States and observables Bras, kets, and operators There are at least two fundamental assumptions made in classical physics which do not apply in quantum physics. These two assumptions concern the types of measurements we can perform on a given system. The first assumption made is that it is possible, at least in principle, to perform a measurement on a given system in a way in which the interaction between the system being studied and the measuring apparatus can be made as small as we like. Because the act of measurement will disturb the system in some way, it is assumed that we can compensate for this disturbance to minimize the interaction. For example, if we look visually at an object by illuminating it with light, the illumination caused by the light leaving the light source and striking the object before being reflected to our eyes will impart some momentum to the object. Given the wavelength of light used we can always (in classical physics) work out what momentum is imparted, and we can compensate for this change in momentum by applying an appropriate force to the object to counteract this change. The second assumption made in classical physics is that there are no restrictions on what measurements we can make on a system either in type or in accuracy. Both assumptions can break down when we consider systems which must be described by quantum mechanics.
States and observables Bras, kets, and operators There are at least two fundamental assumptions made in classical physics which do not apply in quantum physics. These two assumptions concern the types of measurements we can perform on a given system. The first assumption made is that it is possible, at least in principle, to perform a measurement on a given system in a way in which the interaction between the system being studied and the measuring apparatus can be made as small as we like. Because the act of measurement will disturb the system in some way, it is assumed that we can compensate for this disturbance to minimize the interaction. For example, if we look visually at an object by illuminating it with light, the illumination caused by the light leaving the light source and striking the object before being reflected to our eyes will impart some momentum to the object. Given the wavelength of light used we can always (in classical physics) work out what momentum is imparted, and we can compensate for this change in momentum by applying an appropriate force to the object to counteract this change. The second assumption made in classical physics is that there are no restrictions on what measurements we can make on a system either in type or in accuracy. Both assumptions can break down when we consider systems which must be described by quantum mechanics.
The concept of measurement plays both a central and a problematic role in quantum mechanics. First of all, and unusually, the word ‘measurement’ figures in the fundamental axioms of quantum mechanics - in principle (3) of Chapter 2 for example - and in this quantum physics is quite unlike classical physics as a whole. For though a measurement made on a classical system naturally involves an interaction between the system and a measuring apparatus, there is nothing special according to classical physics about measurement interactions. Describing the measuring process is a straightforward problem of applied classical physics. The classical laws of motion do not break down during the measuring process. For example, suppose you observe a classical particle using light bounced off it. In the classical account you can make the disturbance on the observed system as small as you like and, ‘in principle', you can observe the system with arbitrary accuracy. ‘In principle’ - a favorite expression of the philosopher of physics - means what it always means in physics. The contrast is with ‘in practice'. Of course, in practice there are all sorts of limitations on measurement. There are also some theoretical limitations, like those due to thermodynamics. But these are not the limitations imposed by the theory we are considering, namely classical mechanics. Such limitations as there are are imposed by some other theory. (The expression ‘in principle’ tends to be used when we are discussing the principles of a particular theory and, theoretically but not in practice, physics is a collection of disjoint theories.)
Measurement in classical physics Measurements in classical physics are the means by which we come to know the current state of a mechanical system without appreciably disturbing it. The laws of classical mechanics imply that we may interact with the system in such a way that this ideal may be approached arbitrarily closely, at least in principle (i.e., in theory, ignoring practical problems). The aim of this chapter is to examine how far we must revise this programme in the quantum theory of measurement. Did the classical physicist believe in the objective existence of material systems with well-defined position and momentum just because these quantities could be empirically determined with arbitrary precision at the same time? It seems she made a stronger assumption than this; that two successive observations of an apple, first in a tree and then on the ground, are connected to one another by virtue of the fact that the apple actually has a definite position and momentum at each instant, whether it is observed or not. Thus, the programme of classical physics was not merely to predict the results of future experiments by inserting data from previous ones into the laws of motion, but to show how the observations are a function of a causally connected sequence of unique processes undergone by the system of interest, which possesses properties independently of measurements. Measurement was then something of a secondary affair and indeed, prior to quantum mechanics, the theory of measurement as a distinct branch of theoretical physics did not exist.
Abstract The subject of Chapter 8 is the fundamental principles of quantum theory, the abstract extension of quantum mechanics. Two of the entities explored are kets and operators, with kets being representations of quantum states as well as a source of wave functions. The quantum box and quantum spin kets are specified, as are the quantum numbers that identify them. Operators are introduced and defined in part as the symbolic representations of observable quantities such as position, momentum and quantum spin. Eigenvalues and eigenkets are defined and discussed, with the former identified as the possible outcomes of a measurement. Bras, the counterpart to kets, are introduced as the means of forming probability amplitudes from kets. Products of operators are examined, as is their role underpinning Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle. A variety of symbol manipulations are presented. How measurements are believed to collapse linear superpositions to one term of the sum is explored.
In classical physics, the ‘state’ of a particle, at any particular time, is taken to involve a definite position in space and a definite motion; and the state of a system of particles is taken to involve a definite position in space and a definite motion for each of the particles. The situation in relation to quantum mechanics is completely different. As in classical physics, calculations can be made concerning the position and motion of a particle. However, this representation is not by means of symbols for scalar or vector quantities: it is by a more complex mathematical object. This quantum state does not indicate or represent position or motion in any direct way: what it does in substance is to enable calculation of the probability of the particle in question being found to have a position or momentum if an appropriate measurement is made.
Abstract The object of this paper is to reformulate the principles of the quantum theory as a sequence of propositions which shall be either summary statements of standard experimental procedure or hypotheses concerning the results of experiment and having an immediate physical interpretation. It is shown that the standard process in micro-physics is a generalised spectral analysis, whose properties are simply expressible in symbolic form by means of projective or “idempotent” operators (Einzeloperatoren). It appears that only two hypotheses need be made and that these relate to the existence and properties of transition probabilities. From these fundamental principles, which have a direct physical significance, it is possible to deduce the subsidiary principles which form the accepted basis of the mathematical analysis of the quantum theory and which deal with the representation of quantum states and physical quantities by vectors and linear operators respectively. In this paper the emphasis is laid on the experimental process determining a state of a system and on the associated operators rather than on the state itself or the vector representing it in the system space. Projective operators, which represent actual processes of measurement, and unitary operators, which represent actual transformations of systems of measurement, are given priority over the (statistical) operators which represent physical variables. This method of representation makes the physical meaning of the theory fundamental, instead of leaving it to be extracted from a purely mathematical system of non-commutative algebra or differential equations.
We use the term ‘measurement’ to refer to the interaction between an object and an apparatus on the basis of which information concerning the initial state of the object may be obtained from information on the resulting state of the apparatus. The quantum theory of measurement is a quantum theoretic investigation of such interactions in order to analyse the correlations between object and apparatus that measurement must establish. Although there is a sizeable literature on quantum measurements there appear to be just two sorts of interactions that have been employed. There are the ‘disturbing’ interactions consistent with the analysis of Landau and Peierls (8) as developed by Pauli (11) and by Landau and Lifshitz (7), and there are the ‘non-disturbing’ interactions explicitly set out by von Neumann ((10), chs. 5, 6), and that dominate the literature. In this paper we shall investigate the most general types of interactions that could possibly constitute measurements and provide a precise mathematical characterization (section 2). We shall then examine an interesting subclass, corresponding to Landau's ideas, that contains both of the above sorts of measurements (section 3). Finally, we shall discuss von Neumann measurements explicitly and explore the purported limitations suggested by Wigner(12) and Araki and Yanase (2). We hope, in this way, to provide a comprehensive basis for discussions of quantum measurements.