Introduction In preceding chapters, EPI has been used as a computational procedure for establishing the physical laws governing various measurement scenarios. We showed, by means of the optical measurement model of Sec. 3.8, that EPI is, as well, a physical process that is initiated by a measurement. Specifically, it arises out of the interaction of the measuring instrument's probe particle with the object under measurement. This perturbs the system probability amplitudes, which perturbs the informations I and J , etc., as indicated in Figs. 3.3 and 3.4. The result is that EPI derives the phenomenon's physics as it exists at the input space to the measuring device. We also found, in Sec. 3.8, the form of the phenomenon's physics at the output to the measuring instrument. This was given by Eq. (3.51) for the output probability amplitude function. The analysis in Sec. 3.8 was, however, severely limited in dimensionality. A one-dimensional analysis of the measurement phenomenon was given. A full, covariant treatment would be preferable, i.e., where the space-time behaviors of all probability amplitudes were determined. Such an analysis will be given next. It constitutes a covariant quantum theory of measurement . This covariant theory will be developed from an entirely different viewpoint than that in Sec. 3.8. The latter was an analysis that focussed attention upon the probe–particle interaction and the resulting wave propagation through the instrument. The covariant approach will concentrate, instead, on the meaning of the acquired data to the observer as it reflects upon the quantum state of the measured particle. Hence, whereas the previous analysis was purely physical in nature, this one will be “knowledge-based” as well as physical.
Introduction In preceding chapters, EPI has been used as a computational procedure for establishing the physical laws governing various measurement scenarios. We showed, by means of the optical measurement model of Sec. 3.8, that EPI is, as well, a physical process that is initiated by a measurement. Specifically, it arises out of the interaction of the measuring instrument's probe particle with the object under measurement. This perturbs the system probability amplitudes, which perturbs the informations I and J , etc., as indicated in Figs. 3.3 and 3.4. The result is that EPI derives the phenomenon's physics as it exists at the input space to the measuring device. We also found, in Sec. 3.8, the form of the phenomenon's physics at the output to the measuring instrument. This was given by Eq. (3.51) for the output probability amplitude function. The analysis in Sec. 3.8 was, however, severely limited in dimensionality. A one-dimensional analysis of the measurement phenomenon was given. A full, covariant treatment would be preferable, i.e., where the space-time behaviors of all probability amplitudes were determined. Such an analysis will be given next. It constitutes a covariant quantum theory of measurement . This covariant theory will be developed from an entirely different viewpoint than that in Sec. 3.8. The latter was an analysis that focussed attention upon the probe–particle interaction and the resulting wave propagation through the instrument. The covariant approach will concentrate, instead, on the meaning of the acquired data to the observer as it reflects upon the quantum state of the measured particle. Hence, whereas the previous analysis was purely physical in nature, this one will be “knowledge-based” as well as physical.
Introduction In preceding chapters, EPI has been used as a computational procedure for establishing the physical laws governing various measurement scenarios. We showed, by means of the optical measurement model of Sec. 3.8, that EPI is, as well, a physical process that is initiated by a measurement. Specifically, it arises out of the interaction of the measuring instrument's probe particle with the object under measurement. This perturbs the system probability amplitudes, which perturbs the informations I and J , etc., as indicated in Figs. 3.3 and 3.4. The result is that EPI derives the phenomenon's physics as it exists at the input space to the measuring device. We also found, in Sec. 3.8, the form of the phenomenon's physics at the output to the measuring instrument. This was given by Eq. (3.51) for the output probability amplitude function. The analysis in Sec. 3.8 was, however, severely limited in dimensionality. A One-dimensional analysis of the measurement phenomenon was given. A full, covariant treatment would be preferable, i.e., where the space-time behavior of all probability amplitudes were determined. Such an analysis will be given next. It constitutes a covariant quantum theory of measurement . This covariant theory will be developed from an entirely different viewpoint than that in Sec. 3.8. The latter was an analysis that focussed attention upon the probe-particle interaction and the resulting wave propagation through the instrument. The covariant approach will concentrate, instead, on the meaning of the acquired data to the observer as it reflects upon the quantum state of the measured particle.
Aims of the book The primary aim of this book is to develop a theory of measurement that incorporates the observer into the phenomenon under measurement. By this theory, the observer becomes both a collector of data and an activator of the phenomenon that gives rise to the data. These ideas have probably been best stated by J. A. Wheeler (1990; 1994): All things physical are information-theoretic in origin and this is a participatory universe … Observer participancy gives rise to information; and information gives rise to physics. The measurement theory that will be presented is largely, in fact, a quantification of these ideas. However, the reader might be surprised to find that the “information” that is used is not the usual Shannon or Boltzmann entropy measures, but one that is relatively unknown to physicists, that of R. A. Fisher. The measurement theory is simply a description of how Fisher information flows from a physical source effect to a data space. It therefore applies to all scenarios where quantitative data from repeatable experiments may be collected. This describes measurement scenarios of physics but, also, of science in general. The theory of measurement is found to define an analytical procedure for deriving all laws of science. The approach is called EPI, for “extreme physical information.” The secondary aim of the book is to show, by example, that most existing laws of science fit within the EPI framework. That is, they can be derived by its use. (Many can of course be derived by other approaches, but, apparently, no other single approach can derive all of them.) In this way the EPI approach unifies science under an umbrella of measurement and information.
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.
A measurement model is a framework that describes a quantum measurement process. In this article we restrict attention to MMs on finite-dimensional Hilbert spaces. Suppose we want to measure an observable A whose outcomes Ax are represented by positive operators (effects) on a Hilbert Space H. We call H the base or object system. We interact H with a probe system on another Hilbert space K by means of a quantum channel. The probe system contains a probe (or meter or pointer) observable F whose outcomes Fx are measured by an apparatus that is frequently (but need not be) classical in practice. The MM protocol gives a method for determining the probability of an outcome Ax for any state of H in terms of the outcome Fx. The interaction channel usually entangles this state with an initial probe state of K that can be quite complicated. However, if the channel is nondisturbing in a sense that we describe, then the entanglement is considerably simplified. In this article, we give formulas for observables and instruments measured by nondisturbing MMs. We begin with a general discussion of nondisturbing operators relative to a quantum context. We present two examples that illustrate this theory in terms of unitary nondisturbing channels.
Measurements play an integral part in any scientific theory. Indeed, the observations revealing causal behaviour and symmetries in our world of experience lie at the heart of determining the truth or the falsity of scientific hypotheses. In this regard, quantum theory provides one of the most stringently tested and comprehensive description of the natural world. This thesis is an examination of the mathematical structures of quantum measurements with an emphasis on the measurement implementations of different operational devices: quantum observables, channels and instruments. The measurability of all the quantum properties a system bears is, in principle, guaranteed by quantum measurement theory. However, as physical processes, measurements are constrained by the laws of physics and it has been long known that certain conservation laws can inhibit the measurements of some of the quantum observables. In this work it is shown that such constraints stem from the fact that the measured observables inherit the symmetries of the measurement devices implementing them. A quantum measurement set-up can implement a multitude of operational devices as a function of the initial state of the apparatus. In other words, one can realize various maps – even incompatible ones – simply by controlling the apparatus’ state. Due its close resemblance with the classical analogue, this operation is often referred as quantum programming. In this thesis the capabilities and restrictions of quantum programming are explored using a measurement-theoretic approach. Moreover, quantitative methods are developed to address the mutual relations between the programming states of an arbitrary pair of observables or channels.
This chapter examines the reasons why measurement theory is a particularly controversial part of modern theoretical physics. The problem of measurement in quantum mechanics is considered as nonexistent or trivial by an impressive body of theoretical physicists and as presenting almost insurmountable difficulties by a somewhat lesser but steadily growing number of their colleagues. The law of evolution in time constitutes the essential part of the conventional measurement theory. In this theory, the existence of a Hamiltonian describing the instrument-system interaction is postulated, not derived. In other words, this assumption is considered as a legitimate idealization of the experimental facts. A wave packet reduction can be considered as a phenomenological procedure that, in many instances, can be applied in order to calculate the results of successive observations and the correlations between them without introducing into the formulas the complicated wave functions of the various instruments.