The case against entanglement improved measurement precision

Abstract: It is widely accepted that quantum entanglement between otherwise independent sensors can yield a measurement precision beyond that achievable when the same resources are employed without entanglement \cite{Helstrom1969, Holevo1973a, Caves1980a, Caves1981, Wootters1981, Yurke1986, Wu1986, Xiao1987, Slusher1987, Shapiro1989, Wineland1992, Polzik1992, Kitagawa1993, Braunstein1994, Wineland1994, Sanders1995, Bollinger1996, Ou1997, Dowling1998,Soerensen1998, Brif1999, Childs2000, Fleischhauer2000, Meyer2001, Geremia2003, Giovannetti2004, Kok2004, Leibfried2004, Leibfried2005, Giovannetti2006, Nagata2007, Appel2009, Gross2010, Leroux2010, Zwierz2010,DemkowiczDobrzanski2012, Zwierz2012,Aasi2013,Pezze2018,Tse2019,Casacio2021}. Here we show that theoretical proofs of entanglement enhanced metrology are based on a misinterpretation of \emph{can't} theorems as \emph{can} theorems. In concert, we dissect claims of an experimental precision beyond the classical limits and detail where comparisons are misleading, incomplete or incorrect to show that the precision of optimised measurements which forgo entanglement has not been surpassed. In doing so, we highlight a significant discrepancy between experimentally reported uncertainties and the current predictions of quantum measurement theory. The discrepancy can be resolved by introducing a simple physical principle which demonstrates better agreement to empirical evidence. We thus provide viable avenues as to where standard interpretations of quantum mechanics should be modified in order to better predict measurement outcomes.