The evolution of a measured system and an experimental apparatus is presented in an unified form. Conditions under which the state of such a total system forms, evaluates and declines from a superposition of states are defined. The problem of definite outcomes in the quantum-mechanical measurement theory is considered.
A transition would lead the system from its original superposition state to another state, in which the system and the measuring apparatus acquire definite properties. The problem of measurement is approached from the theory of environment-induced decoherence. This theoretical program, based on the study of the effects of the interaction between a quantum system, is considered as an open system and its environment. In turn, even the measurement problem has been reformulated, expanding its scope. As Schlosshauer points out, the conceptual difficulties of quantum measurement can now be concentrated around two cases: The definite outcome, which consists of the traditional question about quantum measurement. The problem of the preferred basis: since there is a theoretical ambiguity in the definition of the observable measured due to the mathematical possibility of a base change in the expression of the system state.
In this paper, we discuss the importance of measurement in quantum mechanics and the so-called measurement problem. Any quantum system can be described as a linear combination of eigenstates of an operator representing a physical quantity; this means that the system can be in a superposition of states that corresponds to different eigenvalues, i.e., different physical outcomes, each one incompatible with the others. The measurement process converts a state of superposition (not macroscopically defined) in a well-defined state. We show that, if we describe the measurement by the standard laws of quantum mechanics, the system would preserve its state of superposition even on a macroscopic scale. Since this is not the case, we assume that a measurement does not obey to standard quantum mechanics, but to a new set of laws that form a “quantum measurement theory”.
It is well-known that developments of quantum mechanical states according to the Schrödinger equation during a measurement seem to prevent measurements from having definite results. For, the usually assumed (idealized) Schrödinger development of the measured object and the measuring apparatus during a measurement typically results in a state of the entire system which is a superposition of the eigenstates of the measured observable and measuring observable. And the most common interpretations of quantum mechanics state that an observable does not have a definite value if the quantum mechanical state is a superposition of the eigenstates of the observable. Many ways out of this problem have been suggested. I want to discuss an interpretation suggested by S. Kochen (Kochen 1985), and suggest similar interpretations, each of which accept the universal validity of the Schrödinger equation, and yet yield definite results for measurements.
The newly revised edition of this well-known book categorizes prevalent views on measurement as described by quantum mechanics, discusses basics agreed to by many who on other issues disagree, and describes some of the problems. Although many paragraphs rest unchanged from the first (1991) edition, results found since 1991 are used to reorganize and sharpen the focus of the book, so that even the old paragraphs are now understood differently and more clearly. One advance in the second edition is a new and more general no-go theorem; another is separation of formal derivations from interpretation. The dozen or so definitions essential to following the book even casually are stated clearly. By this means the authors succeed pretty well in achieving their stated desire to make the book comprehensible to those who do not share their philosophic predispositions. While I differ in philosophy from the authors, attending to their discussion uncovered weaknesses in my own thinking and improved it. The mathematical language of quantum mechanics expresses a system under measurement by states (as rays in a Hilbert space) and a hamiltonian operator, distinct from the apparatus that produces outcomes, which is expressed by a positive operator-valued (POV) measure. In this way quantum language separates state preparation from state measurement. Often the Hilbert space is viewed as a tensor product of subspaces, allowing further conceptual separations. The authors take the stance that quantum mechanics calls for splitting the empirical world into parts, the most essential being (1) objective systems S (to be observed) and (2) apparatus A (preparation and registration devices that produces outcomes (or, as the authors write, definite pointer values) of the observed system). In some interpretations, one or both of an observer and an environment appear as additional parts. What is to be included in the system S versus the apparatus A is not specified by the language, but is open to the theoretician; a probe, for example, can be analysed as either part of the apparatus or as part of the system, as was discussed by von Neumann in work cited by the authors. With what should a theory of measurement be concerned? A broad division of approaches is defined by how one answers the question: should one try to do away with the cut between measuring apparatus and system? The authors phrase this as a choice of REFERENT, a term which in my mind puts them on shaky semantic ground; anyway The Quantum Theory of Measurement is concerned with implications of the `yes'. The book unfolds with the power of a tragedy, in which the logical consequences lead, step-by-step, to the statement and proof of theorem 6.2.1, which, roughly speaking, asserts the non-existence of a solution to the problem of getting definite pointer values from measuring apparatus that exhibits the superposition demanded by its description as a quantum system. Possible responses to this theorem are discussed, among them the many-worlds interpretation and a modification of quantum mechanics that elevates decoherence to a principle. Citations of the literature are thorough, and many points of view are crisply summarized. The book is indispensable to both those who work in the broad direction chosen by the authors and to those who wish to set any other direction in context.
Four problematic circumstances are considered, involving models which describe dynamical wave-function collapse toward energy eigenstates, for which it is shown that wave-function collapse of macroscopic objects does not work properly. In one case, a common particle position measuring situation, the apparatus evolves to a superposition of macroscopically distinguishable states (does not collapse to one of them as it should) because each such particle∕apparatus∕environment state has precisely the same energy spectrum. Second, assuming an experiment takes place involving collapse to one of two possible outcomes which is permanently recorded, it is shown in general that this can only happen in the unlikely case that the two apparatus states corresponding to the two outcomes have disjoint energy spectra. Next, the progressive narrowing of the energy spectrum due to the collapse mechanism is considered. This has the effect of broadening the time evolution of objects as the universe evolves. Two examples, one involving a precessing spin, the other involving creation of an excited state followed by its decay, are presented in the form of paradoxes. In both examples, the microscopic behavior predicted by standard quantum theory is significantly altered under energy-driven collapse, but this alteration is not observed by an apparatus when it is included in the quantum description. The resolution involves recognition that the state vector describing the apparatus does not collapse, but evolves to a superposition of macroscopically different states.