lett. Math. Phys.
**102**(3), 245–264 (2012)ADSMathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar - 25.Polterovich, L.: Symplectic geometry of quantum noise. Commun. Math. Phys.
**327**(2), 481–519 (2014)ADSMathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar - 26.Robertson, H.: The uncertainty principle. Phys. Rev.
**34**, 163–164 (1929)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 27.Sewell, G.: On the mathematical structure of quantum measurement theory. Rep. Math. Phys.
**56**, 271–290 (2005)ADSMathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar - 28.Takesaki, M.: Theory of Operator Algebras I. Springer, New York (1979)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
- 29.von Neumann, J.: Mathematische Grundlagen der Quantenmechanik. Springer, Berlin (1932)MATHGoogle Scholar
- 30.Werner, R.: Optimal Cloning of Pure States. Phys. Rev. A
**58**, 1827–1832 (1998)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 31.Werner, R.: Quantum information theory—an invitation. Quantum Inf.
**173**, 14–57 (2001)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 32.Zurek, W.: Environment-Induced Superselection Rules. Phys. Rev. D
**26**, 1862–1880 (1982)ADSMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar

## Copyright information

**Open Access**This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.