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

On the theory of quantum measurement

H. A. Haus, Franz X. Kärtner

Published May 1, 1994• 1 citation
OpenAlex

Abstract

Many so called paradoxes of quantum mechanics are clarified when the measurement equipment is treated as a quantized system. Every measurement involves nonlinear processes. Self consistent formulations of nonlinear quantum optics are relatively simple. Hence optical measurements, such as the quantum nondemolition (QND) measurement of photon number, are particularly well suited for such a treatment. It shows that the so called 'collapse of the wave function' is not needed for the interpretation of the measurement process. Coherence of the density matrix of the signal is progressively reduced with increasing accuracy of the photon number determination. If the QND measurement is incorporated into the double slit experiment, the contrast ratio of the fringes is found to decrease with increasing information on the photon number in one of the two paths.

Related papers

Quantum-nondemolition measurements and the ‘‘collapse of the wave function’’

Franz X. Kärtner, H. A. Haus

This paper intends to clarify some issues in the theory of quantum measurement by taking advantage of the self-consistent quantum formulation of nonlinear optics. A quantum-nondemolition measurement of the photon number of an optical pulse can be performed with a nonlinear Mach-Zehnder interferometer followed by a balanced detector. The full quantum-mechanical treatment shows that the shortcut in the description of the quantum-mechanical measurement, the so-called ``collapse of the wave function,'' is not needed for a self-consistent interpretation of the measurement process. Coherence in the density matrix of the signal to be measured is progressively reduced with increasing accuracy of the photon-number determination. The quantum-nondemolition measurement is incorporated in the double-slit experiment and the contrast ratio of the fringes is found to decrease systematically with increasing information on the photon number in one of the two paths. The ``gain'' in the measurement can be made arbitrarily large so that postprocessing of the information can proceed classically.

Physical Review A•Jun 1, 1993•25 citations

Optical quantum nondemolition measurements and the Copenhagen interpretation

H. A. Haus, Franz X. Kärtner

We start from the reasonable assumption that a quantum measurement can be properly described only when the measurement apparatus itself is also treated quantum mechanically. Using idealized optical measurements as an example and introducing a small loss into the measurement apparatus, we show that the combined density matrix of the system and apparatus decoheres in a manner that the outcome of the measurement can be described classically. The loss can be arbitrarily small when the classical limit of the measurement apparatus is taken, i.e., the gain is made to approach infinity. Further, we show that the von Neumann postulate of the collapse of the wave function of the measured system into an eigenstate of the measured observable can be deduced from the analysis of two quantum nondemolition experiments in cascade and need not be introduced as a separate postulate. \textcopyright{} 1996 The American Physical Society.

Physical Review A•Jun 1, 1996•13 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

Quantum-nondemolition measurement of small photon numbers and the preparation of number states

Rüdiger Schack, Arvid Breitenbach, Axel Schenzle

We analyze in detail the quantum-nondemolition (QND) scheme of Brune et al. [Phys. Rev. Lett. 65, 976 (1990)]. It is shown that the quantum treatment of the scheme based on the density-matrix formalism is fully equivalent to an information-theoretical description. In this context, it is explicitly seen that the scheme works well even with a low detection efficiency. We show further that a careful choice of the atomic velocities can significantly reduce the number of atoms needed to perform a measurement. It is also possible to use a monoenergetic atomic beam, although in this case the number of atoms needed increases. Finally we discuss how the results are modified if the atomic velocities are only known approximately.

Physical Review A•Mar 1, 1992•14 citations

Nonlinear gauge interactions - A solution to the "measurement problem" in quantum mechanics?

Johan Hansson

We propose that the mechanism responsible for the ``collapse of the wave function" (or "decoherence" in its broadest meaning) in quantum mechanics is the nonlinearities already present in the theory via nonabelian gauge interactions. Unlike all other models of spontaneous collapse, our proposal is, to the best of our knowledge, the only one which does not introduce any new elements into the theory. Indeed, unless the gauge interaction nonlinearities are not used for exactly this purpose, one must then explain why the violation of the superposition principle which they introduce does not destroy quantum mechanics. A possible experimental test of the model would be to compare the coherence lengths for, e.g., electrons and photons in a double-slit experiment. The electrons should have a finite coherence length, while photons should have a much longer (in principle infinite) coherence length.

arXiv:quant-ph/0003083•Mar 20, 2000•1 citation

Nonlinear gauge interactions: A possible solution to the “measurement problem” in quantum mechanics

Johan Hansson

Two fundamental, and unsolved problems in physics are: i) the resolution of the "measurement problem" in quantum mechanics ii) the quantization of strongly nonlinear (nonabelian) gauge theories. The aim of this paper is to suggest that these two problems might be linked, and that a mutual, simultaneous solution to both might exist. We propose that the mechanism responsible for the "collapse of the wave function" in quantum mechanics is the nonlinearities already present in the theory via nonabelian gauge interactions. Unlike all other models of spontaneous collapse, our proposal is, to the best of our knowledge, the only one which does not introduce any new elements into the theory. A possible experimental test of the model would be to compare the coherence lengths - here defined as the distance over which quantum mechanical superposition is still valid - for, \textit{e.g}, electrons and photons in a double-slit experiment. The electrons should have a finite coherence length, while photons should have a much longer coherence length (in principle infinite, if gravity - a very weak effect indeed unless we approach the Planck scale - is ignored).

arXiv:1001.3057•Physics Essays•May 6, 2010•11 citations
Many so called paradoxes of quantum mechanics are clarified when the measurement equipment is treated as a quantized system. Every measurement involves nonlinear processes. Self consistent formulations of nonlinear quantum optics are relatively simple. Hence optical measurements, such as the quantum nondemolition (QND) measurement of photon number, are particularly well suited for such a treatment. It shows that the so called 'collapse of the wave function' is not needed for the interpretation of the measurement process. Coherence of the density matrix of the signal is progressively reduced with increasing accuracy of the photon number determination. If the QND measurement is incorporated into the double slit experiment, the contrast ratio of the fringes is found to decrease with increasing information on the photon number in one of the two paths.
This paper intends to clarify some issues in the theory of quantum measurement by taking advantage of the self-consistent quantum formulation of nonlinear optics. A quantum-nondemolition measurement of the photon number of an optical pulse can be performed with a nonlinear Mach-Zehnder interferometer followed by a balanced detector. The full quantum-mechanical treatment shows that the shortcut in the description of the quantum-mechanical measurement, the so-called ``collapse of the wave function,'' is not needed for a self-consistent interpretation of the measurement process. Coherence in the density matrix of the signal to be measured is progressively reduced with increasing accuracy of the photon-number determination. The quantum-nondemolition measurement is incorporated in the double-slit experiment and the contrast ratio of the fringes is found to decrease systematically with increasing information on the photon number in one of the two paths. The ``gain'' in the measurement can be made arbitrarily large so that postprocessing of the information can proceed classically.
We start from the reasonable assumption that a quantum measurement can be properly described only when the measurement apparatus itself is also treated quantum mechanically. Using idealized optical measurements as an example and introducing a small loss into the measurement apparatus, we show that the combined density matrix of the system and apparatus decoheres in a manner that the outcome of the measurement can be described classically. The loss can be arbitrarily small when the classical limit of the measurement apparatus is taken, i.e., the gain is made to approach infinity. Further, we show that the von Neumann postulate of the collapse of the wave function of the measured system into an eigenstate of the measured observable can be deduced from the analysis of two quantum nondemolition experiments in cascade and need not be introduced as a separate postulate. \textcopyright{} 1996 The American Physical Society.
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.
We analyze in detail the quantum-nondemolition (QND) scheme of Brune et al. [Phys. Rev. Lett. 65, 976 (1990)]. It is shown that the quantum treatment of the scheme based on the density-matrix formalism is fully equivalent to an information-theoretical description. In this context, it is explicitly seen that the scheme works well even with a low detection efficiency. We show further that a careful choice of the atomic velocities can significantly reduce the number of atoms needed to perform a measurement. It is also possible to use a monoenergetic atomic beam, although in this case the number of atoms needed increases. Finally we discuss how the results are modified if the atomic velocities are only known approximately.
We propose that the mechanism responsible for the ``collapse of the wave function" (or "decoherence" in its broadest meaning) in quantum mechanics is the nonlinearities already present in the theory via nonabelian gauge interactions. Unlike all other models of spontaneous collapse, our proposal is, to the best of our knowledge, the only one which does not introduce any new elements into the theory. Indeed, unless the gauge interaction nonlinearities are not used for exactly this purpose, one must then explain why the violation of the superposition principle which they introduce does not destroy quantum mechanics. A possible experimental test of the model would be to compare the coherence lengths for, e.g., electrons and photons in a double-slit experiment. The electrons should have a finite coherence length, while photons should have a much longer (in principle infinite) coherence length.
Two fundamental, and unsolved problems in physics are: i) the resolution of the "measurement problem" in quantum mechanics ii) the quantization of strongly nonlinear (nonabelian) gauge theories. The aim of this paper is to suggest that these two problems might be linked, and that a mutual, simultaneous solution to both might exist. We propose that the mechanism responsible for the "collapse of the wave function" in quantum mechanics is the nonlinearities already present in the theory via nonabelian gauge interactions. Unlike all other models of spontaneous collapse, our proposal is, to the best of our knowledge, the only one which does not introduce any new elements into the theory. A possible experimental test of the model would be to compare the coherence lengths - here defined as the distance over which quantum mechanical superposition is still valid - for, \textit{e.g}, electrons and photons in a double-slit experiment. The electrons should have a finite coherence length, while photons should have a much longer coherence length (in principle infinite, if gravity - a very weak effect indeed unless we approach the Planck scale - is ignored).