Arxiv:1909.07724V1 [Quant-Ph] 17 Sep 2019

Pointer-based model for state reduction in momentum space Published in Eur. Phys. J. D 73, 163 (2019)

Fabio Di Pumpo∗ and Matthias Freyberger Institut für Quantenphysik and Center for Integrated Quantum Science and Technology (IQST), Universität Ulm, Albert Einstein Allee 11, D-89069 Ulm, Germany

We revisit the pointer-based measurement concept of von Neumann which allows us to model a quantum counterpart of the classical time-of-ﬂight (ToF) momentum. Our approach is based on the Hamiltonian for a particle interacting with two quantum pointers serving as basic measurement devices. The corresponding dynamics leads to a pointer-based ToF observable for the operational momentum of the particle. We can consider single measurements of our quantum pointers and show that this process will result in a state reduction for a single particle being downstream of the time-of-ﬂight setup.

I. INTRODUCTION needs several operationally defined time-of-arrival operators. The quantum formalism [1–3] has outstanding effi- ciency and elegance: a small set of axiomatic rules ex- In the present contribution we ask a question touching plains the vast majority of known experimental data. this time-of-arrival problem: How can we operationally In contrast to this enormous success some basic oper- define the momentum of a non-relativistic quantum par- ational concepts, which are straightforward in classical ticle? Our answer cannot be that we have to decompose physics, are by far not so obvious in quantum mechanics the corresponding quantum state in terms of momentum [4–9]. Using well-established mathematics we can extract eigenstates from which one is selected in a ad hoc state- classical information from a quantum system. It is a stan- reduction process. We rather start from the naive oper- dard technique to represent the quantum state in a basis ational concept of momentum in classical physics, basi- of eigenstates corresponding to a certain observable and cally set up with time-of-flight measurements. We trans- hence to specify the statistics of the measurable values. fer them to the quantum realm as closely as possible us- The other approach is operationally less known and ing two pointer systems [1,5] coupled to the particle as typically much more complicated [8]. If we measure a set proposed by the von Neumann model [1]. By analyzing of classical values, for example positions and momenta the joint dynamics of these three systems we can define [10], what will these data reveal about the underlying a ToF observable, which allows us to describe the parti- quantum system? This question becomes quite obvious cle in momentum space without referring to the abstract in the conception of a classical state versus a quantum momentum operator. Actually, we expect that by simply state. For the classical state of a particle we measure reading off the pointers we assign a specific momentum a single point in phase space, which has a simple oper- to the particle, that is we obtain a reduction of the cor- ational meaning. In the quantum case we have to re- responding wave packet in momentum space. construct a complete phase-space distribution [11, 12], like the Wigner function, from infinitely many quadrature distributions [13–15]. The work is organized as follows: In Sect.II we define Closely related to this topic is the problem of simulta- the ToF operator, motivated by a classical time-of-flight neously measuring conjugate observables [16–18]. Clas- concept [23]. To achieve this operational quantity, we sically, the simultaneous measurement of position and construct the full three particle Hamiltonian including momentum is operationally simple and in fact leads to the interaction between pointers and system and solve the aforementioned classical state of a particle. In quan- the corresponding dynamics in the Heisenberg picture. tum mechanics, one can formulate various operational We then discuss in what sense the expectation value scenarios which all mean a certain kind of simultaneous of this ToF observable reveals meaningful information measurement, but with different results and, for example, about the mean momentum of the particle. In Sect.III very different uncertainty relations [19–22]. we analyze a single ToF measurement value and answer arXiv:1909.07724v1 [quant-ph] 17 Sep 2019 A similar situation can be found for the time-of-arrival the question if a single position measurement on each problem [23], which also has a straightforward answer in pointer defines a reasonable momentum of the particle classical mechanics. However, in the quantum case [24– and hence leads to a state narrowed down in momentum 30] it becomes a complicated foundational issue, ques- space. For this purpose we change to the Schrödinger tioning the role of time in the theory [31–35]. In fact one picture and calculate the conditioned post-measurement momentum and the corresponding variance to see the mentioned state-reduction process. In Sect.IV we sum- marize our results and give an outlook for further studies ∗ [email protected] based on the presented model. 2

II. TIME-OF-FLIGHT MEASUREMENTS

A. Classical versus quantum time-of-ﬂight measurements

Our aim is to model the measurement for the momentum of a free quantum particle. In classical mechanics such measurements are based on simple time-of-flight (ToF) concepts, see Fig. 1a: We fix two detectors at po- (a) Classical ToF sitions X1 and X2 > X1. For a particle of mass M we then obtain a mean momentum X − X P = M 2 1 (1) t2 − t1 where t1 and t2 are the times measured when the particle passes the positions X1 and X2. Obviously, in this naive classical case a time difference is measured while the positions of the detectors stay fixed. Starting from this naive classical scheme, we have to interchange the role of time and position in a possible (b) Quantum ToF ToF scheme in the quantum case, see Fig. 1b: Now we Figure 1. The upper scheme (a) illustrates the naive classical fix two times t2 > t1 at which we determine the probabilistic positions of the quantum particle which is now time-of-flight momentum measurement. The mean momentum of a particle is calculated from the measurement of the described by a wave packet. Moreover, in the quantum P times at the fixed positions X1 and X2 according to Eq. (1). case we will also include the detectors themselves as sim- In the lower scheme (b), the particle is in a quantum state, plified quantum devices [36]. Despite such an exchange represented by a wave packet. Moreover, we also assume the of measurement principles, we can still see the analogy detectors to be quantum devices. Hence, we can no longer between classical and quantum time-of-flight measure- fix their positions but rather define times t1 and t2 for which ments. These considerations allow us to formulate the probabilistic positions are registered. As a consequence, we quantum counterpart of a mean momentum, obtain a meaningful ToF observable for the momentum ˆ, Eq. (2), of our particle. P xˆ − xˆ Pˆ = M 2 1 , (2) t2 − t1 In particular, if we choose the position operator Aˆ = Xˆ in which the operators xˆ will describe what we can read i of the particle in Eq. (3) and the operator acts on the off the measurement devices. In what follows, we will states |Φi and |ψi of system and pointer, respectively, develop an operational definition of these position-like we find the displacement operators. ˆ (hX| ⊗ hx|) TXˆ (|Φi ⊗ |ψi) = Φ (X) · ψ (x − κ X) (4) B. Quantum pointers in position representation using the eigenstates |Xi and As already mentioned, we will include measurement |xi. Thus, we obtain a displaced probability density devices as additional quantum systems, here called |ψ (x − κ X)|2 of the pointer which depends on the posi- quantum pointers. We will keep these pointers as simple tion eigenvalue X of the particle. This displaced proba- as possible. They just have to be coupled to the particle bility density allows us to obtain information about the if we want them to record any measurement data. statistics of the position observable Xˆ of the particle A basic concept goes back to von Neumann [1]. The by measuring the position observable xˆ of the pointer. idea is that an observable Aˆ = Aˆ† of the particle to be Clearly, we have to know the initial state |ψi of the measured unitarily displaces the position of the pointer. pointer. The corresponding displacement operator then reads A simplified interaction Hamiltonian that leads to the unitary operator in Eq. (3) is of the form i Tˆ = exp − κ Aˆ ⊗ pˆ , (3) Aˆ ¯h Hînt (t) = f (t) Aˆ ⊗ p,ˆ (5) where κ is a constant determining the coupling strength and pˆ denotes the momentum operator of the quantum where f (t) is a time-dependent coupling function which pointer. will be specified later for our particular ToF scheme. 3

C. ToF-Hamiltonian and scaling set of equations d Having established the basic form of an interaction pî (t) = 0, (11a) Hamiltonian, Eq. (5), between a single pointer and the dt d particle, we now formulate the total Hamiltonian of our Pˆ (t) = −f1 (t)p ˆ1 (t) − f2 (t)p ˆ2 (t) , (11b) ToF model which requires two pointers, denoted by index dt d i = 1, 2. First we have the free evolution Xˆ (t) = Pˆ (t) (11c) dt ˆ2 2 2 P pˆ1 pˆ2 and Hˆ0 = + + (6) 2M 2m1 2m2 d M xî (t) = fi (t) Xˆ (t) + pî (t) , (11d) of all subsystems, where Pˆ and pî are the momentum op- dt mi erators of the particle with mass M and the pointers with where we have also suppressed the superscripts related to masses m for i = 1, 2, respectively. Additionally, two i the different pictures, since we solely consider the Heisen- time-dependent interaction terms of the form of Eq. (5) berg picture. This set of equations can be solved in a between the particle and both pointers appear in straightforward manner. The momenta of the pointers

HˆToF (t) = f1 (t) Xˆ ⊗ pˆ1 + f2 (t) Xˆ ⊗ pˆ2, (7) pî (t) =p î (0) (12) ˆ ˆ with the coupling functions fi (t) and A = X to model are constants of motion. Then, we find the observables the ToF idea of Fig. 1b. That is, the functions fi (t) will produce an appropriate time-ordered coupling of both Pˆ (t) = Pˆ (0) − a1 (t)p ˆ1 (0) − a2 (t)p ˆ2 (0) , (13) pointers to the particle. This result leads to the total three-particle ToF-Hamiltonian and

Xˆ (t) = Xˆ (0) + Pˆ (0) t − b1 (t)p ˆ1 (0) − b2 (t)p ˆ2 (0) (14) Hˆ (t) = Hˆ0 + HˆToF (t) . (8) of the particle, where we have introduced the time- Before solving the corresponding dynamics, we define di- dependent coefficients mensionless observables Z t ˆ X a xî a a (t) := dτ f (τ) (15) Xˆ 0 := , Pˆ0 := P,ˆ xˆ0 := andp ˆ0 := pˆ , (9a) i i a ¯h i a i ¯h i 0 where the constant a denotes a length scale which can and be chosen to be the initial width of the particle’s wave Z t packet. Besides, we also use a dimensionless time t0 given bi (t) := dτ ai(τ). (16) by 0 For the position observables of the pointers we arrive at ¯h t0 := t, (9b) a slightly more involved expression Ma2 M in which Ma2/¯h represents a typical spreading time of a xî (t) =ˆxi (0) + pî (0) t mi wave packet over the length scale a. Z t + ai (t) Xˆ (0) + Pˆ (0) dτ τfi(τ) 0 Z t D. Dynamics − pˆ1 (0) dτ fi(τ)b1(τ) 0 In order to find a suitable definition for our ToF ob- Z t servable, Eq. (2), we now evaluate the dynamics given − pˆ2 (0) dτ fi(τ)b2(τ). (17) 0 by Hˆ (t), Eq. (8), in the Heisenberg picture. The corresponding equation of motion We can clearly see that the pointers now contain information on the particle’s position Xˆ (0) and momen- d i h i tum Pˆ (0). However, also the pointers influence each Aˆ(H) (t) = Hˆ (H) (t) , Aˆ(H) (t) (10) dt ¯h other in a time-ordered manner, which becomes apparent in the coupling integrals over the products fi(τ)bj(τ) in for an Heisenberg operator Aˆ(H) (t) will be written in Eq. (17). the aforementioned scaled variables where from now on In order to solve the integrals in Eqs. (15) and (16) we omit the prime for clarity. We then find the specific explicitly, we now choose coupling functions fi (t) which 4 allow us to perform the integrations in Eq. (17). We can With this assumption, we obtain the expectation value get the idea by choosing D E D E Pˆ = κ Pˆ (0) (26) fi (t) = κ δ (t − ti) , (18) for our ToF observable defined in Eq. (23). Hence our where at time ti the coupling acts instantaneously with pointer-based model for a ToF measurement fulfills a ba- the coupling constant κ already introduced in Eq. (3). sic requirement: Averaging over many values of the ToF Furthermore, to realize a time-of-flight measurement the observable, Eq. (23), delivers the mean momentum of the second coupling has to act after the first one. Finally, particle’s initial wave packet. we read off the pointers at time T . Hence we require the time sequence T > t2 > t1 > 0. With this choice, we can evaluate the observables at III. OPERATIONAL STATE REDUCTION IN the readout time T . For the particle we find MOMENTUM SPACE ˆ ˆ P (T ) = P (0) − κ [ˆp1 (0) +p ˆ2 (0)] (19) A. Momentum via ToF and So far, we have considered statistical quantities ob- Xˆ (T ) =Xˆ (0) + Pˆ (0) T tained from many measurements. But what happens af- − κ [ˆp1 (0) (T − t1) +p ˆ2 (0) (T − t2)] , (20) ter a single ToF measurement? That is, we only reg- ister two pointer positions xi in a single measurement while we obtain for the position observables of the point- run. Regarding Eqs. (23) and (26) we have to assign the ers ToF value M ˆ ˆ 1 x2 − x1 xˆ1 (T ) =x ˆ1 (0) + pˆ1 (0) T + κ X (0) + κ P (0) t1 (21) Pout := (27) m1 κ t2 − t1 and to the outgoing particle. To further examine this single- run scenario, we change to the Schrödinger picture and M xˆ2 (T ) =ˆx2 (0) + pˆ2 (0) T + κ Xˆ (0) + κ Pˆ (0) t2 derive the state of the total system after both cou- m2 plings and after a specific measurement of the point- 2 − κ pˆ1 (0) (t2 − t1) . (22) ers. This picture allows us to analyze in what sense a single value of our ToF quantity, Eq. (27), defines a The second pointer experiences a perturbation from the meaningful momentum of the particle being downstream first pointer because both pointers are coupled via the of the ToF measurement. Our expectation is that read- particle. Therefore, the time ordering of the quantum ing off the pointers and attaching a certain value Pout to ToF concept becomes important. the particle shows two effects: (i) The conditioned wave It is noteworthy that we can measure the observables packet of the particle being measured will be centered xˆ1 (T ) and xˆ2 (T ) simultaneously because they commute. around the assigned momentum Pout and (ii) the corresponding width will be narrowed down compared to the initial width before any measurement. We examine both E. ToF observable points in the following paragraph.

Based on this result we can now define a ToF observable in analogy to the classical time-of-flight measure- B. Initial states and time evolution ment, Eq. (1), for a free particle. In dimensionless form this observable reads For the initial state of the particle we choose the real- valued Gaussian ˆ xˆ2 (T ) − xˆ1 (T ) P := . (23) 2 t2 − t1 1 (P −P0) exp − 4 ∆P 2 hP |Φi = Φ(P ) = 0 (28) Inserting the time-evolved position observables of the e 1/4 (2π∆P 2) pointers, Eqs. (21) and (22), in the ToF observable yields 0 in momentum representation, in which P0 is the initial xˆ2 (0) − xˆ1 (0) 2 Pˆ =κ Pˆ (0) + mean momentum and ∆P0 the corresponding variance. t2 − t1 For simplicity, we assume the particle to be prepared such 2 TM pˆ2 (0) pˆ1 (0) that the initial mean position vanishes. − κ pˆ1 (0) + − . (24) The pointers are initially described by separable, real- t2 − t1 m2 m1 valued Gaussians Furthermore, we can always prepare pointers for which 2 1 xi exp − 2 the mean initial positions and momenta vanish, that is 4 ∆xi ψi (xi) = (29) (2π∆x2)1/4 hxî (0)i = hpî (0)i = 0. (25) i 5 in position representation obeying Eq. (25) for i = 1, 2. ToF value Pout, Eq. (27), to the particle. We expect that We note that these pointer states, Eq. (29), represent this measurement leads to a meaningful momentum de- minimum uncertainty states, for which the equality scription for the particle. To confirm this expectation 2 2 ∆xi ∆pi = 1/4 holds. we use Eq. (27) to eliminate x2 in the time-evolved state, With the ToF Hamiltonian, Eq. (8), and the chosen Eq. (31). Then we trace over the first pointer, renormal- scaling, Eqs. (9a) and (9b), we propagate the initial wave ize the expression with a constant N and finally arrive function at the conditioned momentum distribution Z ∞ 2 Ψ(P, x1, x2, 0) = Φ(e P ) · ψ1 (x1) · ψ2 (x2) (30) W (P |Pout) = N dx1 |Ψ(P, x1, κ(t2 − t1)Pout + x1,T )| −∞ to find the time-evolved state 2 1 (P −Pc) exp − 2 ∆P 2 ≡ c (34) Ψ(P, x1, x2,T ) = (hP | ⊗ hx1| ⊗ hx2|) |Ψ(T )i (31) 2 1/2 (2π∆Pc ) of our three coupled system at readout time T , for which of the particle. This momentum distribution is still Gaus- we still require T > t2 > t1 > 0. Note that this state is sian with a conditioned mean Pc and a corresponding again Gaussian, since the interaction, Eq. (7), just con- 2 uncertainty ∆P . Ideally, we would expect that Pc co- tains bilinear terms. However, the interaction will entan- c incides with the measured value Pout. Actually, in our gle particle and pointers, so that the explicit expression ToF model we obtain a small linear deviation between for Eq. (31) will be rather lengthy and will not be given the two quantities which can be written as here. Nevertheless, we now have a time-evolved state which depends on position variables x1 and x2 of the Pc = Pout + d (α)(P0 − Pout) . (35) pointers. Hence we can study various conditioned states The gradient d (α) depends on all parameters of a spe- of the particle in dependence of specific values x found i cific measurement setup, which means in a single measurement run. T α = (κ, t1, t2, T, M/m1, M/m2,P0, ∆P0, ∆p1, ∆p2) . Instead of presenting this involved expression explicitly, C. Conditioned state via ToF measurements we plot the gradient d (α) in Fig.2 as a function of pointer width ∆p = ∆p1 = ∆p2 and initial width ∆P0 of the measured particle. These parameters actually To investigate the conditioned state of the particle, we describe the quantum mechanical content of our ToF compare probability densities of the particle with and scheme. We clearly see that the deviation, Eq. (35), is without a measurement of pointer positions. Initially, small and for a particle with broad momentum distribu- the probability density of the particle is given by |Φ(e P ) |2 tion, which means ∆P0 → ∞, it even vanishes. More- using Eq. (28). over, we also emphasize that in the statistically most rel- If both pointers have been coupled to the particle, but evant case [37] we always get Pout = P0 = Pc, regardless we do not read off their positions, which means that we of all other parameters of the setup. trace over the pointer systems, we arrive at the momen- It remains to be shown that the width ∆Pc shrinks tum probability density under the condition of a specifically measured ToF value Pout: Once we acquire the information from the pointers, WT (P ) = hP | tr12 (|Ψ(T )i hΨ(T )|) |P i we reduce the momentum representation for the state of 2 1 (P −P0) exp − 2 ∆P 2 the particle. We illustrate this effect in Fig.3 for a set of = T (32) parameters α which have also been used in Fig.2. 2 1/2 (2π∆PT ) The conditioned momentum distribution, Eq. (34), for the particle. The momentum width turns out to possess a considerably reduced width compared to the initial distribution based on Eq. (28). In 2 2 2 2 2 2 fact, this behavior can be seen for a ToF value P = P ∆PT = ∆P0 + κ ∆p1 + ∆p2 ≥ ∆P0 (33) out 0 as well as for the less probable cases where we find Pout corresponds exactly to the variance of the momentum in the wings of the initial distribution. We also note that operator, Eq. (19), in the Heisenberg picture, if we con- the small shift Pc − Pout, Eq. (35), is hardly visible in sider an initial state in the form of Eq. (30). This result Fig.3. clearly indicates the expected disturbance by the point- Moreover, we obtain the general result that the post- ers: Without observing the coupled pointers we simply measurement width ∆Pc is independent of the initial add noise to the particle. Furthermore, the mean momen- mean momentum P0 of the particle and the measured tum P0 is not affected by the coupling of the pointers and momentum Pout. This result means that once we have we see that the limit κ → 0 of vanishing coupling leads fixed the parameters of the ToF apparatus including the 2 to the initial momentum distribution |Φ(e P ) | . pointers, the post-measurement width ∆Pc only depends The next step is to examine a truly conditioned prob- on the initial width ∆P0 of the particle. ability density of the particle after a specific measure- However, this dependence has an additional subtlety: ment of the pointer positions xi, i.e. after assigning the By looking at the principle of our ToF scheme depicted 6

2 10− 1 · W (P Pout) 0.4 | Φ (P ) 2 0.8 | | 0.3 Pout = P0 ) e α (

d 0.2 0.6 0.1

0 0.4 80 60 0.2 40 100 ∆p 200 ∆P0 0 200 0 200 400 − 2 P Figure 2. The gradient d (α) deﬁned in Eq. (35) as a func- 10− 1 · tion of the quantum mechanical widths ∆p = ∆p1 = ∆p2 W (P Pout) and ∆P0. The ToF setup is given by the parameters κ = 1, | Φ (P ) 2 t1 = 0.5, t2 = 1.5, T = 3, M/m1 = M/m2 = 0.1 and a mean 0.8 | | Pout = 100 momentum P0 = 100 of the particle. In particular we empha- − size that this gradient disappears for the initial momentum e width ∆P0 of the particle. 0.6 → ∞

0.4 in Fig.1 we can understand that the relation ∆Pc < ∆P0 will not always be true. An initial wave packet being already quite narrow in momentum space will be spread 0.2 out over the x-axis. Hence, the displacement of each pointer, Eq. (4), will ﬂuctuate in a wider range resulting 0 in less accurate information about the particle’s momen- 200 0 200 400 − tum downstream of the ToF apparatus. This eﬀect is 2 10− P exactly what we see in Fig.4 where we picture the rela- 1 · tive width W (P Pout) | ∆Pc/∆P0 as a function of the initial width ∆P0 of the Φ (P ) 2 0.8 | | particle and the initial width ∆p of both pointers. If the Pout = 300 initial wave packet reaches a critical uncertainty in mo- e mentum, we always observe a conditioned wave packet 0.6 being narrower: Asymptotically, i.e. ∆P0 → ∞, the relative width ∆Pc/∆P0 always vanishes. 0.4

IV. CONCLUSION 0.2

In this work we have presented an operational quan- 0 tum model for momentum measurements. It is motivated 200 0 200 400 − by classical time-of-flight concepts. Based on a pointer P formalism we have defined a ToF observable and then de- rived a general expression for the mean momentum of the Figure 3. In this figure we exemplify three post-measurement particle. Furthermore, we have examined single momen- distributions W (P Pout), Eq. (34), and compare them to the | tum measurements based on this ToF notion. We have initial momentum distribution Φ(P ) 2, Eq. (28) of the par- found that a conditioned post-measurement momentum ticle. The ToF setup is defined| by the| parameters already distribution of the particle will be located around the used for Fig.2 and we have chosene the widths ∆P0 = 150 and ToF value. The reduced post-measurement width of the ∆p = 30. The dashed line now indicates the measured value particle has turned out to be independent of the initial of Pout. We clearly observe that the post-measurement dis- mean momentum of the particle and the measurement tribution (red solid curve) becomes narrower than the initial distribution (blue dotted curve). This effect is independent outcome: It is solely a function of the parameters defin- of a specific measurement result Pout, which might be in the ing the ToF setup. The process therefore replaces the center (a) or in the wings (b) and (c) of the initial distribu- ad hoc collapse of the particle’s state to a momentum tion. Hence our ToF scheme leads to a “reduction” of the wave eigenstate. packet in momentum space. 7

derstand the use of quantum mechanical measurement resources it would be possible to discuss initially entan- gled pointer states. One can then analyze if these states 4

0 lead to an even smaller post-measurement width or to a 3 smaller shift between the post-measurement mean mo- /∆P c mentum and the measurement outcome. 2

∆P Finally, a promising approach towards an operational 1 description of ToF momentum measurements would be 0 the idea of operational time observables deﬁned and in- 80 vestigated for example in Refs. [24–30]. Instead of using 60 ﬁxed coupling times as in our model, we could replace them by an operational time observable and analyze if 40 100 ∆p 200 this ansatz still leads to meaningful momentum values 300 ∆P0 and a state reduction.

Figure 4. In this figure we compare the conditioned post- measurement width ∆Pc from Eq. (34) to the initial width ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ∆P0 of the particle. The ToF setup is again defined by the parameters used for Figs.2 and3. Depending on the width ∆p of The authors are very grateful to A. Friedrich and E. the pointers we recognize that the relative post-measurement Giese for discussions, hints and many helpful comments width ∆P /∆P only shrinks, that is moves below the indi- c 0 which lead to the finalization of this work. F. Di Pumpo cated critical plane ∆Pc/∆P0 = 1 (transparent red) if the initial wave packet of the particle is broad enough in mo- thankfully acknowledges the QUANTUS project which mentum space. However, from such a critical value on we is supported by the German Space Agency DLR with clearly discover that a single ToF measurement reduces the funds provided by the Federal Ministry of Economics and wave packet. Technology (BMWi) under grant number 50WM1556 (QUANTUS IV). This is a pre-print of an article published in the Eu- ropean Physical Journal. The final authenticated version The optimization of the post-measurement width as is available online at: https://doi.org/10.1140/epjd/ a function of the initial width of the particle with re- e2019-100226-1. spect to all parameters of the apparatus including the pointer states will be an interesting starting point for further work. Besides, also the small shift between the AUTHORS CONTRIBUTIONS post-measured mean momentum and the measurement outcome could be considered for optimization. Another Both authors were involved in the preparation of the crucial point which has not been treated in this work manuscript and both authors have read and approved the is entanglement of the pointers: In order to further un- final manuscript.

[1] J. von Neumann, Mathematische Grundlagen der Quan- [9] G. M. D’Ariano, Operational Axioms for Quantum Me- tenmechanik (Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 1932). chanics, AIP Conf. Proc. 889, 79 (2007). [2] F. Gallone, Hilbert Space and Quantum Mechanics [10] B.-G. Englert and K. Wódkiewicz, Intrinsic and opera- (World Scientiﬁc Publishing Company, 2014). tional observables in quantum mechanics, Phys. Rev. A [3] F. David, The Formalisms of Quantum Mechanics: An 51, R2661 (1995). Introduction, Lecture Notes in Physics (Springer Interna- [11] M. Hillery, R. F. O’Connell, M. O. Scully, and E. P. tional Publishing, 2014). Wigner, Distribution functions in physics: Fundamen- [4] W. E. Lamb, An operational interpretation of nonrel- tals, Phys. Rep. 106, 121 (1984). ativistic quantum mechanics, Phys. Today 22 (4), 23 [12] W. P. Schleich, Quantum Optics in Phase Space (Wiley- (1969). VCH Berlin Weinheim, 2001). [5] W. H. Zurek, Pointer basis of quantum apparatus: Into [13] K. Vogel and H. Risken, Determination of quasiproba- what mixture does the wave packet collapse?, Phys. Rev. bility distributions in terms of probability distributions D 24, 1516 (1981). for the rotated quadrature phase, Phys. Rev. A 40, 2847 [6] W. H. Zurek, Environment-induced superselection rules, (1989). Phys. Rev. D 26, 1862 (1982). [14] U. Leonhardt, Measuring the Quantum State of Light, [7] P. Busch, M. Grabowski, and P. J. Lahti, Operational Vol. 22 (Cambridge University Press, 1997). Quantum Physics (Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 1995). [15] M. Paris and J. Rehacek, Quantum State Estimation, [8] D. N. Klyshko, Basic quantum mechanical concepts from Lecture Notes in Physics (Springer Berlin Heidelberg, the operational viewpoint, Phys.-Uspekhi 41, 885 (1998). 2004). 8

[16] E. Arthurs and J. L. Kelly, On the Simultaneous Mea- (2012). surement of a Pair of Conjugate Observables, Bell Syst. [29] C. Anastopoulos and N. Savvidou, Time-of-arrival corre- Tech. J. 44, 725 (1965). lations, Phys. Rev. A 95 (2017). [17] J. L. Park and H. Margenau, Simultaneous measurability [30] C. Anastopoulos and N. Savvidou, Time of arrival and in quantum theory, Int. J. Theor. Phys. 1, 211 (1968). localization of relativistic particles, J. Math. Phys. 60, [18] S. Stenholm, Simultaneous measurement of conjugate 032301 (2019). variables, Ann. Phys. 218, 233 (1992). [31] Y. Aharonov and D. Bohm, Time in the Quantum Theory [19] P. Busch, Indeterminacy relations and simultaneous mea- and the Uncertainty Relation for Time and Energy, Phys. surements in quantum theory, Int. J. Theor. Phys. 24, 63 Rev. 122, 1649 (1961). (1985). [32] J. Kijowski, On the time operator in quantum mechanics [20] K. Wódkiewicz, On the operational uncertainty relation, and the heisenberg uncertainty relation for energy and Phys. Lett. A 124, 207 (1987). time, Rep. Math. Phys. 6, 361 (1974). [21] M. Bußhardt and M. Freyberger, Timing in quantum [33] A. Peres, Measurement of time by quantum clocks, Am. measurements of position and momentum, Phys. Rev. A J. Phys. 48, 552 (1980). 82, 042117 (2010). [34] Y. Aharonov, J. Oppenheim, S. Popescu, B. Reznik, and [22] R. Heese and M. Freyberger, Entropic uncertainty re- W. G. Unruh, Measurement of time of arrival in quantum lation for pointer-based simultaneous measurements of mechanics, Phys. Rev. A 57, 4130 (1998). conjugate observables, Phys. Rev. A 87, 012123 (2013). [35] J. M. Yearsley, D. A. Downs, J. J. Halliwell, and A. K. [23] For a review see: J. G. Muga and C. R. Leavens, Arrival Hashagen, Quantum arrival and dwell times via idealized time in quantum mechanics, Phys. Rep. 338, 353 (2000). clocks, Phys. Rev. A 84 (2011). [24] N. Grot, C. Rovelli, and R. S. Tate, Time of arrival in [36] This quantum scenario of a ToF measurement is closest quantum mechanics, Phys. Rev. A 54, 4676 (1996). to the classical scenario of taking snapshots on a movie [25] V. Delgado and J. G. Muga, Arrival time in quantum with a camera of the classical particle traveling along the mechanics, Phys. Rev. A 56, 3425 (1997). x-axis. [26] J. León, Time-of-arrival formalism for the relativistic par- [37] To understand this statistical relevance we recall that due ticle, J. Phys. A 30, 4791 (1997). to the equality of mean values, see Eq. (26), all single ToF [27] C. Anastopoulos and N. Savvidou, Time-of-arrival prob- values will be centered around Pˆ (0) = P0. abilities and quantum measurements, J. Math. Phys. 47, 122106 (2006). D E [28] C. Anastopoulos and N. Savvidou, Time-of-arrival prob- abilities for general particle detectors, Phys. Rev. A 86