Abstract In this mainly pedagogical article, we discuss under what circumstances measurements play a special role in quantum processes. In particular, we discuss the following facts that appear to be a common area of confusion. (i) From a fundamental point of view, measurements play no special role whatsoever: all dynamics that can be generated by measurements can be generated by unitary processes (for which post-selection is no exception). (ii) From a purely physical point of view, measurements are not ‘outside’ of quantum mechanics. (iii) The only difference between the abilities of measurement-based protocols and unitary circuits for quantum computing comes from practical (technology dependent) constraints. We emphasise the importance of distinguishing between differences that are (i) fundamental but without physical import; (ii) fundamental and possess physical import; and (iii) are not fundamental but have practical import. We also emphasise the importance of separating theoretical and experimental elements of measurement, primarily projection and amplification , which are physically very different. Note that since we are concerned with facts regarding physical processes, this article has little if anything to do with interpretations of quantum mechanics.
Abstract In this mainly pedagogical article, we discuss under what circumstances measurements play a special role in quantum processes. In particular, we discuss the following facts that appear to be a common area of confusion. (i) From a fundamental point of view, measurements play no special role whatsoever: all dynamics that can be generated by measurements can be generated by unitary processes (for which post-selection is no exception). (ii) From a purely physical point of view, measurements are not ‘outside’ of quantum mechanics. (iii) The only difference between the abilities of measurement-based protocols and unitary circuits for quantum computing comes from practical (technology dependent) constraints. We emphasise the importance of distinguishing between differences that are (i) fundamental but without physical import; (ii) fundamental and possess physical import; and (iii) are not fundamental but have practical import. We also emphasise the importance of separating theoretical and experimental elements of measurement, primarily projection and amplification , which are physically very different. Note that since we are concerned with facts regarding physical processes, this article has little if anything to do with interpretations of quantum mechanics.
Measurements play a specific role in quantum mechanics; only measurements allow us to catch a glimpse of the eluding physical reality. However, there is something deeply unsatisfactory with this specificity—a measurement is itself a physical process! Several varying modes of coping with this dilemma have been proposed and this article tries to describe how a now-century-long discussion has led to new insights about the transition from the quantum to the classical world. Starting from the pioneer’s view of the quantum measurement problem, it follows the development of formalisms, the interest from philosophers for its new aspects on reality and how different interpretations of quantum mechanics have tried to support our classically working brains in understanding quantum phenomena. Decoherence is a main topic and its role in measurement processes exemplified. The question of whether the quantum measurement problem is now solved is left open for the readers’ own judgment.
Measurement is a fundamental operation in quantum computing and has many important use cases in quantum algorithms. This article provides a comprehensive overview of the basic measurement operations in quantum computing and represents a selected set of their applications in quantum algorithms. Our goal is to provide one of the first algorithmic overviews of measurement processes in quantum computing. From the quantum information-theoretical perspective, measurements are either a method to access the result of a quantum computation or a technique to modify a quantum state. We also identify measurement-based methods to solve quantum computational challenges, such as error mitigation and circuit cutting. We discuss three main categories of measurements: performing measurements in static quantum circuits, modifying the quantum state in dynamic quantum circuits via measurements, and addressing challenges in quantum computing with measurements. Based on the reviewed topics, the measurement operations are frequently not at the center of the quantum algorithm design. However, the most novel and error-prone quantum algorithms will likely require sophisticated measurement schemes. Thus, the central message of this article is to broaden the view of measurement operations and highlight their importance at every level of quantum algorithm design.
Quantum Information Theory (QIT) has emerged as one of the most influential fields in modern science, combining the principles of quantum mechanics with classical information theory. It forms the theoretical foundation of advanced technologies such as quantum computing, quantum communication, and quantum cryptography. Despite remarkable progress in these areas, the measurement problem remains a fundamental conceptual and practical challenge. Measurement in quantum mechanics plays a dual role: it enables information extraction while simultaneously disturbing the quantum system. This paper presents a detailed study of the measurement problem within the framework of quantum information theory. It examines the role of measurement in quantum state evolution, the effects of entanglement and decoherence, and the impact on information processing tasks. The paper also discusses existing theoretical approaches and highlights the importance of resolving measurement-related issues for the future development of quantum technologies.
This chapter presents the measurement problem from the point of view of the thermal interpretation of quantum physics. Everything physicists measure is measured in a thermal environment, for which statistical thermodynamics is relevant. The thermal interpretation agrees with how one interprets measurements in thermodynamics, the macroscopic part of quantum physics, derived via statistical mechanics. By its very construction, the thermal interpretation naturally matches the classical properties of our quantum world: The thermal interpretation assigns states-and a realistic interpretation for them-to individual quantum systems, in a way that large quantum systems are naturally described by classical observables. Since measurement devices are large quantum systems, this is the key to solving the measurement problem. We discuss the role played by macroscopic systems and the weak law of large numbers in getting readings with small uncertainty. Since quantum physics makes many deterministic predictions, for example regarding observed spectra, but also assertions about probabilities, we distinguish deterministic and statistical measurements. To clarify the meaning of the concept of measurement, we postulate (in Section 11.1) a measurement principle that defines what it means in the thermal interpretation to measure a quantity with a specified uncertainty. This turns the measurement problem from a philosophical riddle into a scientific problem in the domain of quantum statistical mechanics, namely how the quantum dynamics correlates macroscopic readings from an instrument with properties of the state of a measured microscopic system. The essence of scientific practice is the reproducibility of measurements, discussed in Section 11.2. Unlike in traditional interpretations, single, nonreproducible observations do not count as measurements, since this would violate the reproducibility of measurements-the essence of scientific practice. As a consequence, the measurement of a Hermitian quantity A is regarded as giving an uncertain value approximating the q-expectation {A} rather than (as tradition wanted to have it) as an exact revelation of an eigenvalue of A. This difference is most conspicuous in the interpretation of single discrete microscopic events. Except in very special circumstances, these are not reproducible. Thus, they have no scientific value in themselves and do not constitute measurement results. Scientific value is, however, in ensembles of such observations, which result in approximate measurements of q-probabilities and q-expectations. Sections 11.3 and 11.4 distinguish deterministic and statistical measurements, depending on whether a single observation is reproducible, and discuss the role played by macroscopic systems and the weak law of large numbers in getting readings with small uncertainty. How to measure the q-probabilities of events, described in terms of POVMs, is discussed in Section 11.5. Section 11.6 poses the measurement problem as a problem of the statistical mechanics of measurement devices, and discuss recent work by Allahverdyan, Balian, and Nieuwenhuizen on its resolution. Section 11.7 discusses the problem how, in the thermal interpretation, discrete events can arise, although qexpectations are by their very nature continuous. This is resolved by pointing to work by Breuer and Petruccione on piecewise deterministic processes (PDP). Section 11.8 sheds additional light on the origin of discrete events by an analysis of the role dissipative bistability plays in obtaining discreteness in classical physics.
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”.