Measurement in quantum mechanics is generally described as an irreversible process that perturbs the wavefunction describing a quantum system. In this work we establish a formal connection between the measurement description within the Copenhagen interpretation (i.e., through the collapse of the wavefunction) compared versus a picture in which the system and the measurement apparatus are considered as a whole. We first consider a projective measurement. In this limiting case, the natural requirements of consistency and equivalence between the two pictures lead to the rigorous definition of consistent measuring apparatus: the orthonormal wavefunctions from the Schmidt decomposition of the system plus apparatus must have non-overlapping supports. This result arises from the comparison of the two pictures (otherwise hidden), and while it seems to be an obvious conclusion in the limit of projective measurements, it has some nontrivial implications as one extends its validity to the domain of weak measurements. In this respect, we argue on the existence of two alternative approaches to mathematically constructing a weak measurement protocol. While the two approaches are equivalent from the system's perspective, they do strongly differ from the apparatus point of view, and hence can be only distinguished one from each other in the picture where system and apparatus are considered as a whole. We show that only one of the two mathematical formulations of the weak measurement fulfills the consistent apparatus condition, while the combination of the two gives rise to a generalized weak measurements framework.
Measurement in quantum mechanics is generally described as an irreversible process that perturbs the wavefunction describing a quantum system. In this work we establish a formal connection between the measurement description within the Copenhagen interpretation (i.e., through the collapse of the wavefunction) compared versus a picture in which the system and the measurement apparatus are considered as a whole. We first consider a projective measurement. In this limiting case, the natural requirements of consistency and equivalence between the two pictures lead to the rigorous definition of consistent measuring apparatus: the orthonormal wavefunctions from the Schmidt decomposition of the system plus apparatus must have non-overlapping supports. This result arises from the comparison of the two pictures (otherwise hidden), and while it seems to be an obvious conclusion in the limit of projective measurements, it has some nontrivial implications as one extends its validity to the domain of weak measurements. In this respect, we argue on the existence of two alternative approaches to mathematically constructing a weak measurement protocol. While the two approaches are equivalent from the system's perspective, they do strongly differ from the apparatus point of view, and hence can be only distinguished one from each other in the picture where system and apparatus are considered as a whole. We show that only one of the two mathematical formulations of the weak measurement fulfills the consistent apparatus condition, while the combination of the two gives rise to a generalized weak measurements framework.
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.
Abstract In the context of the century-long debate on quantum measurement problem, the current work proposes a model that describes the process of collapse of state by quantum interaction, which resolves the controversies of the framework of quantum mechanics and describes the entire domain of quantum-to-classical world including the weak measurement and partial collapse. ‘Measurement’, being the process of physically interacting with a system in order to extracting information from it, is theorized in the current model by synthesizing the quantum interaction between system and measuring apparatus with the information entropy of such process. The model assumes Schrödinger equation to be the only guiding equation for all physical systems including the measuring apparatus, and does not presuppose ‘superposition principle’, rather derives it theoretically from the formulation. The superposed state is shown to be independent of the choice of measurement operator (observable) or basis states (pointers) of the measuring apparatus. Most interestingly, the current model explains the non-observance of ‘superposition principle’ by classical systems as the classical limit of such quantum description of measurement. Along with solving the quantum measurement problem, the work also explains weak measurement and partial collapse, which can be further extended to investigate such several emerging critical phenomena.
Abstract In the context of the century-long debate on quantum measurement problem, the current work proposes a model that describes the process of collapse of state by quantum interaction, which resolves the controversies of the framework of quantum mechanics and describes the entire domain of quantum-to-classical world including the weak measurement and partial collapse. ‘Measurement’, being the process of physically interacting with a system in order to extracting information from it, is theorized in the current model by synthesizing the quantum interaction between system and measuring apparatus with the information entropy of such process. The model assumes Schrödinger equation to be the only guiding equation for all physical systems including the measuring apparatus, and does not presuppose ‘superposition principle’, rather derives it theoretically from the formulation. The superposed state is shown to be independent of the choice of measurement operator (observable) or basis states (pointers) of the measuring apparatus. Most interestingly, the current model explains the non-observance of ‘superposition principle’ by classical systems as the classical limit of such quantum description of measurement. Along with solving the quantum measurement problem, the work also explains weak measurement and partial collapse, which can be further extended to investigate such several emerging critical phenomena.
Quantum physics provides us with a formalism with which we can try to understand the microscopic world. However, the underpinning concepts of the basic principles of quantum mechanics itself are surprisingly ill understood. Even the ubiquitous concept of the wavefunction collapsing post measurement, lives outside the formal theory of quantum mechanics and must be taken as a postulate. The Schr\"odinger equation, which governs the evolution of quantum systems, does not describe the system during the measurement process. This is referred to as the measurement problem, and has been debated since the inception of quantum theory. Many different interpretations of quantum mechanics try to elucidate what happens during wavefunction collapse, such as the famous many-worlds interpretation. However, these interpretations either give rise to the same physical outcome or simply are not testable, and so cannot be physically differentiated from one another. We attempt to gain insight into the measurement problem through experiments involving sequential measurements, both in the weak and strong regime. We find surprising outcomes such as the persistence of time-ordering asymmetry in the weak measurement limit, and the survival of coherence in the strong measurement limit.
We critically evaluate the treatment of the notion of measurement in the Consistent Histories approach to quantum mechanics. We find such treatment unsatisfactory because it relies, often implicitly, on elements external to the provided formalism. In particular, when dealing with measurement scenarios, the formalism, in order to be informative, needs to assume that after measurements measuring apparatuses are always in states of well defined pointer positions. The problem is that there is nothing in the formalism to justify this assumption. We conclude that the Consistent Histories approach, contrary to what is claimed by its proponents, fails to provide a truly satisfactory resolution to the measurement problem of quantum mechanics.
The article discusses approaches to understanding the nature of probability in mathematics and physics with the consequences of these approaches, as well as the difficulties that arise. The ontological status of probability is discussed. It is shown that probability theory, contrary to R. Mises, should be classified as a mathematical science, using the definition formulated by A.N. Kolmogorov. The application of this definition in practice is provided within the framework of the classical approach, provided that the connection with physical reality is defined through the concept of equal opportunity. To do this, the concepts of simple and complex events are introduced, and the method of decomposing complex events into simple ones is explained. The point of view is substantiated, according to which a mathematical probability determined and related to physical reality in this way can be considered an objective probability, that is, existing independently of any tests. Various interpretations of quantum mechanics and approaches to understanding probability are also revealed. It is shown that in physics today the existing approaches to understanding the nature of probability contradict each other. In the Bohm interpretation, probability is an analogue of the classical approach – statistical objective probability, which has a mathematical formalization, and in quantum Bayesianism, probability quantifies the degree of reliability and depends on the subject conducting the experiment. The Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics tries to eliminate the difficulties associated with combining the wave and corpuscular properties of light and electron beams into a single picture by giving the ontological status of probability, which leads to the problem of understanding physical reality. The article argues for the need for a new connection between the mathematical description of probability and physical reality. The empirical (frequency) approach of R. Mises is analyzed, which causes a lot of criticism, as it does not have a clear consistent formalization. The article argues that this approach is inconsistent with quantum mechanics. The probability given by M. Born in the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics is also considered, which formulates a new definition of probability, which does not exclude the difficulties associated with the physical interpretation of probability. Born’s approach is based on the classical approach and is reduced to a formal axiomatic definition, which assumes the interpretation of probability as a mathematical construct. The connection of probability with physical reality and the consistency of the statistical method of finding probability values remain unresolved problems, which creates a dualism of understanding probability: in mathematics – one thing, in physics – another. If in the mathematical approach, the solution of these problems is carried out through the connection of probability with physical properties, then in quantum mechanics, in the Copenhagen interpretation, problems persist, which is caused by giving the wave function an ontological status.