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

Contemporary Physics

Measuring the quantum mechanical wave function

M. G. Raymer

Published Jan 1, 2009• 32 citations
Publisher

Abstract

In the past few years experimenters have learned how to determine the complete quantum state of an ensemble of particles or fields which have been prepared according to some unknown procedure. Through these experiments they have answered a question posed by W. Pauli in the 1930s. The methods used involve measuring statistical distributions of a well chosen set of physical observables and using a tomographic inversion algorithm to reconstruct the Wigner function and its corresponding wave function or density matrix. Recontructions have been successfully carried out in atomic, molecular, and optical physics. The development of these procedures helps to firm up the interpretation of the Schrodinger wave function.

DOI
10.1080/00107510902734797

Related papers

Measuring the quantum mechanical wave function

Michael G. Raymer

In the past few years experimenters have learned how to determine the complete quantum state of an ensemble of particles or fields which have been prepared according to some unknown procedure. Through these experiments they have answered a question posed by W. Pauli in the 1930s. The methods used involve measuring statistical distributions of a well chosen set of physical observables and using a tomographic inversion algorithm to reconstruct the Wigner function and its corresponding wave function or density matrix. Recontructions have been successfully carried out in atomic, molecular, and optical physics. The development of these procedures helps to firm up the interpretation of the Schrodinger wave function.

Contemporary Physics•Sep 1, 1997•86 citations

EPILOGUE

Vishnu S. Mathur, Surendra Singh

Quantum mechanics has been enormously successful in explaining the behavior of microsystems such as molecules, atoms, and nuclei. We have seen that quantum mechanics describes a quantum system by the wave function ψ, which is the solution of the Schro¨dinger equation. The wave function determines the probability amplitudes (whose modulus squared gives the probability) for all possible outcomes of a measurement corresponding to an observable on the system. In general, the wave function does not uniquely predict the result of a measurement; it only provides a probability distribution for all possible results of the measurement on a quantum system. Only if the system happens to be in an eigenstate corresponding to the observable being measured, is the result of a measurement of this observable completely predictable. On the other hand, the results of measurements corresponding to a conjugate or non-commuting observable, on the same system in the same state, are indeterminate. Quantum mechanical description of physical systems raises profound questions: How are the wave function and the probabilities for different outcomes of a measurement to be interpreted? Does the wave function represent a single system or an ensemble of systems? Does the physical system actually have the attribute corresponding to the measurement in question or does the measurement itself create the attribute? These questions led to different interpretations of quantum mechanics, which were vigorously debated during the years of its discovery as also in the following decades. The new idea of indeterminacy was especially difficult to reconcile with the long-held view that a physical theory should aim at predicting accurately, and without ambiguity, the result of any measurement on any system, big or small. These debates not only gave us a deeper understanding of quantum mechanics but also changed profoundly the way we view the micro-world.

Chapman & Hall/CRC eBooks•Dec 12, 2008•0 citations

Quantum state reconstruction and optimal manipulations with quantum information (1996 IOC Prize Winner)

Vladimír Bužek

The concept of a quantum state represents one of the most fundamental pillars of the paradigm of quantum theory.'3 Contrary to its mathematical elegance and convenience in calculations, the physical interpretation of a quantum state is not so transparent. The problem is that the quantum state (described either by a state vector, or density operator or a phase-space probability density distribution) does not have a well defined objective status, i.e. a state vector is not an objective property of a particle. According to Peres (see,1 p. 374): "There is no physical evidence whatsoever that every physical system has at every instant a well defined state. .. In strict interpretation of quantum theory these mathematical symbols [i.e., state vectorsi represent statistical information enabling us to compute the probabilities of occurrence of specific events." Once this point of view is adopted then it becomes clear that any "measurement" or a reconstruction of a density operator (or its mathematical equivalent) can be understood exclusively as an expression of our knowledge about the quantum mechanical state based on a certain set of measured data. To be more specific, any quantum-mechanical reconstruction scheme is nothing more than an a posteriori estimation of the density operator of a quantum-mechanical (microscopic) system based on data obtained with the help of a macroscopic measurement apparatus.3 The quality of the reconstruction depends on the "quality" of the measured data and the efficiency of the reconstruction procedure with the help of which the data analysis is performed. In particular, we can specify three different situations. Firstly, when all system observables are precisely measured. In this case the complete reconstruction of an initially unknown state can be performed (we will call this the reconstruction on the complete observation level) . Secondly, when just part of the system observables is precisely measured then one cannot perform a complete reconstruction of the measured state. Nevertheless, the reconstructed density operator still uniquely determines mean values of the measured observables (we will denote this scheme as reconstruction on incomplete observation levels) . Finally, when measurement does not provide us with sufficient information to specify the exact mean values (or probability distributions) but only the frequencies of appearances of eigenstates of the measured observables, then one can perform an estimation (e.g. reconstruction based on quantum Bayesian inference) which is the "best" with respect to the given measured data and the a priori knowledge about the state of the measured system.

Proceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIE•Jul 19, 1999•0 citations

Measurement of the Wigner Function

Antoine Royer

An operational procedure is given for determining experimentally, in principle at least, the Wigner function for an ensemble of particles. This manner of "measuring" a quantum state, whether pure or mixed, via its Wigner function, seems the simplest possible, and closely parallels the method one might use in classical mechanics to determine a (true) phase-space probability density.

Physical Review Letters•Dec 16, 1985•76 citations

How to determine a quantum state by measurements: The Pauli problem for a particle with arbitrary potential

Stefan Weigert

The problem of reconstructing a pure quantum state \ensuremath{\Vert}\ensuremath{\psi}〉 from measurable quantities is considered for a particle moving in a one-dimensional potential V(x). Suppose that the position probability distribution \ensuremath{\Vert}\ensuremath{\psi}(x,t)${\mathrm{\ensuremath{\Vert}}}^{2}$ has been measured at time t, and let it have M nodes. It is shown that after measuring the time evolved distribution at a short-time interval \ensuremath{\Delta}t later, \ensuremath{\Vert}\ensuremath{\psi}(x,t+\ensuremath{\Delta}t)${\mathrm{\ensuremath{\Vert}}}^{2}$, the set of wave functions compatible with these distributions is given by a smooth manifold M in Hilbert space. The manifold M is isomorphic to an M-dimensional torus, ${\mathcal{T}}^{\mathit{M}}$. Finally, M additional expectation values of appropriately chosen nonlocal operators fix the quantum state uniquely. The method used here is the analog of an approach that has been applied successfully to the corresponding problem for a spin system. \textcopyright{} 1996 The American Physical Society.

Physical Review A•Apr 1, 1996•49 citations

Complete characterization of the quantum state of a light mode by using optical homodyne tomography

Michael G. Raymer, D. T. Smithey, M. Beck +1 more

This paper reviews recent experiments in which the density matrix, wavefunction, Wigner distribution, and quantum distributions of optical phase of a light mode were determined by performing tomographic inversion of a set of measured probability distributions for quadrature amplitudes.1

Annual Meeting Optical Society of America•Jan 1, 1993•0 citations
In the past few years experimenters have learned how to determine the complete quantum state of an ensemble of particles or fields which have been prepared according to some unknown procedure. Through these experiments they have answered a question posed by W. Pauli in the 1930s. The methods used involve measuring statistical distributions of a well chosen set of physical observables and using a tomographic inversion algorithm to reconstruct the Wigner function and its corresponding wave function or density matrix. Recontructions have been successfully carried out in atomic, molecular, and optical physics. The development of these procedures helps to firm up the interpretation of the Schrodinger wave function.
In the past few years experimenters have learned how to determine the complete quantum state of an ensemble of particles or fields which have been prepared according to some unknown procedure. Through these experiments they have answered a question posed by W. Pauli in the 1930s. The methods used involve measuring statistical distributions of a well chosen set of physical observables and using a tomographic inversion algorithm to reconstruct the Wigner function and its corresponding wave function or density matrix. Recontructions have been successfully carried out in atomic, molecular, and optical physics. The development of these procedures helps to firm up the interpretation of the Schrodinger wave function.
Quantum mechanics has been enormously successful in explaining the behavior of microsystems such as molecules, atoms, and nuclei. We have seen that quantum mechanics describes a quantum system by the wave function ψ, which is the solution of the Schro¨dinger equation. The wave function determines the probability amplitudes (whose modulus squared gives the probability) for all possible outcomes of a measurement corresponding to an observable on the system. In general, the wave function does not uniquely predict the result of a measurement; it only provides a probability distribution for all possible results of the measurement on a quantum system. Only if the system happens to be in an eigenstate corresponding to the observable being measured, is the result of a measurement of this observable completely predictable. On the other hand, the results of measurements corresponding to a conjugate or non-commuting observable, on the same system in the same state, are indeterminate. Quantum mechanical description of physical systems raises profound questions: How are the wave function and the probabilities for different outcomes of a measurement to be interpreted? Does the wave function represent a single system or an ensemble of systems? Does the physical system actually have the attribute corresponding to the measurement in question or does the measurement itself create the attribute? These questions led to different interpretations of quantum mechanics, which were vigorously debated during the years of its discovery as also in the following decades. The new idea of indeterminacy was especially difficult to reconcile with the long-held view that a physical theory should aim at predicting accurately, and without ambiguity, the result of any measurement on any system, big or small. These debates not only gave us a deeper understanding of quantum mechanics but also changed profoundly the way we view the micro-world.
The concept of a quantum state represents one of the most fundamental pillars of the paradigm of quantum theory.'3 Contrary to its mathematical elegance and convenience in calculations, the physical interpretation of a quantum state is not so transparent. The problem is that the quantum state (described either by a state vector, or density operator or a phase-space probability density distribution) does not have a well defined objective status, i.e. a state vector is not an objective property of a particle. According to Peres (see,1 p. 374): "There is no physical evidence whatsoever that every physical system has at every instant a well defined state. .. In strict interpretation of quantum theory these mathematical symbols [i.e., state vectorsi represent statistical information enabling us to compute the probabilities of occurrence of specific events." Once this point of view is adopted then it becomes clear that any "measurement" or a reconstruction of a density operator (or its mathematical equivalent) can be understood exclusively as an expression of our knowledge about the quantum mechanical state based on a certain set of measured data. To be more specific, any quantum-mechanical reconstruction scheme is nothing more than an a posteriori estimation of the density operator of a quantum-mechanical (microscopic) system based on data obtained with the help of a macroscopic measurement apparatus.3 The quality of the reconstruction depends on the "quality" of the measured data and the efficiency of the reconstruction procedure with the help of which the data analysis is performed. In particular, we can specify three different situations. Firstly, when all system observables are precisely measured. In this case the complete reconstruction of an initially unknown state can be performed (we will call this the reconstruction on the complete observation level) . Secondly, when just part of the system observables is precisely measured then one cannot perform a complete reconstruction of the measured state. Nevertheless, the reconstructed density operator still uniquely determines mean values of the measured observables (we will denote this scheme as reconstruction on incomplete observation levels) . Finally, when measurement does not provide us with sufficient information to specify the exact mean values (or probability distributions) but only the frequencies of appearances of eigenstates of the measured observables, then one can perform an estimation (e.g. reconstruction based on quantum Bayesian inference) which is the "best" with respect to the given measured data and the a priori knowledge about the state of the measured system.
The problem of reconstructing a pure quantum state \ensuremath{\Vert}\ensuremath{\psi}〉 from measurable quantities is considered for a particle moving in a one-dimensional potential V(x). Suppose that the position probability distribution \ensuremath{\Vert}\ensuremath{\psi}(x,t)${\mathrm{\ensuremath{\Vert}}}^{2}$ has been measured at time t, and let it have M nodes. It is shown that after measuring the time evolved distribution at a short-time interval \ensuremath{\Delta}t later, \ensuremath{\Vert}\ensuremath{\psi}(x,t+\ensuremath{\Delta}t)${\mathrm{\ensuremath{\Vert}}}^{2}$, the set of wave functions compatible with these distributions is given by a smooth manifold M in Hilbert space. The manifold M is isomorphic to an M-dimensional torus, TM{\mathcal{T}}^{\mathit{M}}TM. Finally, M additional expectation values of appropriately chosen nonlocal operators fix the quantum state uniquely. The method used here is the analog of an approach that has been applied successfully to the corresponding problem for a spin system. \textcopyright{} 1996 The American Physical Society.