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:2412.05226

Partial Wavefunction Collapse Under Repeated Weak Measurement of a non-Conserved Observable

Swift, Carter, Nandini Trivedi

Published Dec 6, 2024• 0 citations
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

Two hallmarks of quantum non-demolition (QND) measurement are the ensemble-level conservation of the expectation value of the measured observable $A$ and the eventual, inevitable collapse of the system into some eigenstate of $A$. This requires that $A$ commutes with $H$, the system's Hamiltonian. In what we term "Auxiliary Observable QND" measurement, $A$ does not commute with $H$ and the above two characteristics clearly cannot be present as the system's dynamics prevent $\langle A \rangle$ from reaching a definite value. However, in this paper we find that under such a measurement QND behavior still arises, but is seen in the behavior of a secondary "target" observable we call $B$, with the condition that $B$ commutes with both $A$ and $H$. In such cases, the expectation value of $B$ is conserved and the system at least partially collapses with respect to eigenstates of $B$. We show as an example how this surprising result applies to a Heisenberg chain, where we demonstrate that local measurements on a single site can reveal information about the spectrum of an entire system, a finding which may be of practical use in experiments.

DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2412.05226

Related papers

Quantum non-demolition measurement of a many-body Hamiltonian

Dayou Yang, Andrey Grankin, Lukas M. Sieberer +2 more

Abstract In an ideal quantum measurement, the wave function of a quantum system collapses to an eigenstate of the measured observable, and the corresponding eigenvalue determines the measurement outcome. If the observable commutes with the system Hamiltonian, repeated measurements yield the same result and thus minimally disturb the system. Seminal quantum optics experiments have achieved such quantum non-demolition (QND) measurements of systems with few degrees of freedom. In contrast, here we describe how the QND measurement of a complex many-body observable, the Hamiltonian of an interacting many-body system, can be implemented in a trapped-ion analog quantum simulator. Through a single-shot measurement, the many-body system is prepared in a narrow band of (highly excited) energy eigenstates, and potentially even a single eigenstate. Our QND scheme, which can be carried over to other platforms of quantum simulation, provides a framework to investigate experimentally fundamental aspects of equilibrium and non-equilibrium statistical physics including the eigenstate thermalization hypothesis and quantum fluctuation relations.

•Jan 1, 2020•34 citations

Quantum non-demolition measurement of a many-body Hamiltonian

Dayou Yang, Andrey Grankin, Lukas M. Sieberer +2 more

In an ideal quantum measurement, the wave function of a quantum system collapses to an eigenstate of the measured observable, and the corresponding eigenvalue determines the measurement outcome. If the observable commutes with the system Hamiltonian, repeated measurements yield the same result and thus minimally disturb the system. Seminal quantum optics experiments have achieved such quantum non-demolition (QND) measurements of systems with few degrees of freedom. In contrast, here we describe how the QND measurement of a complex many-body observable, the Hamiltonian of an interacting many-body system, can be implemented in a trapped-ion analog quantum simulator. Through a single-shot measurement, the many-body system is prepared in a narrow band of (highly excited) energy eigenstates, and potentially even a single eigenstate. Our QND scheme, which can be carried over to other platforms of quantum simulation, provides a framework to investigate experimentally fundamental aspects of equilibrium and non-equilibrium statistical physics including the eigenstate thermalization hypothesis and quantum fluctuation relations.

arXiv:1905.06444•Nature Communications•Feb 7, 2020•30 citations

Conservation in Every Quantum Measurement Outcome?

E. Okon, D. Sudarsky, M. Wiedemann

In quantum mechanics, conservation laws are usually understood only statistically and only in the context of unitary evolution: during such evolution, if an observable commutes with the Hamiltonian, its expectation value and Born-rule probability distribution remain unchanged. Individual measurement outcomes, however, disrupt even this weak form of statistical conservation. Recently, though, it has been argued that a stronger, non-statistical form of conservation, valid at the level of individual measurement outcomes, can be recovered. The proposal relies on the claim that any superposition of eigenstates of a conserved quantity must ultimately be prepared relative to another physical system, which serves as the relevant reference frame and remains correlated with the system being prepared. On this enlarged description, the change observed in the measured system is claimed to be exactly compensated by an opposite change in the preparer, thereby restoring conservation at the level of individual measurement outcomes. We analyze this proposal and argue that it faces significant conceptual difficulties. We show that the proposed mechanism is not adequately justified and, moreover, does not establish conservation in individual measurement outcomes as claimed.

quant-pharXiv:2610.29804•Oct 22, 2026•0 citations

Demolishing quantum nondemolition

Christopher R. Monroe

Most physicists are taught that quantum physics has two parts: coherent wave mechanics, in which quantum states evolve according to the reversible Schrödinger wave equation, and the measurement process, in which quantum states irreversibly collapse into a particular state given by the details of the measurement. So when a quantum superposition state such as a|0〉 + b|1〉 is measured with a device that discriminates perfectly between |0〉 and |1〉, the system evolves to the definite state |0〉 or |1〉 with respective probabilities |a|2 and |b|2. Of course, when such an ideal measurement is repeated on the surviving state, the same definite state will appear again and again. Many of us, starting with Albert Einstein, do not like the apparent disconnect between those two rules and may not even subscribe to that conventional “Copenhagen interpretation” of quantum mechanics. It is nevertheless useful because it correctly predicts the results of all experiments performed to date, even though it gives the appearance that the observer necessarily affects the system.In the past two decades, the advent of quantum information science and the ability of experiments to control quantum systems such as single atoms have provided the happy opportunity to once again ponder the disconnect between the fundamental quantum concepts of coherent evolution and measurement. Quantum systems can now be measured with nearly perfect efficiency, meaning that the observed distribution of a measurement is given almost exactly by the probabilities of the underlying superposition, as prescribed by the conventional Copenhagen rules that we are taught.However, a new term, the quantum nondemolition, or QND, has crept into the literature these past decades. Also known as “quantum back-action-evading measurement,” it’s a needlessly confusing term that seems to highlight the mundane aspect of a perfect quantum measurement: If one already knows that the system is in a particular eigenstate of the measuring device, then, obviously, a measurement on the system will produce that eigenstate and leave the system intact. Zero information is gained from the repeated measurement. On the other hand, when the system is not in an eigenstate of the measuring device, the quantum state can be thought to collapse to one of its eigenstates. In that case, information is gained from the system, and the QND measurement most certainly demolishes the system. The concept of QND measurement adds nothing to the usual rules of quantum measurement, regardless of interpretation. But worse, the term confounds students and newcomers who may even be comfortable with the prescriptions of quantum physics.Not all measurements are perfect, of course, and some people may wish to use the QND nomenclature to distinguish the efficiency of a measuring device. However, in the spirit of quantum decoherence theory (see, for example, Wojciech Zurek’s article in PHYSICS TODAY, October 1991, page 36), we can still think of any measurement as a QND measurement plus a possible interaction with a reservoir that can either mask the information obtained from the system or even uncontrollably change the quantum state. The interaction with the reservoir is what can make quantum problems difficult, and it is there that we confront the conceptual difficulties with quantum mechanics and the quantum–classical divide.As a common example of an imperfect measurement, consider photodetection. When a single photon strikes a photomultiplier tube and generates a pulse of photocurrent, the photon is lost forever. Or is it? The photocurrent may interact with a macroscopic system of a bulk conductor, and we may measure the resulting voltage across the conductor. Sure, the photon has disappeared, but if our detector indicates that we had one photon, we can always create another and get the same answer again and again, exactly like a QND measurement. Even if we begin with a coherent superposition of zero and one photon, which is not an eigenstate of our measurement device, that approach works. After the first measurement collapses the state into |0〉 or |1〉, we know which one came out and we either prepare zero or one photon forever after. A real photodetector is not 100% efficient, of course, meaning that a single photon striking the detector could register nothing, or that even in the absence of photons the noisy detector fires anyway. Again we can think of this as a QND measurement in which we have lost information to the environment. In practice, we trace over the environment and then must describe the system in terms of a density matrix containing the probabilities of various outcomes.In every case, the concept of QND measurement is confusing and unnecessary. It wasn’t needed in the formative years of quantum mechanics; and now with quantum information theory, entanglement, and decoherence theory, we still do not need it. Marvelous advances in many experimental quantum systems, such as individual atoms and superconducting circuits, are allowing quantum measurements to be performed almost exactly like in textbooks, as most of us have learned. Why not demolish the term “QND”?© 2011 American Institute of Physics.

Physics Today•Dec 30, 2010•12 citations

Towards the ideal quantum measurement

Matthew Colleti

According to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, if we measure one variable describing a physical system, we inevitably introduce noise into some other variable describing the same system. In practice, the situation is worse than that: measuring one variable usually introduces random noise into the very quantity we are measuring. It is possible in principle to make measurements, known as quantum non-demolition (or QND) measurements, which do not have this latter effect. A QND measurement may approach the ideal quantum measurement commonly encountered in quantum mechanics textbooks. Philippe Grangier and his co-workers at the Université Paris-Sud, at Orsay in France, have recently attempted to measure the intensity of a beam of light in this way (Phys. Rev. Len. (1991) 66 1418). Their experiment has shown that it is indeed possible to make a measurement which at least partially preserves the quantum mechanical state of the detected beam.

Physics World•Jun 1, 1991•1 citation

Partial Collapse and Ensemble Invariance under Continuous Quantum Measurement

Shalender Singh, Santosh Kumar

Wavefunction collapse is commonly associated with unavoidable physical disturbance of the measured system. Here we show that in driven-dissipative quantum systems, continuous measurement can induce strong trajectory-level collapse while leaving the ensemble-averaged steady state strictly invariant. We identify measurement-invariant steady states whose unconditional density matrix remains unchanged under continuous monitoring, despite pronounced measurement-induced localization in conditioned quantum trajectories. This separation between trajectory-level collapse and ensemble invariance defines a regime of partial collapse, in which measurement-induced localization is continuously counteracted by dissipative dynamics. We derive a necessary and sufficient condition for steady-state invariance under continuous measurement and identify Liouvillian symmetry as a concrete dynamical mechanism enforcing it. Our results clarify the distinction between conditional collapse and physical disturbance in open quantum systems and provide a framework for non-invasive continuous monitoring in driven-dissipative settings.

quant-pharXiv:2512.22235•Dec 24, 2025•0 citations
Two hallmarks of quantum non-demolition (QND) measurement are the ensemble-level conservation of the expectation value of the measured observable AAA and the eventual, inevitable collapse of the system into some eigenstate of AAA. This requires that AAA commutes with HHH, the system's Hamiltonian. In what we term "Auxiliary Observable QND" measurement, AAA does not commute with HHH and the above two characteristics clearly cannot be present as the system's dynamics prevent ⟨A⟩\langle A \rangle⟨A⟩ from reaching a definite value. However, in this paper we find that under such a measurement QND behavior still arises, but is seen in the behavior of a secondary "target" observable we call BBB, with the condition that BBB commutes with both AAA and HHH. In such cases, the expectation value of BBB is conserved and the system at least partially collapses with respect to eigenstates of BBB. We show as an example how this surprising result applies to a Heisenberg chain, where we demonstrate that local measurements on a single site can reveal information about the spectrum of an entire system, a finding which may be of practical use in experiments.
Abstract In an ideal quantum measurement, the wave function of a quantum system collapses to an eigenstate of the measured observable, and the corresponding eigenvalue determines the measurement outcome. If the observable commutes with the system Hamiltonian, repeated measurements yield the same result and thus minimally disturb the system. Seminal quantum optics experiments have achieved such quantum non-demolition (QND) measurements of systems with few degrees of freedom. In contrast, here we describe how the QND measurement of a complex many-body observable, the Hamiltonian of an interacting many-body system, can be implemented in a trapped-ion analog quantum simulator. Through a single-shot measurement, the many-body system is prepared in a narrow band of (highly excited) energy eigenstates, and potentially even a single eigenstate. Our QND scheme, which can be carried over to other platforms of quantum simulation, provides a framework to investigate experimentally fundamental aspects of equilibrium and non-equilibrium statistical physics including the eigenstate thermalization hypothesis and quantum fluctuation relations.
In an ideal quantum measurement, the wave function of a quantum system collapses to an eigenstate of the measured observable, and the corresponding eigenvalue determines the measurement outcome. If the observable commutes with the system Hamiltonian, repeated measurements yield the same result and thus minimally disturb the system. Seminal quantum optics experiments have achieved such quantum non-demolition (QND) measurements of systems with few degrees of freedom. In contrast, here we describe how the QND measurement of a complex many-body observable, the Hamiltonian of an interacting many-body system, can be implemented in a trapped-ion analog quantum simulator. Through a single-shot measurement, the many-body system is prepared in a narrow band of (highly excited) energy eigenstates, and potentially even a single eigenstate. Our QND scheme, which can be carried over to other platforms of quantum simulation, provides a framework to investigate experimentally fundamental aspects of equilibrium and non-equilibrium statistical physics including the eigenstate thermalization hypothesis and quantum fluctuation relations.
In quantum mechanics, conservation laws are usually understood only statistically and only in the context of unitary evolution: during such evolution, if an observable commutes with the Hamiltonian, its expectation value and Born-rule probability distribution remain unchanged. Individual measurement outcomes, however, disrupt even this weak form of statistical conservation. Recently, though, it has been argued that a stronger, non-statistical form of conservation, valid at the level of individual measurement outcomes, can be recovered. The proposal relies on the claim that any superposition of eigenstates of a conserved quantity must ultimately be prepared relative to another physical system, which serves as the relevant reference frame and remains correlated with the system being prepared. On this enlarged description, the change observed in the measured system is claimed to be exactly compensated by an opposite change in the preparer, thereby restoring conservation at the level of individual measurement outcomes. We analyze this proposal and argue that it faces significant conceptual difficulties. We show that the proposed mechanism is not adequately justified and, moreover, does not establish conservation in individual measurement outcomes as claimed.
Most physicists are taught that quantum physics has two parts: coherent wave mechanics, in which quantum states evolve according to the reversible Schrödinger wave equation, and the measurement process, in which quantum states irreversibly collapse into a particular state given by the details of the measurement. So when a quantum superposition state such as a|0〉 + b|1〉 is measured with a device that discriminates perfectly between |0〉 and |1〉, the system evolves to the definite state |0〉 or |1〉 with respective probabilities |a|2 and |b|2. Of course, when such an ideal measurement is repeated on the surviving state, the same definite state will appear again and again. Many of us, starting with Albert Einstein, do not like the apparent disconnect between those two rules and may not even subscribe to that conventional “Copenhagen interpretation” of quantum mechanics. It is nevertheless useful because it correctly predicts the results of all experiments performed to date, even though it gives the appearance that the observer necessarily affects the system.In the past two decades, the advent of quantum information science and the ability of experiments to control quantum systems such as single atoms have provided the happy opportunity to once again ponder the disconnect between the fundamental quantum concepts of coherent evolution and measurement. Quantum systems can now be measured with nearly perfect efficiency, meaning that the observed distribution of a measurement is given almost exactly by the probabilities of the underlying superposition, as prescribed by the conventional Copenhagen rules that we are taught.However, a new term, the quantum nondemolition, or QND, has crept into the literature these past decades. Also known as “quantum back-action-evading measurement,” it’s a needlessly confusing term that seems to highlight the mundane aspect of a perfect quantum measurement: If one already knows that the system is in a particular eigenstate of the measuring device, then, obviously, a measurement on the system will produce that eigenstate and leave the system intact. Zero information is gained from the repeated measurement. On the other hand, when the system is not in an eigenstate of the measuring device, the quantum state can be thought to collapse to one of its eigenstates. In that case, information is gained from the system, and the QND measurement most certainly demolishes the system. The concept of QND measurement adds nothing to the usual rules of quantum measurement, regardless of interpretation. But worse, the term confounds students and newcomers who may even be comfortable with the prescriptions of quantum physics.Not all measurements are perfect, of course, and some people may wish to use the QND nomenclature to distinguish the efficiency of a measuring device. However, in the spirit of quantum decoherence theory (see, for example, Wojciech Zurek’s article in PHYSICS TODAY, October 1991, page 36), we can still think of any measurement as a QND measurement plus a possible interaction with a reservoir that can either mask the information obtained from the system or even uncontrollably change the quantum state. The interaction with the reservoir is what can make quantum problems difficult, and it is there that we confront the conceptual difficulties with quantum mechanics and the quantum–classical divide.As a common example of an imperfect measurement, consider photodetection. When a single photon strikes a photomultiplier tube and generates a pulse of photocurrent, the photon is lost forever. Or is it? The photocurrent may interact with a macroscopic system of a bulk conductor, and we may measure the resulting voltage across the conductor. Sure, the photon has disappeared, but if our detector indicates that we had one photon, we can always create another and get the same answer again and again, exactly like a QND measurement. Even if we begin with a coherent superposition of zero and one photon, which is not an eigenstate of our measurement device, that approach works. After the first measurement collapses the state into |0〉 or |1〉, we know which one came out and we either prepare zero or one photon forever after. A real photodetector is not 100% efficient, of course, meaning that a single photon striking the detector could register nothing, or that even in the absence of photons the noisy detector fires anyway. Again we can think of this as a QND measurement in which we have lost information to the environment. In practice, we trace over the environment and then must describe the system in terms of a density matrix containing the probabilities of various outcomes.In every case, the concept of QND measurement is confusing and unnecessary. It wasn’t needed in the formative years of quantum mechanics; and now with quantum information theory, entanglement, and decoherence theory, we still do not need it. Marvelous advances in many experimental quantum systems, such as individual atoms and superconducting circuits, are allowing quantum measurements to be performed almost exactly like in textbooks, as most of us have learned. Why not demolish the term “QND”?© 2011 American Institute of Physics.
According to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, if we measure one variable describing a physical system, we inevitably introduce noise into some other variable describing the same system. In practice, the situation is worse than that: measuring one variable usually introduces random noise into the very quantity we are measuring. It is possible in principle to make measurements, known as quantum non-demolition (or QND) measurements, which do not have this latter effect. A QND measurement may approach the ideal quantum measurement commonly encountered in quantum mechanics textbooks. Philippe Grangier and his co-workers at the Université Paris-Sud, at Orsay in France, have recently attempted to measure the intensity of a beam of light in this way (Phys. Rev. Len. (1991) 66 1418). Their experiment has shown that it is indeed possible to make a measurement which at least partially preserves the quantum mechanical state of the detected beam.
Wavefunction collapse is commonly associated with unavoidable physical disturbance of the measured system. Here we show that in driven-dissipative quantum systems, continuous measurement can induce strong trajectory-level collapse while leaving the ensemble-averaged steady state strictly invariant. We identify measurement-invariant steady states whose unconditional density matrix remains unchanged under continuous monitoring, despite pronounced measurement-induced localization in conditioned quantum trajectories. This separation between trajectory-level collapse and ensemble invariance defines a regime of partial collapse, in which measurement-induced localization is continuously counteracted by dissipative dynamics. We derive a necessary and sufficient condition for steady-state invariance under continuous measurement and identify Liouvillian symmetry as a concrete dynamical mechanism enforcing it. Our results clarify the distinction between conditional collapse and physical disturbance in open quantum systems and provide a framework for non-invasive continuous monitoring in driven-dissipative settings.