Protective measurement is a new measuring method introduced by Aharonov, Anandan and Vaidman (1993). By a protective measurement, one can measure the expectation value of an observable on a single quantum system, even if the system is initially not in an eigenstate of the measured observable. This remarkable feature of protective measurements was challenged by Uffink (1999, 2012). He argued that only observables that commute with the system's Hamiltonian can be protectively measured, and a protective measurement of an observable that does not commute with the system's Hamiltonian does not actually measure the observable, but measure another related observable that commutes with the system's Hamiltonian. In this paper, we show that there are several errors in Uffink's arguments, and his alternative interpretation of protective measurements is untenable.Protective measurement is a new measuring method introduced by Aharonov, Anandan and Vaidman (1993). By a protective measurement, one can measure the expectation value of an observable on a single quantum system, even if the system is initially not in an eigenstate of the measured observable. This remarkable feature of protective measurements was challenged by Uffink (1999, 2012). He argued that only observables that commute with the system's Hamiltonian can be protectively measured, and a protective measurement of an observable that does not commute with the system's Hamiltonian does not actually measure the observable, but measure another related observable that commutes with the system's Hamiltonian. In this paper, we show that there are several errors in Uffink's arguments, and his alternative interpretation of protective measurements is untenable.

Nov 11, 20120 citations

Protective Measurements

Yakir Aharonov, Lev Vaidman A

NATO ASI series. Series B : PhysicsJan 1, 19956 citations

The meaning of protective measurements

Yakir Aharonov, J. Anandan, Lev Vaidman A

arXiv:hep-th/9408153Foundations of PhysicsJan 1, 199677 citations

Protected measurements for protected superconducting qubits

Xanda C Kolesnikow, Thomas B Smith, Andrew C Doherty

Protected superconducting qubits such as the $0$ - $π$ qubit promise to substantially suppress error rates, facilitating fault-tolerant quantum computing with fewer qubits. Measuring these qubits is challenging due to their protected nature, and thus far no concrete proposal exists for how to measure them without breaking their protection. Here we show how to perform protected measurements of the $0$ - $π$ qubit in two orthogonal bases. The protection of these measurements is facilitated by their quantum non-demolition nature, allowing faults on ancillary measurement qubits to be tolerated. As experimental progress pushes protected qubits further into the low error-rate regime, our techniques will be crucial for fault-tolerant universal control.Protected superconducting qubits such as the $0$-$π$ qubit promise to substantially suppress error rates, facilitating fault-tolerant quantum computing with fewer qubits. Measuring these qubits is challenging due to their protected nature, and thus far no concrete proposal exists for how to measure them without breaking their protection. Here we show how to perform protected measurements of the $0$-$π$ qubit in two orthogonal bases. The protection of these measurements is facilitated by their quantum non-demolition nature, allowing faults on ancillary measurement qubits to be tolerated. As experimental progress pushes protected qubits further into the low error-rate regime, our techniques will be crucial for fault-tolerant universal control.

quant-pharXiv:2608.03325Aug 5, 20260 citations

Entanglement, scaling, and the meaning of the wave function in protective measurement

Maximilian Schlosshauer, Tangereen V. B. Claringbold

We examine the entanglement and state disturbance arising in a protective measurement and argue that these inescapable effects doom the claim that protective measurement establishes the reality of the wave function. An additional challenge to this claim results from the exponential number of protective measurements required to reconstruct multi-qubit states. We suggest that the failure of protective measurement to settle the question of the meaning of the wave function is entirely expected, for protective measurement is but an application of the standard quantum formalism, and none of the hard foundational questions can ever be settled in this way. Introduction From the start, the technical result of protective measurement has been suggested to have implications for the interpretation of quantum mechanics. Consider how Aharonov and Vaidman [2] chose to begin their original paper introducing the idea of protective measurement: We show that it is possible to measure the Schrödinger wave of a single quantum system. This provides a strong argument for associating physical reality with the quantum state of a single system.… Since then, the pioneers of protective measurement seem to have taken a more moderate stance. Vaidman [42], in a recent synopsis of protective measurement, concedes that the protective measurement procedure is not a proof that we should adopt one interpretation instead of the other, but it is a good testbed which shows advantages and disadvantages of various interpretations. Notwithstanding this more subtle perspective and a number of critical studies of the technical and foundational aspects of protective measurement, Gao [21] has maintained, if not amplified, the force of Aharonov and Vaidman's original argument: An immediate implication is that the result of a protective measurement, namely the expectation value of the measured observable in the measured state, reflects the actual physical property of the measured system, as the system is not disturbed after this result has been obtained. […]We examine the entanglement and state disturbance arising in a protective measurement and argue that these inescapable effects doom the claim that protective measurement establishes the reality of the wave function. An additional challenge to this claim results from the exponential number of protective measurements required to reconstruct multi-qubit states. We suggest that the failure of protective measurement to settle the question of the meaning of the wave function is entirely expected, for protective measurement is but an application of the standard quantum formalism, and none of the hard foundational questions can ever be settled in this way. Introduction From the start, the technical result of protective measurement has been suggested to have implications for the interpretation of quantum mechanics. Consider how Aharonov and Vaidman [2] chose to begin their original paper introducing the idea of protective measurement: We show that it is possible to measure the Schrödinger wave of a single quantum system. This provides a strong argument for associating physical reality with the quantum state of a single system.… Since then, the pioneers of protective measurement seem to have taken a more moderate stance. Vaidman [42], in a recent synopsis of protective measurement, concedes that the protective measurement procedure is not a proof that we should adopt one interpretation instead of the other, but it is a good testbed which shows advantages and disadvantages of various interpretations. Notwithstanding this more subtle perspective and a number of critical studies of the technical and foundational aspects of protective measurement, Gao [21] has maintained, if not amplified, the force of Aharonov and Vaidman's original argument: An immediate implication is that the result of a protective measurement, namely the expectation value of the measured observable in the measured state, reflects the actual physical property of the measured system, as the system is not disturbed after this result has been obtained. […]

arXiv:1402.1217Cambridge University Press eBooksNov 30, 20148 citations

Why protective measurement establishes the reality of the wave function

Shan Gao

It has been debated whether protective measurement implies the reality of the wave function. In this paper, I present a new analysis of the relationship between protective measurement and the reality of the wave function. First, I briefly introduce protective measurements and the ontological models framework for them. Second, I give a simple proof of Hardy's theorem in terms of protective measurements. It shows that when assuming the ontic state of the protected system keeps unchanged during a protective measurement, the wave function must be real. Third, I analyze two suggested psi-epistemic models of a protective measurement, in which the ontic state of the system is affected by the measurement. It is shown that although these models can explain the appearance of expectation values of observables in a single measurement, their predictions about the variance of the result of a non-ideal protective measurement are different from those of quantum mechanics. Finally, I argue that no psi-epistemic models exist for an ideal protective measurement in the ontological models framework, and in order to account for the definite result of an ideal protective measurement, the wave function must be a property of the protected system, defined either at a precise instant or during an infinitesimal time interval around an instant. Moreover, this result can also be extended to the wave function of an unprotected system. This new proof of the reality of the wave function does not rely on auxiliary assumptions, and it may help settle the issue about the nature of the wave function.It has been debated whether protective measurement implies the reality of the wave function. In this paper, I present a new analysis of the relationship between protective measurement and the reality of the wave function. First, I briefly introduce protective measurements and the ontological models framework for them. Second, I give a simple proof of Hardy's theorem in terms of protective measurements. It shows that when assuming the ontic state of the protected system keeps unchanged during a protective measurement, the wave function must be real. Third, I analyze two suggested psi-epistemic models of a protective measurement, in which the ontic state of the system is affected by the measurement. It is shown that although these models can explain the appearance of expectation values of observables in a single measurement, their predictions about the variance of the result of a non-ideal protective measurement are different from those of quantum mechanics. Finally, I argue that no psi-epistemic models exist for an ideal protective measurement in the ontological models framework, and in order to account for the definite result of an ideal protective measurement, the wave function must be a property of the protected system, defined either at a precise instant or during an infinitesimal time interval around an instant. Moreover, this result can also be extended to the wave function of an unprotected system. This new proof of the reality of the wave function does not rely on auxiliary assumptions, and it may help settle the issue about the nature of the wave function.

Aug 26, 20181 citation

Protected superconducting qubits such as the

0

π

qubit promise to substantially suppress error rates, facilitating fault-tolerant quantum computing with fewer qubits. Measuring these qubits is challenging due to their protected nature, and thus far no concrete proposal exists for how to measure them without breaking their protection. Here we show how to perform protected measurements of the

0

π

qubit in two orthogonal bases. The protection of these measurements is facilitated by their quantum non-demolition nature, allowing faults on ancillary measurement qubits to be tolerated. As experimental progress pushes protected qubits further into the low error-rate regime, our techniques will be crucial for fault-tolerant universal control.