© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

Terms Privacy Legal Notice

arXiv:1312.7321 · Journal of Mathematical Physics

Detecting wave function collapse without prior knowledge

Charles Wesley Cowan, Roderich Tumulka

Published Aug 1, 2015• 0 citations

Abstract

We are concerned with the problem of detecting with high probability whether a wave function has collapsed or not, in the following framework: A quantum system with a d-dimensional Hilbert space is initially in state ψ; with probability 0 < p < 1, the state collapses relative to the orthonormal basis b1, …, bd. That is, the final state ψ′ is random, it is ψ with probability 1 − p and bk (up to a phase) with p times Born’s probability bk|ψ2. Now an experiment on the system in state ψ′ is desired that provides information about whether or not a collapse has occurred. Elsewhere [C. W. Cowan and R. Tumulka, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 47, 195303 (2014)], we identify and discuss the optimal experiment in case that ψ is either known or random with a known probability distribution. Here, we present results about the case that no a priori information about ψ is available, while we regard p and b1, …, bd as known. For certain values of p, we show that the set of ψs for which any experiment E is more reliable than blind guessing is at most half the unit sphere; thus, in this regime, any experiment is of questionable use, if any at all. Remarkably, however, there are other values of p and experiments E such that the set of ψs for which E is more reliable than blind guessing has measure greater than half the sphere, though with a conjectured maximum of 64% of the sphere.

DOI: 10.1063/1.4928933

Related papers

Can one detect whether a wave function has collapsed?

Charles Wesley Cowan, Roderich Tumulka

Consider a quantum system prepared in state ψ, a unit vector in a d -dimensional Hilbert space. Let b 1 , ..., b d be an orthonormal basis and suppose that, with some probability 0 < p < 1, ψ 'collapses', i.e., gets replaced by b k (possibly times a phase factor) with Born's probability |〈 b k |ψ〉| 2 . The question we investigate is: how well can any quantum experiment on the system determine afterwards whether a collapse has occurred? The answer depends on how much is known about the initial vector ψ. We provide a number of different results addressing several variants of the question. In each case, no experiment can provide more than rather limited probabilistic information. In case ψ is drawn randomly with uniform distribution over the unit sphere in Hilbert space, no experiment performs better than a blind guess without measurement; that is, no experiment provides any useful information.

arXiv:1307.0810•Journal of Physics A Mathematical and Theoretical•Apr 23, 2014•3 citations

Epistemology of Wave Function Collapse in Quantum Physics

Charles Wesley Cowan, Roderich Tumulka

Among several possibilities for what reality could be like in view of the empirical facts of quantum mechanics, one is provided by theories of spontaneous wave function collapse, the best known of which is the Ghirardi–Rimini–Weber (GRW) theory. We show mathematically that in GRW theory (and similar theories) there are limitations to knowledge, that is, inhabitants of a GRW universe cannot find out all the facts true of their universe. As a specific example, they cannot accurately measure the number of collapses that a given physical system undergoes during a given time interval; in fact, they cannot reliably measure whether one or zero collapses occur. Put differently, in a GRW universe certain meaningful, factual questions are empirically undecidable. We discuss several types of limitations to knowledge and compare them with those in other (no-collapse) versions of quantum mechanics, such as Bohmian mechanics. Most of our results also apply to observer-induced collapses as in orthodox quantum mechanics (as opposed to the spontaneous collapses of GRW theory). 1 Introduction 1.1 Known examples of limitations to knowledge 1.2 Remarks2 Brief Review of GRW Theories 2.1 The GRW process 2.2 GRWm 2.3 GRWf3 First Examples of Limitations to Knowledge in GRW Theories4 Measurements of Flashes in GRWf, or of Collapses in GRWm 4.1 An example in which ψ is known 4.2 Other choices of ψ 4.3 Experiments beginning before t 2 4.4 If ψ is random 4.5 Optimal way of distinguishing two density matrices 4.6 If ψ is unknown5 Measurements of m(x) in GRWmAppendix

arXiv:1307.0827•The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science•Dec 23, 2014•24 citations

Quantum Information and Wave Function Collapse

Sergey Nikolaevich Mayburov

Information-theoretical restrictions on the information transferred in quantum measurements are regarded for the measurement of object S performed via its interaction with information system O. This information restrictions, induced by Heisenberg commutation relations, are derived in the formalism of inference maps in Hilbert space. O restricted states ξ O are calculated from S,O quantum dynamics and the structure of O observables set (algebra). It’s shown that this principal constraints on the information transfer result in the appearance of stochasticity in the measurement outcomes. Consequently, ξ O describes the random ’pointer ’ outcomes qj, which correspond to the collapse of S pure state. O decoherence by its environment is studied for some S, O systems, it’s shown that it doesn’t change this results principally. 1

•Nov 26, 2012•1 citation

Comment on ‘‘Wave-function collapse by measurement and its simulation’’

James R. Johnston

Namiki and Pascazio [Phys. Rev. A 44, 39 (1991)] propose a model of wave-function collapse associated with the nonfiring of a detector in one of two paths for which a particle is known to be present, and argue that the collapse has the same status as the collapse associated with a measurement involving an actual detection. I question this proposal on the following grounds: (i) it is based on a shift in detection probabilities in the two paths while there is no shift in wave-function amplitudes, and (ii) Namiki and Pascazio use an insufficient measure, loss of interference, as an indicator of collapse.

Physical Review A•Sep 1, 1993•4 citations

Optimal Information Transfer and the Uniform Measure over Probability Space

William K. Wootters

-dimensional Hilbert space, suppose a pure state |ψ⟩ is subjected to a complete orthogonal measurement. The measurement effectively maps |ψ⟩ to a point (p1,…,pd) in the appropriate probability simplex. It is a known fact-which depends crucially on the complex nature of the system's Hilbert space-that if |ψ⟩ is distributed uniformly over the unit sphere, then the resulting ordered set (p1,…,pd) is distributed uniformly over the probability simplex; that is, the resulting measure on the simplex is proportional to dp1⋯dpd-1. In this paper we ask whether there is some foundational significance to this uniform measure. In particular, we ask whether it is the optimal measure for the transmission of information from a preparation to a measurement in some suitably defined scenario. We identify a scenario in which this is indeed the case, but our results suggest that an underlying real-Hilbert-space structure would be needed to realize the optimization in a natural way.

Entropy•May 30, 2023•2 citations

Is spontaneous wave function collapse testable at all?

Lajos Diósi

Mainstream literature on spontaneous wave function collapse never reflects on or profit from the formal coincidence and conceptual relationship with standard collapse under time-continuous quantum measurement (monitoring). I propose some easy lessons of standard monitoring theory which would make spontaneous collapse models revise some of their claims. In particular, the objective detection of spontaneous collapse remains impossible as long as the correct identification of what corresponds to the signal in standard monitoring is missing from spontaneous collapse models, the physical detectability of the “signal” is not stated explicitly and, finally, the principles of physical detection are not revealed.

•Jan 1, 2015•5 citations

We are concerned with the problem of detecting with high probability whether a wave function has collapsed or not, in the following framework: A quantum system with a d-dimensional Hilbert space is initially in state ψ; with probability 0 < p < 1, the state collapses relative to the orthonormal basis b1, …, bd. That is, the final state ψ′ is random, it is ψ with probability 1 − p and bk (up to a phase) with p times Born’s probability bk|ψ2. Now an experiment on the system in state ψ′ is desired that provides information about whether or not a collapse has occurred. Elsewhere [C. W. Cowan and R. Tumulka, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 47, 195303 (2014)], we identify and discuss the optimal experiment in case that ψ is either known or random with a known probability distribution. Here, we present results about the case that no a priori information about ψ is available, while we regard p and b1, …, bd as known. For certain values of p, we show that the set of ψs for which any experiment E is more reliable than blind guessing is at most half the unit sphere; thus, in this regime, any experiment is of questionable use, if any at all. Remarkably, however, there are other values of p and experiments E such that the set of ψs for which E is more reliable than blind guessing has measure greater than half the sphere, though with a conjectured maximum of 64% of the sphere.

Consider a quantum system prepared in state ψ, a unit vector in a d -dimensional Hilbert space. Let b 1 , ..., b d be an orthonormal basis and suppose that, with some probability 0 < p < 1, ψ 'collapses', i.e., gets replaced by b k (possibly times a phase factor) with Born's probability |〈 b k |ψ〉| 2 . The question we investigate is: how well can any quantum experiment on the system determine afterwards whether a collapse has occurred? The answer depends on how much is known about the initial vector ψ. We provide a number of different results addressing several variants of the question. In each case, no experiment can provide more than rather limited probabilistic information. In case ψ is drawn randomly with uniform distribution over the unit sphere in Hilbert space, no experiment performs better than a blind guess without measurement; that is, no experiment provides any useful information.

Among several possibilities for what reality could be like in view of the empirical facts of quantum mechanics, one is provided by theories of spontaneous wave function collapse, the best known of which is the Ghirardi–Rimini–Weber (GRW) theory. We show mathematically that in GRW theory (and similar theories) there are limitations to knowledge, that is, inhabitants of a GRW universe cannot find out all the facts true of their universe. As a specific example, they cannot accurately measure the number of collapses that a given physical system undergoes during a given time interval; in fact, they cannot reliably measure whether one or zero collapses occur. Put differently, in a GRW universe certain meaningful, factual questions are empirically undecidable. We discuss several types of limitations to knowledge and compare them with those in other (no-collapse) versions of quantum mechanics, such as Bohmian mechanics. Most of our results also apply to observer-induced collapses as in orthodox quantum mechanics (as opposed to the spontaneous collapses of GRW theory). 1 Introduction 1.1 Known examples of limitations to knowledge 1.2 Remarks2 Brief Review of GRW Theories 2.1 The GRW process 2.2 GRWm 2.3 GRWf3 First Examples of Limitations to Knowledge in GRW Theories4 Measurements of Flashes in GRWf, or of Collapses in GRWm 4.1 An example in which ψ is known 4.2 Other choices of ψ 4.3 Experiments beginning before t 2 4.4 If ψ is random 4.5 Optimal way of distinguishing two density matrices 4.6 If ψ is unknown5 Measurements of m(x) in GRWmAppendix

Information-theoretical restrictions on the information transferred in quantum measurements are regarded for the measurement of object S performed via its interaction with information system O. This information restrictions, induced by Heisenberg commutation relations, are derived in the formalism of inference maps in Hilbert space. O restricted states ξ O are calculated from S,O quantum dynamics and the structure of O observables set (algebra). It’s shown that this principal constraints on the information transfer result in the appearance of stochasticity in the measurement outcomes. Consequently, ξ O describes the random ’pointer ’ outcomes qj, which correspond to the collapse of S pure state. O decoherence by its environment is studied for some S, O systems, it’s shown that it doesn’t change this results principally. 1

Namiki and Pascazio [Phys. Rev. A 44, 39 (1991)] propose a model of wave-function collapse associated with the nonfiring of a detector in one of two paths for which a particle is known to be present, and argue that the collapse has the same status as the collapse associated with a measurement involving an actual detection. I question this proposal on the following grounds: (i) it is based on a shift in detection probabilities in the two paths while there is no shift in wave-function amplitudes, and (ii) Namiki and Pascazio use an insufficient measure, loss of interference, as an indicator of collapse.

-dimensional Hilbert space, suppose a pure state |ψ⟩ is subjected to a complete orthogonal measurement. The measurement effectively maps |ψ⟩ to a point (p1,…,pd) in the appropriate probability simplex. It is a known fact-which depends crucially on the complex nature of the system's Hilbert space-that if |ψ⟩ is distributed uniformly over the unit sphere, then the resulting ordered set (p1,…,pd) is distributed uniformly over the probability simplex; that is, the resulting measure on the simplex is proportional to dp1⋯dpd-1. In this paper we ask whether there is some foundational significance to this uniform measure. In particular, we ask whether it is the optimal measure for the transmission of information from a preparation to a measurement in some suitably defined scenario. We identify a scenario in which this is indeed the case, but our results suggest that an underlying real-Hilbert-space structure would be needed to realize the optimization in a natural way.

Mainstream literature on spontaneous wave function collapse never reflects on or profit from the formal coincidence and conceptual relationship with standard collapse under time-continuous quantum measurement (monitoring). I propose some easy lessons of standard monitoring theory which would make spontaneous collapse models revise some of their claims. In particular, the objective detection of spontaneous collapse remains impossible as long as the correct identification of what corresponds to the signal in standard monitoring is missing from spontaneous collapse models, the physical detectability of the “signal” is not stated explicitly and, finally, the principles of physical detection are not revealed.