We demonstrate that it is possible to discern the way that has been followed to measure a quantum observable that can be expressed in terms of different products of observables, whereas no such discrimination is possible by assigning predetermined values. Specifically we show how to distinguish different routes (contexts) to measure C=AB=A'B', when C,A,B and C,A',B' commute with each other, but A and B do not commute with A' and B'.
We demonstrate that it is possible to discern the way that has been followed to measure a quantum observable that can be expressed in terms of different products of observables, whereas no such discrimination is possible by assigning predetermined values. Specifically we show how to distinguish different routes (contexts) to measure C=AB=A'B', when C,A,B and C,A',B' commute with each other, but A and B do not commute with A' and B'.
A method of discerning measurement paths in quantum mechanics was conceived by Sala Mayato and Muga [Phys. Lett. A 375 (2011) 3167] and applied to a two-qubit system. There are some calculational errors in that paper. We adopt the method to a three-qubit system where we choose two measurement contexts, i.e., {A,B,C,D} and {A',B',C',D}, that constitute three measurement paths, i.e., D, ABC and A'B'C', for measuring the quantum observable D in such a way that D=ABC=A'B'C'. The observables A, B, C, D and A', B', C', D are pairwise commuting, but A, B, C do not commute with A', B', C'. The expectation values of the observables for the final states produced after performing the Luders' measurement allow us to determine the measurement path that has been taken.
Recent developments in the formalisation of quantum causal structures have made it possible to test and compare hypotheses about causal structure empirically, rather than being a-priori assumptions. Such differences in causal structure may be leveraged to distinguish between the processes they belong to, akin to distinguishing between quantum states known to belong to different eigenspaces of an observable. So how far this analogy can be pushed? Can causal order be interpreted as a kind of observable? Can it be measured?
To this end we construct a completely operational definition of observables in terms of `discrimination tasks'. This begins with some base set of classes (analogous to a quantum observable's eigenspaces) before we impose three conditions on how these classes relate under discrimination tasks. These conditions recover the properties of a standard observable, letting us apply this definition to non-state entities such as quantum processes, which naturally encode causal structure.
These conditions can be described in plain language as (1) `members of any class are perfectly distinguishable from members of any other' (i.e. our classes are `sharp'), (2) `entities perfectly distinguishable pairwise are all perfectly distinguishable by a joint intervention', and (3) `if all members of a class are perfectly distinguishable from an entity, then the whole class is perfectly distinguishable from it jointly'.
By analysing classes of quantum processes having strict causal orders, we find causal classes which are sharp but violate condition 2, and classes which violate condition 3. This implies that causal order cannot be an observable.
We note cases in the literature which claim to prove the opposite, and discuss them. We find their analyses presume special circumstances equivalent to conditions (2) and (3), and so do not contradict our own findings.
In quantum physics, the term ‘contextual’ can be used in more than one way. One usage, here called ‘Bell contextual’ since the idea goes back to Bell, is that if A , B and C are three quantum observables, with A compatible (i.e. commuting) with B and also with C , whereas B and C are incompatible, a measurement of A might yield a different result (indicating that quantum mechanics is contextual) depending upon whether A is measured along with B (the { A , B } context) or with C (the { A , C } context). An analysis of what projective quantum measurements measure shows that quantum theory is Bell non-contextual: the outcome of a particular A measurement when A is measured along with B would have been exactly the same if A had, instead, been measured along with C . A different definition, here called ‘globally (non)contextual’ refers to whether or not there is (non-contextual) or is not (contextual) a single joint probability distribution that simultaneously assigns probabilities in a consistent manner to the outcomes of measurements of a certain collection of observables, not all of which are compatible. A simple example shows that such a joint probability distribution can exist even in a situation where the measurement probabilities cannot refer to properties of a quantum system, and hence lack physical significance, even though mathematically well defined. It is noted that the quantum sample space, a projective decomposition of the identity, required for interpreting measurements of incompatible properties in different runs of an experiment using different types of apparatus, has a tensor product structure, a fact sometimes overlooked. This article is part of the theme issue ‘Contextuality and probability in quantum mechanics and beyond’.
In classical mechanics, as we know, all observables commute with each other and therefore belong to the same “commuting set.” This means that – in principle – we can measure all observables simultaneously. Then, the state manifests itself as a collection of properties (of values of observables) (see Sec. 1.1), and as such it is observable. On the other hand, quantum-mechanical observables may not commute (see Subsec. 2.1.5). As a consequence, the state is not just a collection of observable values (see also Sec. 2.3) so that we may ask ourselves whether it is observable or not, and therefore raise the following question: What is the nature of the wave function? Is it simply a mathematical tool, i.e. does it only represent the sum of all that we can know about a system? Or does it have an ontological status? Since the early days of quantum mechanics, this question has been very popular. As a first attempt, de Broglie tried to interpret the wave function as describing, in classical terms, a wave field that envelopes a classical particle (see also Subsec. 16.3.2). This theory should predict the existence of empty waves, but several experiments have shown negative results (see also the end of Sec. 9.6). More recently, many physicists have tried to propose some methods in order to measure the wave function. Here we shortly report on some of these proposals and discuss to what extent the quantum state can be measured.
In quantum physics there are circumstances where the direct measurement of particular observables encounters difficulties; in some of these cases, however, its value can be evaluated, i.e. it can be inferred by measuring another observable characterized by perfect correlation with the observable of interest. Though an evaluation is often interpreted as a measurement of the evaluated observable, we prove that the two concepts cannot be identified in quantum physics, because the identification yields contradictions. Then, we establish the conceptual status of evaluations in Quantum Theory and the role can be ascribed to them.
We characterize a value of an observable by a 'sum rule' for generally non-commuting observables and a 'product rule' when restricted to a maximal commuting subalgebra of observables together with the requirement that the value is unity for the projection operator of the prepared state and the values are zero for the projection operators of the states which are orthogonal to the prepared state. The crucial requirement is that the expectation value and the variance of an observable should be independent of the way of measurement, i.e. the choice of the maximal commuting subalgebra of observables. We shall call the value a ' contextual value '. We show that the contextual value of an observable coincides with the weak value advocated by Aharonov and his colleagues by demanding the consistency of quantum mechanics with Kolmogorov's measure theory of probability. This also gives a derivation of Born's rule, which is one of the axioms of conventional quantum mechanics.