In their Letter [1], Lewis et al. demonstrated that additional assumptions such as preparation independence are always necessary to rule out a ψ-epistemic model, in which the quantum state is not uniquely determined by the underlying physical state. Here we point out that these authors ignored the important work of Aharonov, Anandan and Vaidman on protective measurements [2-5], and their conclusion, which is based only on an analysis of conventional projective measurements, is not true. Projective measurements are one kind of measurements, for which the cou-pling between the measuring device and the measured system is very strong and almost instantaneous, and the measurement results are the eigenvalues of the measured observable. Due to the resulting collapse of the wave function, such impulsive measurements cannot measure the actual physical state of the measured system. This seems to leave space for ψ-epistemic models [1]. Thanks to the work of Aharonov et al, however, it has been known that the coupling strength and the measuring time can be adjusted for a standard measurement
In their Letter [1], Lewis et al. demonstrated that additional assumptions such as preparation independence are always necessary to rule out a ψ-epistemic model, in which the quantum state is not uniquely determined by the underlying physical state. Here we point out that these authors ignored the important work of Aharonov, Anandan and Vaidman on protective measurements [2-5], and their conclusion, which is based only on an analysis of conventional projective measurements, is not true. Projective measurements are one kind of measurements, for which the cou-pling between the measuring device and the measured system is very strong and almost instantaneous, and the measurement results are the eigenvalues of the measured observable. Due to the resulting collapse of the wave function, such impulsive measurements cannot measure the actual physical state of the measured system. This seems to leave space for ψ-epistemic models [1]. Thanks to the work of Aharonov et al, however, it has been known that the coupling strength and the measuring time can be adjusted for a standard measurement
It is demonstrated that, based on an analysis of protective measurements, distinct quantum states cannot be compatible with a single state of reality. Recently Lewis et al (2012) demonstrated that additional assumptions such as preparation independence are always necessary to rule out a ψ-epistemic model, in which the quantum state is not uniquely determined by the under-lying physical state. Their conclusion is based on an analysis of conventional projective measurements. Here we will demonstrate that protective measure-ments (Aharonov and Vaidman 1993; Aharonov, Anandan and Vaidman 1993), which are distinct from projective measurements, already shows that distinct quantum states cannot be compatible with a single state of reality. Projective measurements are one kind of measurements, for which the cou-pling between the measuring device and the measured system is very strong and almost instantaneous, and the measurement results are the eigenvalues of the measured observable. Due to the resulting collapse of the wave function, such impulsive measurements cannot measure the actual physical state of the measured system (when the system is not in one of the eigenstates of the mea-sured observable). This seems to leave space for ψ-epistemic models (Lewis et al 2012). However, it has been known that the coupling strength and the measuring time can be adjusted for a standard measurement procedure, and there also exist other kinds of measurements such as weak measurements and
Based on an analysis of protective measurements, we show that the quantum state represents the physical state of a single quantum system. This result is more definite than the PBR theorem [Pusey, Barrett, and Rudolph, Nature Phys. 8, 475 (2012)]. The physical meaning of the quantum state is an important interpreta-tive problem of quantum mechanics. A long-standing question is whether a pure state relates only to an ensemble of identically prepared systems or di-rectly to the state of a single system. Recently, Pusey, Barrett and Rudolph (PBR) demonstrated that under an independence assumption, the quantum state is a representation of the physical state of a single quantum system [1]. This poses a further interesting question, namely whether ψ-ontology can be argued without resorting to nontrivial assumptions such as the in-dependence assumption (cf. Ref. [2-4]). In this Letter, we will show that protective measurements [5,6] already provide such an argument. The meaning of the quantum state is usually analyzed in the context of conventional impulsive measurements of an ensemble of identically prepared systems. However, it has been known that the quantum state of a single prepared system can be protectively measured [5-9]. During a protective measurement, the measured system is protected by an appropriate procedure (e.g. via the quantum Zeno effect) so that its quantum state neither changes nor becomes entangled with the quantum state of the measuring device appreciably. In this way, such protective measurements can measure the expectation values of observables from a single quantum system, even if the system is initially not in an eigenstate of the measured observable, and in particular, the quantum state of the system can also be measured as expectation values of certain observables. It is expected that protective measurements will be realized in the near future with the rapid development of quantum technologies.
In this book, I have argued that the wave function in quantum mechanics is real, and it represents the state of random discontinuous motion (RDM) of particles in three-dimensional space. Moreover, this picture of quantum ontology is complete in accounting for our definite experience, but it requires that the quantum dynamics be revised to include a stochastic, nonlinear evolution term resulting from the RDM of particles. Obviously I took a road less traveled by researchers in the foundations of quantum mechanics. In order to convince more readers that this road is deserved to be taken, I will review the main results of this book and discuss them in a broader context. The starting point of my road is protective measurements (Chapter 1). In 1993, this new method of measurement in quantum mechanics was discovered (Aharonov and Vaidman, 1993; Aharonov, Anandan, and Vaidman, 1993). Distinct from conventional projective measurements, protective measurement is a method for measuring the expectation value of an observable on a single quantum system. By a series of protective measurements, one can even measure the wave function of a single quantum system. Therefore, besides the Born rule for projective measurements, protective measurements provide another, more direct connection between the wave function and results of measurements, which is not probabilistic but definite. It can be expected that a definite connection between the wave function and results of measurements is more important for understanding the meaning of the wave function and searching for the ontology of quantum mechanics. However, it seems that this connection provided by protective measurements is still less well known today, and its significance has not been fully realized by most researchers, either. The first stop on my road is the reality of the wave function (Chapter 4). It is correct to say that protective measurements alone do not imply the reality of the wave function. An additional connection between the state of reality and results of measurements is needed.
The ontological model framework provides a rigorous approach to address the question of whether the quantum state is ontic or epistemic. When considering only conventional projective measurements, auxiliary assumptions are always needed to prove the reality of the quantum state in the framework. For example, the Pusey-Barrett-Rudolph theorem is based on an additional preparation independence assumption. In this paper, we give a new proof of psi-ontology in terms of protective measurements in the ontological model framework. It is argued that the proof needs not rely on auxiliary assumptions, and also applies to deterministic theories such as the de Broglie-Bohm theory. In addition, we give a simpler argument for psi-ontology beyond the framework, which is only based on protective measurements and a weaker criterion of reality. The argument may be also appealing for those people who favor an anti-realist view of quantum mechanics.
A new type of procedures, called protective measurements, was proposed by Aharonov, Anandan, and Vaidman [Phys. Rev. A 97, 4616 (1993); Found. Phys. 26, 117 (1996)]. These authors argued that a protective measurement allows the determination of arbitrary observables of a single quantum system, and claimed that this favors a realistic interpretation of the quantum state. This paper proves that only observables that commute with the system's Hamiltonian can be measured protectively. It is argued that this restriction saves the coherence of alternative interpretations.
We examine the entanglement and state disturbance arising in a protective measurement and argue that these inescapable effects doom the claim that protective measurement establishes the reality of the wave function. An additional challenge to this claim results from the exponential number of protective measurements required to reconstruct multi-qubit states. We suggest that the failure of protective measurement to settle the question of the meaning of the wave function is entirely expected, for protective measurement is but an application of the standard quantum formalism, and none of the hard foundational questions can ever be settled in this way. Introduction From the start, the technical result of protective measurement has been suggested to have implications for the interpretation of quantum mechanics. Consider how Aharonov and Vaidman [2] chose to begin their original paper introducing the idea of protective measurement: We show that it is possible to measure the Schrödinger wave of a single quantum system. This provides a strong argument for associating physical reality with the quantum state of a single system.… Since then, the pioneers of protective measurement seem to have taken a more moderate stance. Vaidman [42], in a recent synopsis of protective measurement, concedes that the protective measurement procedure is not a proof that we should adopt one interpretation instead of the other, but it is a good testbed which shows advantages and disadvantages of various interpretations. Notwithstanding this more subtle perspective and a number of critical studies of the technical and foundational aspects of protective measurement, Gao [21] has maintained, if not amplified, the force of Aharonov and Vaidman's original argument: An immediate implication is that the result of a protective measurement, namely the expectation value of the measured observable in the measured state, reflects the actual physical property of the measured system, as the system is not disturbed after this result has been obtained. […]