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:2312.06735

On the feasibility and usefulness of applying the `Schrödinger c.q. Liouville-von Neumann equation' to quantum measurement

Willem M. de Muynck

Published Dec 11, 2023• 0 citations
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

The present paper is a sequel to papers dealing with recent developments on the issue of `quantum measurement'. In this paper `measurement within the domain of application of quantum mechanics' is treated as a \emph{quantum mechanical} \emph{interaction} of a `(sub)microscopic object $(o)$' and an `equally (sub)microscopic part of the measuring instrument $(a)$ being sensitive to the (sub)microscopic information', that interaction to be described by a Schrödinger equation. The Stern-Gerlach experiment is used as a paradigmatic example. An alternative to the Heisenberg inequality is found, exhibiting the \emph{independent} contributions of `preparation of the initial state of object $(o)$' \emph{and} `interaction of object $(o)$ \emph{and} measuring instrument/probe $(a)$'. Applicability of the Liouville-von Neumann equation is stressed.

DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2312.06735

Related papers

Quantum measurement theory and the Stern–Gerlach experiment

M. Hannout, S. Hoyt, A. Kryowonos +1 more

The Stern–Gerlach experiment was one of the early illustrative examples of the Bohr view of quantum mechanics. In the Bohr view, a measurement is an interaction between a quantum object and an apparatus which acts in a classical fashion. There are still open problems with this concept, many of which enter into the discussion of the original Stern–Gerlach measurement.

American Journal of Physics•May 1, 1998•15 citations

Interaction between classical and quantum systems: A new approach to quantum measurement. III. Illustration

S. R. Gautam, T. N. Sherry, E. C. G. Sudarshan

Following the approach to quantum measurement, proposed in an earlier paper, in which the apparatus is treated as a purely classical instrument to be described by the laws of classical mechanics we examine some simple experiments for the purpose of illustration. The Stern-Gerlach experiment is examined in detail, within our approach, and we see explicitly how the relevant information is transferred to the apparatus variables. We also examine a magnetic interferometer arrangement and a crossed-field arrangement. Consideration of these experiments leads us to the inclusion of an extra procedural step in our approach. This extra step is necessary so that an observer may measure the classical apparatus variables at will after the interaction is completed.

Physical review. D. Particles, fields, gravitation, and cosmology/Physical review. D. Particles and fields•Dec 15, 1979•19 citations

More on the quantum measurement problem

Donald G. Truhlar

Sean Carroll’s July Quick Study, “Addressing the quantum measurement problem” (page 62), brings up the following question: Does the wavefunction still obey the Schrödinger equation when a measurement is made? A system being measured (or interacting with its environment in any other way) is actually a subsystem, and a subsystem is properly described by a reduced density matrix. The density matrix for an entire system corresponds to a wavefunction—that is, to a pure state—but the density matrix for a subsystem does not necessarily correspond to a wavefunction. The reduced density matrix of a subsystem may correspond to an impure state, also called a mixture or an incoherent combination,11. A. Bohm, Quantum Mechanics: Foundations and Applications, 3rd ed., Springer (1993), p. 72. which does not have well-defined pure-state content.22. See, for example, L. E. Ballentine, Quantum Mechanics: A Modern Development, 2nd ed., World Scientific (2015), chap. 2. In the words of Kurt Gottfried and Tung-Mow Yan, “systems in the real world are rarely in pure states.”33. K. Gottfried, T.-M. Yan, Quantum Mechanics: Fundamentals, 2nd ed., Springer (2003), p. 46.The proper way to discuss a measurement is not using a wavefunction but rather a reduced density matrix. The density matrix of a pure state evolves according to the Liouville–von Neumann equation, which is equivalent to the unitary evolution of the wavefunction by the time-dependent Schrödinger equation. For a subsystem (that is, for any system except the entire universe), the reduced density matrix evolves according to the nonunitary Liouville–von Neumann equation, which has an additional contribution causing decoherence and dissipation.44. See, for example, D. A. Micha, Int. J. Quantum Chem. 80, 394 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-461X(2000)80:3<394::AID-QUA9>3.0.CO;2-U The nature of the measurement—or, more generally, the nature of the subsystem–environment interaction—selects a preferred basis, called the pointer basis, and the subsystem decoheres into an effectively classical mixture in the pointer basis. (See the article by Wojciech Zurek, Physics Today, October 1991, page 36.)ReferencesSection:ChooseTop of pageReferences <<1. A. Bohm, Quantum Mechanics: Foundations and Applications, 3rd ed., Springer (1993), p. 72. Google Scholar2. See, for example, L. E. Ballentine, Quantum Mechanics: A Modern Development, 2nd ed., World Scientific (2015), chap. 2. Google Scholar3. K. Gottfried, T.-M. Yan, Quantum Mechanics: Fundamentals, 2nd ed., Springer (2003), p. 46. Google ScholarCrossref4. See, for example, D. A. Micha, Int. J. Quantum Chem. 80, 394 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-461X(2000)80:3<394::AID-QUA9>3.0.CO;2-U, Google ScholarCrossref© 2022 American Institute of Physics.

Physics Today•Nov 1, 2022•0 citations

On the Interpretation of Measurement within the Quantum Theory

Leon N. Cooper, Deborah van Vechten

An interpretation of the process of measurement is proposed which can be placed wholly within the quantum theory. The entire system including the apparatus and even the mind of the observer can be considered to develop according to the Schrodinger equation. No separation, in principle, of the observer and the observed is necessary; nor is it necessary to introduce either the type I process of von Neumann or wave function reduction.

Princeton University Press eBooks•Apr 24, 2015•0 citations

A full quantum analysis of the Stern–Gerlach experiment using the evolution operator method: analyzing current issues in teaching quantum mechanics

Ernesto Benítez Rodríguez, L. M. Arévalo Aguilar, A Elena Piceno-Martínez

Abstract To the quantum mechanics specialists community it is a well-known fact that the famous original Stern–Gerlach experiment (SGE) produces entanglement between the external degrees of freedom (position) and the internal degree of freedom (spin) of silver atoms. Despite this fact, almost all textbooks on quantum mechanics explain this experiment using a semiclassical approach, where the external degrees of freedom are considered classical variables, the internal degree is treated as a quantum variable, and Newton's second law is used to describe the dynamics. In the literature there are some works that analyze this experiment in its full quantum mechanical form. However, astonishingly, to the best of our knowledge the original experiment, where the initial states of the spin degree of freedom are randomly oriented coming from the oven, has not been analyzed yet in the available textbooks using the Schrödinger equation (to the best of our knowledge there is only one paper that treats this case: Hsu et al (2011 Phys. Rev. A 83 012109 )). Therefore, in this contribution we use the time-evolution operator to give a full quantum mechanics analysis of the SGE when the initial state of the internal degree of freedom is completely random, i.e. when it is a statistical mixture. Additionally, as the SGE and the development of quantum mechanics are heavily intermingled, we analyze some features and drawbacks in the current teaching of quantum mechanics. We focus on textbooks that use the SGE as a starting point, based on the fact that most physicist do not use results from physics education research, and comment on traditional pedagogical attitudes in the physics community.

European Journal of Physics•Jan 23, 2017•13 citations

Indirect measurements

Vladimir B. Braginsky, Farid Ya Khalili, Kip S. Thorne

The two main types of quantum measurements von Neumann's postulate of the reduction of the wave function answers the question of what happens to the quantum object during the measurement. However, the reduction postulate does not answer the question of how the measuring device must be designed to realize the desired measurement. To answer this second question, one must understand the connection between the measuring device as an ordinary physical system, and the nature of the desired measurement (the quantity to be measured, the desired precision, and the choice of how the measurement is to perturb the quantum object). The Schrödinger equation cannot tell us the connection between the design of the measuring device and the nature of the measurement, because the Schrödinger equation neither governs nor describes the process of measurement. More specifically: The evolution of the wave function as described by the Schrödinger equation has two key features: it is a reversible evolution (from the final state in principle one can always evolve back to the initial one), and it is a deterministic evolution (the final state is determined uniquely by the initial one). By contrast, the reduction of the wave function in a measurement is irreversible (once the measurement is finished and the information has been extracted from it, it is impossible to return to the pre-measurement state), and it is nondeterministic (one cannot predict, before the measurement, the post-measurement state of the measured object).

Cambridge University Press eBooks•Sep 24, 1992•0 citations
The present paper is a sequel to papers dealing with recent developments on the issue of quantum measurement'. In this paper measurement within the domain of application of quantum mechanics' is treated as a \emph{quantum mechanical} \emph{interaction} of a (sub)microscopic object $(o)$' and an equally (sub)microscopic part of the measuring instrument (a)(a)(a) being sensitive to the (sub)microscopic information', that interaction to be described by a Schrödinger equation. The Stern-Gerlach experiment is used as a paradigmatic example. An alternative to the Heisenberg inequality is found, exhibiting the \emph{independent} contributions of preparation of the initial state of object $(o)$' \emph{and} interaction of object (o)(o)(o) \emph{and} measuring instrument/probe (a)(a)(a)'. Applicability of the Liouville-von Neumann equation is stressed.
Following the approach to quantum measurement, proposed in an earlier paper, in which the apparatus is treated as a purely classical instrument to be described by the laws of classical mechanics we examine some simple experiments for the purpose of illustration. The Stern-Gerlach experiment is examined in detail, within our approach, and we see explicitly how the relevant information is transferred to the apparatus variables. We also examine a magnetic interferometer arrangement and a crossed-field arrangement. Consideration of these experiments leads us to the inclusion of an extra procedural step in our approach. This extra step is necessary so that an observer may measure the classical apparatus variables at will after the interaction is completed.
Sean Carroll’s July Quick Study, “Addressing the quantum measurement problem” (page 62), brings up the following question: Does the wavefunction still obey the Schrödinger equation when a measurement is made? A system being measured (or interacting with its environment in any other way) is actually a subsystem, and a subsystem is properly described by a reduced density matrix. The density matrix for an entire system corresponds to a wavefunction—that is, to a pure state—but the density matrix for a subsystem does not necessarily correspond to a wavefunction. The reduced density matrix of a subsystem may correspond to an impure state, also called a mixture or an incoherent combination,11. A. Bohm, Quantum Mechanics: Foundations and Applications, 3rd ed., Springer (1993), p. 72. which does not have well-defined pure-state content.22. See, for example, L. E. Ballentine, Quantum Mechanics: A Modern Development, 2nd ed., World Scientific (2015), chap. 2. In the words of Kurt Gottfried and Tung-Mow Yan, “systems in the real world are rarely in pure states.”33. K. Gottfried, T.-M. Yan, Quantum Mechanics: Fundamentals, 2nd ed., Springer (2003), p. 46.The proper way to discuss a measurement is not using a wavefunction but rather a reduced density matrix. The density matrix of a pure state evolves according to the Liouville–von Neumann equation, which is equivalent to the unitary evolution of the wavefunction by the time-dependent Schrödinger equation. For a subsystem (that is, for any system except the entire universe), the reduced density matrix evolves according to the nonunitary Liouville–von Neumann equation, which has an additional contribution causing decoherence and dissipation.44. See, for example, D. A. Micha, Int. J. Quantum Chem. 80, 394 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-461X(2000)80:3<394::AID-QUA9>3.0.CO;2-U The nature of the measurement—or, more generally, the nature of the subsystem–environment interaction—selects a preferred basis, called the pointer basis, and the subsystem decoheres into an effectively classical mixture in the pointer basis. (See the article by Wojciech Zurek, Physics Today, October 1991, page 36.)ReferencesSection:ChooseTop of pageReferences <<1. A. Bohm, Quantum Mechanics: Foundations and Applications, 3rd ed., Springer (1993), p. 72. Google Scholar2. See, for example, L. E. Ballentine, Quantum Mechanics: A Modern Development, 2nd ed., World Scientific (2015), chap. 2. Google Scholar3. K. Gottfried, T.-M. Yan, Quantum Mechanics: Fundamentals, 2nd ed., Springer (2003), p. 46. Google ScholarCrossref4. See, for example, D. A. Micha, Int. J. Quantum Chem. 80, 394 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-461X(2000)80:3<394::AID-QUA9>3.0.CO;2-U, Google ScholarCrossref© 2022 American Institute of Physics.
Abstract To the quantum mechanics specialists community it is a well-known fact that the famous original Stern–Gerlach experiment (SGE) produces entanglement between the external degrees of freedom (position) and the internal degree of freedom (spin) of silver atoms. Despite this fact, almost all textbooks on quantum mechanics explain this experiment using a semiclassical approach, where the external degrees of freedom are considered classical variables, the internal degree is treated as a quantum variable, and Newton's second law is used to describe the dynamics. In the literature there are some works that analyze this experiment in its full quantum mechanical form. However, astonishingly, to the best of our knowledge the original experiment, where the initial states of the spin degree of freedom are randomly oriented coming from the oven, has not been analyzed yet in the available textbooks using the Schrödinger equation (to the best of our knowledge there is only one paper that treats this case: Hsu et al (2011 Phys. Rev. A 83 012109 )). Therefore, in this contribution we use the time-evolution operator to give a full quantum mechanics analysis of the SGE when the initial state of the internal degree of freedom is completely random, i.e. when it is a statistical mixture. Additionally, as the SGE and the development of quantum mechanics are heavily intermingled, we analyze some features and drawbacks in the current teaching of quantum mechanics. We focus on textbooks that use the SGE as a starting point, based on the fact that most physicist do not use results from physics education research, and comment on traditional pedagogical attitudes in the physics community.
The two main types of quantum measurements von Neumann's postulate of the reduction of the wave function answers the question of what happens to the quantum object during the measurement. However, the reduction postulate does not answer the question of how the measuring device must be designed to realize the desired measurement. To answer this second question, one must understand the connection between the measuring device as an ordinary physical system, and the nature of the desired measurement (the quantity to be measured, the desired precision, and the choice of how the measurement is to perturb the quantum object). The Schrödinger equation cannot tell us the connection between the design of the measuring device and the nature of the measurement, because the Schrödinger equation neither governs nor describes the process of measurement. More specifically: The evolution of the wave function as described by the Schrödinger equation has two key features: it is a reversible evolution (from the final state in principle one can always evolve back to the initial one), and it is a deterministic evolution (the final state is determined uniquely by the initial one). By contrast, the reduction of the wave function in a measurement is irreversible (once the measurement is finished and the information has been extracted from it, it is impossible to return to the pre-measurement state), and it is nondeterministic (one cannot predict, before the measurement, the post-measurement state of the measured object).