A complete apparatus is defined as reacting to every state of the measured system. Standard quantum mechanics of indistinguishable particles is shown to imply that apparatuses must be incomplete or else they would be drowned out by noise. Each quantum observable is then an abstract representation of many measurement apparatuses, each incomplete in a different way. Moreover, a measured system must be prepared in a state that is orthogonal to the states of all particles of the same type in the environment. This is the main purpose of preparations. A system so prepared is said to have a "separation status". A new, more satisfactory definition of separation status than the spatial one proposed in previous papers then results. Conditions are specified under which the particles in the environment may be ignored as is usually done in the theory of measurement.
A complete apparatus is defined as reacting to every state of the measured system. Standard quantum mechanics of indistinguishable particles is shown to imply that apparatuses must be incomplete or else they would be drowned out by noise. Each quantum observable is then an abstract representation of many measurement apparatuses, each incomplete in a different way. Moreover, a measured system must be prepared in a state that is orthogonal to the states of all particles of the same type in the environment. This is the main purpose of preparations. A system so prepared is said to have a "separation status". A new, more satisfactory definition of separation status than the spatial one proposed in previous papers then results. Conditions are specified under which the particles in the environment may be ignored as is usually done in the theory of measurement.
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.
The notion of state reduction employed by the standard quantum theory of measurement is difficult to accept for two reasons: It leaves open where and when the reduction takes place and it does not give any objective conditions under which the reduction occurs. Some recently published ideas on this problem are developed an improved. The disturbance of measurement due to identical particles in the environment is shown to make any POV measure non-measurable. Truncated POV (TPOV) measures are introduced that can be measurable if object systems satisfy the additional requirement of having separation status. The separation status is generalised from domain of space to domain of phase space. Starting from the previously introduced distinction between ancillas and detectors, further study of experiments suggests that a thermodynamic mixing within a detector and the consequent loss of separation status is the objective condition for the occurrence of the state reduction. The conjecture is simple, specific and testable. The theory is illustrated by a model of a real measurement.
One understanding of the Niels Bohr's interpretation of quantum mechanics suggests that the measurement problem arises because an observer description of reality is incomplete due to lack of complete access to an entire system of observed and observer. In general, an additional and external measuring observer is required to access the entire system. Inevitable entanglement between observers, measurement apparatus and measured objects is key to such an understanding of the measurement problem. Quantum mechanics only provides a complete `incomplete' description of reality. Nevertheless, some issues, especially providing an account of why a preferred measurement basis arises, remain. Replacing relations between observed and observer in relational quantum mechanics with those between effective (approximate) theories, one arrives at a more clear understanding of why the measurement problem arises and how a preferred measurement basis is determined. The measurement problem exists because of measurement apparatus limitations, which only allow us to formulate and verify effective theories that inevitably neglect some details of nature.
The paper describes a solution to the problem of quantum measurement that has been proposed recently. The literal understanding of the basic rule of quantum mechanics on identical particles violates the cluster separation principle and so leads to difficulties. A proposal due to Peres of how such difficulties could be removed is reformulated and extended. Cluster separability leads to a locality requirement on observables and to the key notion of separation status. Separation status of a microsystem is shown to change in preparation and registration processes. The indispensability of detectors plays an important role. Changes of separation status are alterations of kinematic description rather than some parts of dynamical trajectories and so more radical than 'collapse of the wave function'. Textbook quantum mechanics does not provide any information of how separation status changes run, hence new rules must be formulated. This enables to satisfy the objectification requirement for registrations. To show how the ideas work, a simplified model of registration apparatus is constructed.
The measuring process is the interface of classical and quantum phenomena. A measuring apparatus must be described by quantum mechanics while it interacts with the quantum system under observation. Then, it has to be be given a classical description so that the result of the measurement appears as objective reality. Alternatively, that apparatus may be treated at all times by quantum mechanics. In that case, it never achieves the “objective” status, but it can be measured by a second apparatus which has such a dual description. The question is whether these two different descriptions of the same apparatus are mutually consistent. A detailed analysis leads to the conclusion that not every physical system is a legitimate measuring apparatus. The quantum measurement problem has a satisfactory solution only if the measuring apparatus is properly designed.
Abstract We use the Wigner’s friend story to characterize the quantum measurement problem. On the standard formulation of quantum mechanics, whether a physical system is measured determines which of the theory's two dynamical laws obtains. For this reason, the logical consistency of the theory depends on one specifying strictly disjoint conditions for when when each law obtains, which means that one needs to say precisely what constitutes a measurement. But since the term measurement occurs in the standard theory as an undefined primitive term, the theory is at best incomplete. We see precisely how this conceptual incompleteness threatens the logical inconsistency of the theory and why, on even the most charitable reading, it entails that the theory is empirical incomplete. We end by considering why its empirically incompleteness is extremely difficult to test.