Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Log inSign up
Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Blog
Job Board
Q3AS

© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

TermsPrivacyLegal Notice

arXiv:1811.11060 · Nature Communications

The measurement postulates of quantum mechanics are operationally redundant

Lluís Masanes, Thomas D. Galley, Markus P. Müller

Published Mar 25, 2019• 54 citations
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

Understanding the core content of quantum mechanics requires us to disentangle the hidden logical relationships between the postulates of this theory. Here we show that the mathematical structure of quantum measurements, the formula for assigning outcome probabilities (Born's rule) and the post-measurement state-update rule, can be deduced from the other quantum postulates, often referred to as "unitary quantum mechanics", and the assumption that ensembles on finite-dimensional Hilbert spaces are characterized by finitely many parameters. This is achieved by taking an operational approach to physical theories, and using the fact that the manner in which a physical system is partitioned into subsystems is a subjective choice of the observer, and hence should not affect the predictions of the theory. In contrast to other approaches, our result does not assume that measurements are related to operators or bases, it does not rely on the universality of quantum mechanics, and it is independent of the interpretation of probability.

DOI
10.1038/s41467-019-09348-x

Related papers

The Measurement Postulates of Quantum Mechanics are Redundant

Lluís Masanes

Understanding the core content of quantum mechanics requires us to disentangle the hidden logical relationships between the postulates of this theory. Here we show that the mathematical structure of quantum measurements, the formula for assigning outcome probabilities (Born's rule) and the post-measurement state-update rule, can be deduced from the other quantum postulates, often referred to as unitary quantum and the assumption that ensembles on finite-dimensional Hilbert spaces are characterised by finitely many parameters. This is achieved by taking an operational approach to physical theories, and using the fact that the manner in which a physical system is partitioned into subsystems is a subjective choice of the observer, and hence should not affect the predictions of the theory. In contrast to other approaches, our result does not assume that measurements are related to operators or bases, it does not rely on the universality of quantum mechanics, and it is independent of the interpretation of probability.

•May 8, 2018•2 citations

The measurement postulates of quantum mechanics are not redundant

Adrian Kent

Masanes, Galley and Müller \cite{masanes2019measurement} argue that the measurement postulates of non-relativistic quantum mechanics follow from the structural postulates together with an assumption they call the "possibility of state estimation". Their argument also relies on what they term a "theory-independent characterization of measurements for single and multipartite systems". We refute their conclusion, giving explicit examples of non-quantum measurement and state update rules that satisfy all their assumptions. We also show that their "possibility of state estimation" assumption is neither necessary nor sufficient to ensure a sensible notion of state estimation within a theory whose states are described by the quantum formalism. We further show their purportedly "theory-independent" characterization assumes several properties of quantum measurements that exclude plausible alternative types of measurement. We illustrate all these points with specific alternative measurement postulates and post-measurement state update rules. We conclude that, contrary to some folklore, quantum mechanics is by no means an island in theory-space. It can consistently be extended by rules for obtaining information about quantum states other than via POVMs. Whether such rules are realised in nature, for example in linking quantum theory and gravity, is an empirical question that cannot be resolved by theoretical analysis alone.

arXiv:2307.06191•Quantum•May 20, 2025•6 citations

The Born Rule Without a Measurement Postulate

D. Ring

The Born rule governs the probability of outcomes of measurements of quantum systems. Many attempts have been made to derive the Born rule from other postulates. We perform such an analysis in an Everett interpretation without any measurement postulates at all. We explain that probability is an ill defined concept and that an agent who nevertheless wishes to make approximate predictions will have no alternative measure to weigh the alternatives without subjecting herself to a dutch book. Our demonstration is complete for projective measurements of pure states in a finite dimensional Hilbert space and we discuss how it might be applied to generalized measurements. A similar demonstration is impossible for mixed states. Nevertheless, following the standard convention, probability for mixed states has the same validity and issues as it does in classical physics.

•Jan 23, 2026•0 citations

Response to "The measurement postulates of quantum mechanics are not redundant"

Lluís Masanes, Thomas D. Galley, Markus P. Müller

Adrian Kent has recently presented a critique [arXiv:2307.06191] of our paper [Nat. Comms. 10, 1361 (2019)] in which he claims to refute our main result: the measurement postulates of quantum mechanics can be derived from the rest of postulates, once we assume that the set of mixed states of a finite-dimensional Hilbert space is finite-dimensional. To construct his argument, Kent considers theories resulting from supplementing quantum mechanics with hypothetical "post-quantum" measurement devices. We prove that each of these theories contains pure states (i.e. states of maximal knowledge) which are not rays of the Hilbert space, in contradiction with the "pure state postulate" of quantum mechanics. We also prove that these alternatives violate the finite-dimensionality of mixed states. Each of these two facts separately invalidates the refutation. In this note we also clarify the assumptions used in [Nat. Comms. 10, 1361 (2019)] and discuss the notions of pure state, physical system, and the sensitivity of the structure of the state space under modifications of the measurements or the dynamics.

arXiv:2309.01650•Sep 4, 2023•0 citations

First-Principle Derivation of the Born Rule Without Collapse or Observers

Zhen Su

The Born rule stands as the fundamental probability postulate of quantum mechanics, yet its first-principle derivation remains a longstanding open problem. This paper presents a rigorous, collapse-free, and observer-independent derivation of the Born rule. Starting from four physically natural and minimal axioms—unitary dynamics, uniqueness of classical records, unitary invariance, and consistency with the classical limit and ergodicity—we uniquely deduce the Born rule from first principles. We prove that the Born rule is not an independent postulate, but a necessary mathematical consequence of the core axiomatic structure. Our approach is self-contained, assumption-free, and purely unitary, establishing that the Born rule is canonically determined by the fundamental mathematical and physical principles of quantum mechanics.

•May 7, 2026•0 citations

Response to "The measurement postulates of quantum mechanics are not redundant"

Lluís Masanes, Thomas D. Galley, Markus P. Müller

Adrian Kent has recently presented a critique \cite{Kent} of our paper \cite{MGM} in which he claims to refute our main result: the measurement postulates of quantum mechanics can be derived from the rest of postulates, once we assume that the set of mixed states of a finite-dimensional Hilbert space is finite-dimensional. To construct his argument, Kent considers theories resulting from supplementing quantum mechanics with hypothetical ``post-quantum'' measurement devices. We prove that each of these theories contains pure states (i.e. states of maximal knowledge) which are not rays of the Hilbert space, in contradiction with the ``pure state postulate'' of quantum mechanics. We also prove that these alternatives violate the finite-dimensionality of mixed states. Each of these two facts separately invalidates the refutation. In this note we also clarify the assumptions used in \cite{MGM} and discuss the notions of pure state, physical system, and the sensitivity of the structure of the state space under modifications of the measurements or the dynamics.

Quantum•Jan 14, 2025•5 citations
Understanding the core content of quantum mechanics requires us to disentangle the hidden logical relationships between the postulates of this theory. Here we show that the mathematical structure of quantum measurements, the formula for assigning outcome probabilities (Born's rule) and the post-measurement state-update rule, can be deduced from the other quantum postulates, often referred to as "unitary quantum mechanics", and the assumption that ensembles on finite-dimensional Hilbert spaces are characterized by finitely many parameters. This is achieved by taking an operational approach to physical theories, and using the fact that the manner in which a physical system is partitioned into subsystems is a subjective choice of the observer, and hence should not affect the predictions of the theory. In contrast to other approaches, our result does not assume that measurements are related to operators or bases, it does not rely on the universality of quantum mechanics, and it is independent of the interpretation of probability.
Understanding the core content of quantum mechanics requires us to disentangle the hidden logical relationships between the postulates of this theory. Here we show that the mathematical structure of quantum measurements, the formula for assigning outcome probabilities (Born's rule) and the post-measurement state-update rule, can be deduced from the other quantum postulates, often referred to as unitary quantum and the assumption that ensembles on finite-dimensional Hilbert spaces are characterised by finitely many parameters. This is achieved by taking an operational approach to physical theories, and using the fact that the manner in which a physical system is partitioned into subsystems is a subjective choice of the observer, and hence should not affect the predictions of the theory. In contrast to other approaches, our result does not assume that measurements are related to operators or bases, it does not rely on the universality of quantum mechanics, and it is independent of the interpretation of probability.
Masanes, Galley and Müller \cite{masanes2019measurement} argue that the measurement postulates of non-relativistic quantum mechanics follow from the structural postulates together with an assumption they call the "possibility of state estimation". Their argument also relies on what they term a "theory-independent characterization of measurements for single and multipartite systems". We refute their conclusion, giving explicit examples of non-quantum measurement and state update rules that satisfy all their assumptions. We also show that their "possibility of state estimation" assumption is neither necessary nor sufficient to ensure a sensible notion of state estimation within a theory whose states are described by the quantum formalism. We further show their purportedly "theory-independent" characterization assumes several properties of quantum measurements that exclude plausible alternative types of measurement. We illustrate all these points with specific alternative measurement postulates and post-measurement state update rules. We conclude that, contrary to some folklore, quantum mechanics is by no means an island in theory-space. It can consistently be extended by rules for obtaining information about quantum states other than via POVMs. Whether such rules are realised in nature, for example in linking quantum theory and gravity, is an empirical question that cannot be resolved by theoretical analysis alone.
The Born rule governs the probability of outcomes of measurements of quantum systems. Many attempts have been made to derive the Born rule from other postulates. We perform such an analysis in an Everett interpretation without any measurement postulates at all. We explain that probability is an ill defined concept and that an agent who nevertheless wishes to make approximate predictions will have no alternative measure to weigh the alternatives without subjecting herself to a dutch book. Our demonstration is complete for projective measurements of pure states in a finite dimensional Hilbert space and we discuss how it might be applied to generalized measurements. A similar demonstration is impossible for mixed states. Nevertheless, following the standard convention, probability for mixed states has the same validity and issues as it does in classical physics.
Adrian Kent has recently presented a critique [arXiv:2307.06191] of our paper [Nat. Comms. 10, 1361 (2019)] in which he claims to refute our main result: the measurement postulates of quantum mechanics can be derived from the rest of postulates, once we assume that the set of mixed states of a finite-dimensional Hilbert space is finite-dimensional. To construct his argument, Kent considers theories resulting from supplementing quantum mechanics with hypothetical "post-quantum" measurement devices. We prove that each of these theories contains pure states (i.e. states of maximal knowledge) which are not rays of the Hilbert space, in contradiction with the "pure state postulate" of quantum mechanics. We also prove that these alternatives violate the finite-dimensionality of mixed states. Each of these two facts separately invalidates the refutation. In this note we also clarify the assumptions used in [Nat. Comms. 10, 1361 (2019)] and discuss the notions of pure state, physical system, and the sensitivity of the structure of the state space under modifications of the measurements or the dynamics.
The Born rule stands as the fundamental probability postulate of quantum mechanics, yet its first-principle derivation remains a longstanding open problem. This paper presents a rigorous, collapse-free, and observer-independent derivation of the Born rule. Starting from four physically natural and minimal axioms—unitary dynamics, uniqueness of classical records, unitary invariance, and consistency with the classical limit and ergodicity—we uniquely deduce the Born rule from first principles. We prove that the Born rule is not an independent postulate, but a necessary mathematical consequence of the core axiomatic structure. Our approach is self-contained, assumption-free, and purely unitary, establishing that the Born rule is canonically determined by the fundamental mathematical and physical principles of quantum mechanics.
Adrian Kent has recently presented a critique \cite{Kent} of our paper \cite{MGM} in which he claims to refute our main result: the measurement postulates of quantum mechanics can be derived from the rest of postulates, once we assume that the set of mixed states of a finite-dimensional Hilbert space is finite-dimensional. To construct his argument, Kent considers theories resulting from supplementing quantum mechanics with hypothetical ``post-quantum'' measurement devices. We prove that each of these theories contains pure states (i.e. states of maximal knowledge) which are not rays of the Hilbert space, in contradiction with the ``pure state postulate'' of quantum mechanics. We also prove that these alternatives violate the finite-dimensionality of mixed states. Each of these two facts separately invalidates the refutation. In this note we also clarify the assumptions used in \cite{MGM} and discuss the notions of pure state, physical system, and the sensitivity of the structure of the state space under modifications of the measurements or the dynamics.