A detailed theory of quantum premeasurement dynamics is presented in which a unitary composite-system operator that contains the relevant object-measuring-instrument interaction brings about the final premeasurement state. It does not include collapse, and it does not consider the environment. It is assumed that a discrete degenerate or non-degenerate observable is measured. Premeasurement is defined by the calibration condition, which requires that every initially statistically sharp value of the measured observable has to be detected with statistical certainty by the measuring instrument. The entire theory is derived as a logical consequence of this definition using the standard quantum formalism. The study has a comprehensive coverage, hence the article is actually a topical review. Connection is made with results of other authors, particularly with basic works on premeasurement. The article is a conceptual review, not a historical one. General exact premeasurement is defined in 7 equivalent ways. Nondemolition premeasurement, defined by requiring preservation of any sharp value of the measured observable, is characterized in 10 equivalent ways. Overmeasurement, i. e., a process in which the observable is measured on account of being a function of a finer observable that is actually measured, is discussed. Disentangled premeasurement, in which, by definition, to each result corresponds only one pointer-observable state in the final composite-system state, is investigated. Ideal premeasurement, a special case of both nondemolition premeasurement and disentangled premeasurement, is defined, and its most important properties are discussed. Finally, disentangled and entangled premeasurements, in conjunction with nondemolition or demolition premeasurements, are used for classification of all premeasurements.
A detailed theory of quantum premeasurement dynamics is presented in which a unitary composite-system operator that contains the relevant object-measuring-instrument interaction brings about the final premeasurement state. It does not include collapse, and it does not consider the environment. It is assumed that a discrete degenerate or non-degenerate observable is measured. Premeasurement is defined by the calibration condition, which requires that every initially statistically sharp value of the measured observable has to be detected with statistical certainty by the measuring instrument. The entire theory is derived as a logical consequence of this definition using the standard quantum formalism. The study has a comprehensive coverage, hence the article is actually a topical review. Connection is made with results of other authors, particularly with basic works on premeasurement. The article is a conceptual review, not a historical one. General exact premeasurement is defined in 7 equivalent ways. Nondemolition premeasurement, defined by requiring preservation of any sharp value of the measured observable, is characterized in 10 equivalent ways. Overmeasurement, i. e., a process in which the observable is measured on account of being a function of a finer observable that is actually measured, is discussed. Disentangled premeasurement, in which, by definition, to each result corresponds only one pointer-observable state in the final composite-system state, is investigated. Ideal premeasurement, a special case of both nondemolition premeasurement and disentangled premeasurement, is defined, and its most important properties are discussed. Finally, disentangled and entangled premeasurements, in conjunction with nondemolition or demolition premeasurements, are used for classification of all premeasurements.
Measurement of a degenerate (or non-degenerate) discrete observable is investigated in the framework of quantum measurement theory short of collapse, i.e. premeasurement theory, based on a unitary evolution operator that includes the measurement interaction between object and measuring instrument. A pointer observable with eigen-projectors of, in general, many (or even infinitely) dimensional ranges is introduced as a new approach. It leads to redundant entanglement in the final state. As the first main result, the basic dynamical relation of the approach is derived. It is shown to be equivalent to the calibration condition, which is known to define general exact measurement. The latter is given a practical form. Complete measurement (premeasurement with objectification or collapse), which is in some sense implied by the premeasurement theory, performed on a subsystem of a bipartite object in a pure state is studied with particular attention to its effect on the opposite, interactionally unaffected subsystem. The change of state of the latter is derived for exact complete subsystem measurement, and it is shown that the change is the same as for the simplest, i.e. ideal measurement (this is the second main result). It is applied to the case of twin observables and thus distant measurement obtains a new, more satisfactory, foundation (the third main result). Distant measurement is a basic concept in the EPR phenomenon. The well-known importance of the latter implies importance of the former.
A unitary operator is defined, connecting the states of the measured system and the measuring-instrument system before and after interaction, by means of which the post-interaction values of S in the instrument can be used to calculate the pre-interaction 〈R〉av and ${\ensuremath{\Delta}}^{2}R$ in the measured system, where R and S are Hermitian operators. The premeasurement state of the instrument need not be known, and the same measurement operator is applicable whether the system to be measured is originally described by a pure case or a mixture. Finally, this theory is contrasted briefly with the measurement theory of von Neumann.
Until now we have treated measurement apparatuses as devices taking quantum systems as their inputs and producing measurement outcomes as outputs. At this level of description, measurement apparatuses are fully described by observables, as discussed in Chapter 3. The measurement outcome distribution is determined by the particular input state and the observable describing the measurement device. In this chapter we explore a mathematical framework suitable for the description of measurement apparatuses for which, in addition to the measurement outcomes, the measured systems are available after the measurement is performed. In such cases we may try to obtain more information on the system by measuring some other observable, or, perhaps by filtering out some preferred output states we may use our measurement apparatus as a preparator. Clearly, in this kind of situation we need a description of measurement apparatuses that is more detailed than that of observables. Therefore, two more refined concepts, measurement models and instruments , will be investigated in this chapter. There is no customary name for a measurement model. As used here, it was first formalized in a general way by Ozawa [106], [107] who referred to the measurement process . A comprehensive general reference on quantum measurements is the monograph by Busch et al. [35], where measurement models are called premeasurements . Some other authors use the term indirect measurements . Three levels of description of measurements It is convenient to think of three levels of description when considering 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.
"The unambiguous account of proper quantum phenomena must, in principle, include a description of all relevant features of experimental arrangement" (Bohr). The measurement process is composed of premeasurement (quantum correlation of the system with the pointer variable) and an irreversible decoherence via interaction with an environment. The system ends up in a probabilistic mixture of the eigenstates of the measured observable. For the premeasurement stage, any attempt to introduce an "outcome" leads, as we show, to a logical contradiction, 1=i. This nullifies claims that a modified concept of Wigner's friend, who just premeasures, can lead to valid results concerning quantum theory.