© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.
Physical Review A
Optical quantum nondemolition measurements and the Copenhagen interpretation H. A. Haus, Franz X. Kärtner
Published Jun 1, 1996 • 13 citations
Abstract 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.
DOI 10.1103/physreva.53.3785 Related papers Demolishing quantum nondemolition
Christopher R. Monroe
Physics Today • Dec 30, 2010• 12 citations
On measurement and quantum nondemolition
H. D. Zeh
Physics Today • Jul 1, 2011• 2 citations
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.
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.
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.
In his letter, Christopher Monroe recommends that the term “quantum nondemolition” be abandoned (PHYSICS TODAY, January 2011, page 8). I agree, but for somewhat different reasons. Quantum measurement theory has always used the concept of ideal measurements, or “measurements of the first kind,” in which the state of the measured system does not change—that is, it is not “demolished”—if it is already in an eigenstate of the observable. Although an ideal measurement is often a good approximation when dealing with conserved particles, its realization requires special effort in the case of photons, which are usually absorbed while being measured. The concept of ideal measurements is certainly meaningful, but I do not agree with the suggestion that the repeated preparation of the same photon state should be regarded as being equivalent to its nondemolition during a measurement. The term nondemolition may be quite useful in photon experiments or in the construction of gravitational-wave antennae, where it was first used, as far as I know. But in a general context, the traditional terminology would be more to the point, since nonabsorption of the measured photon does not necessarily define an ideal measurement.Much of the confusion originates in the abridged description of a measurement as a stochastic jump from a superposition a∣0〉 + b∣1〉 of a microscopic system into ∣0〉 or ∣1〉 with probabilities ∣a∣2 or ∣b∣2, respectively. That description is a relic from the times when quantum theory was expected to apply only to isolated atoms, electrons, and so forth. (It does not seem to be a genuine part of the Copenhagen interpretation, which describes measurement outcomes in classical terms and often assumes that the wavefunction loses its meaning thereafter.) In most situations, though, one has to include other interacting systems in the unitary description. In fact, all of the much-discussed weirdness of quantum theory has been derived by using entangled quantum states for all involved systems. Therefore, most of the inflationary confusing vocabulary of quantum weirdness—including spooky action, quantum teleportation, quantum eraser, quantum Darwinism, sudden death, quantum information, and even quantum jumps—could be abandoned if one used instead a consistent description in terms of entangled wavefunctions, at least as far as this entanglement remains relevant.11. See, for example, H. D. Zeh, Foundations of Physics 40 9-10 1476 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10701-009-9383-9 Usually this is so until irreversible decoherence, which was itself derived from unitary interaction with the environment, has occurred in the chain of interactions leading to observation. However, I think it is definitely wrong to say that decoherence theory allows us to “think of any measurement as a [quantum nondemolition] measurement plus a possible interaction with a reservoir.” Although I personally prefer the assumption that unitary dynamics is universal, I agree that some stochastic dynamics has to be used somewhere along the chain of interactions that ends at the observer. It does not matter whether you describe this observed indeterminism in terms of a collapse or a branching of a universal wavefunction into dynamically autonomous components (unlike the collapse, the branching does not require any new dynamical postulate; it is a consequence of the Schrödinger equation with local interactions). Such a real or apparent collapse is an important part of the effective dynamics of “our quantum world”—our “branch,” if you like—that should be carefully analyzed rather than being used ad hoc in a pragmatic and confusing manner. In neither case would it describe a mere increase of information about an initially incompletely known quantum state of the involved systems; the indeterminism is described by a change of a state, which is known to be different from an ensemble of potential states.REFERENCESSection:ChooseTop of pageREFERENCES <<1. See, for example, H. D. Zeh, Foundations of Physics 40 9-10 1476 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10701-009-9383-9 , Google ScholarCrossref, ISI© 2011 American Institute of Physics.
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.
A quantum-mechanical measurement process is analyzed in terms of a model Hamiltonian describing the interaction between a quantum system (a ``particle'') and a macroscopic apparatus (a ``detector''), which is assumed to be made up of N two-level elementary constituents (``molecules''). The description of the molecule locations introduces an effective fluctuating coupling constant, and this provokes a loss of quantum-mechanical coherence in the limit of large N. It is argued that coherence is lost statistically, as a result of the interaction: The collapse of the wave function is indeed obtained when the same experiment is performed many times, as a result of the microscopic differences among macroscopically identical initial states of the detector. In this way, insight is obtained into the mechanism engendering the loss of coherence suffered by a quantum-mechanical system when interacting with a macroscopic apparatus, and the concept of ``wave-function collapse'' is replaced by that of a statistically defined dephasing process. No classical behavior of the detection system is postulated and the presence of no external observer is required.
The problem of measurement taken at face value shows clearly that there is an inconsistency inside the quantum formalism.The phenomenon of decoherence is often presented as a solution to it.A widely debated question is to decide between two different interpretations.The first one is to consider that the decoherence process has the effect to actually project a superposed state into one of its classically interpretable component, hence doing the same job as the reduction postulate.For the second one, decoherence is only a way to show why no macroscopic superposed state can be observed and so, to explain the classical appearance of the macroscopic world, while the quantum entanglement between the system, the apparatus and the environment never disappears.In this case, explaining why only one single definite outcome is observed remains to do.In this paper, we examine arguments for and against both interpretations and defend a position according to which the outcome that is observed is relative to the observer in close parallel to the Everett interpretation.