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

CRC Press eBooks

The Algebra of Measurement

Julian Schwinger

Published Mar 5, 2018• 0 citations
Publisher

Abstract

The classical theory of measurement is built upon the conception of an interaction between the system of interest and the measuring apparatus that can be made arbitrarily small, or at least precisely compensated, so that one can speak meaningfully of an idealized measurement that disturbs no property of the system. In the most elementary type of measurement, an ensemble of independent similar systems is sorted by the apparatus into subensembles, distinguished by definite values of the physical quantity being measured. The use of complex numbers in the measurement algebra implies the existence of a dual algebra in which all numbers are replaced, by the complex conjugate numbers. No physical result can depend upon which algebra is employed. The measurement symbols of a given description provide a basis for the representation of an arbitrary operator by N 2 numbers, and the abstract properties of operators are realized by the combinatorial laws of these arrays of numbers, which are those of matrices.

DOI
10.1201/9780429497933-1

Related papers

On the general quantum theory of measurement

Arthur I. Fine

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.

Mathematical Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society•Jan 1, 1969•29 citations

The Dynamical Principle

Julian Schwinger

A measurement is a physical operation in space and in time. The properties of a system are described in relation to measurements at a given time, and no value of the time is intrinsically distinguished from another by the results of measurements on an isolated physical system. The operators symbolizing analogous properties at different times must be related by a unitary transformation. The propagation in time of the disturbance produced by a measurement implies that physical quantities referring to different times are incompatible, in general. The development of the fundamental dynamical variables through an infinitesimal time interval is described by an infinitesimal unitary transformation, which implies first order differential equations of motion for these variables. The necessity of an even number of variables and the possibility of dividing them into two complementary sets also appears for variables of the second kind.

CRC Press eBooks•Mar 5, 2018•0 citations

Measurement Theory1

The term measurement theory refers to that part of a physical theory in which the empirical and operational content of the concepts of the theory is determined. Measurements are analyzed both as operational procedures defining the → observables of the theory and as physical processes which are themselves subject to the laws of physics. In classical physics, measurements are performed in order to deter-mine the values of one or several observables of the physical system un-der consideration. Classical physics allowed the idealized notion that every physical quantity has a definite value at any time, and that this value can be determined with certainty by measurement without influ-encing the object system in a significant way. By contrast, in quantum mechanics both features fail to hold without strong qualifications. Ac-cordingly, in their seminal paper of 1935 [1], Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen used elements of this description as a sufficient criterion of phys-ical reality, applicable both in classical and quantum mechanics:

•Oct 31, 2015•0 citations

Projection postulates

Peter Gibbins

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.)

Cambridge University Press eBooks•Sep 25, 1987•0 citations

Theory of experiments

Peter Holland

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.

Cambridge University Press eBooks•May 13, 1993•13 citations

A Model of Classical and Quantum Measurement

Charles Francis

We take the view that physical quantities are values generated by processes in measurement, not pre-existent objective quantities, and that a measurement result is strictly a product of the apparatus and the subject of the measurement. We habitually make an inaccurate statements when we speak of the measurement of a quantity by an apparatus. These statements can be formalised as a many valued logic with the structure of a vector space with a hermitian form in such a way as to generate probabilities in the results of measurement. The difference between this and classical probability theory is that we are not finding probabilities generated by unknown variables, but probabilities generated by unknown structure. We thus interpret quantum logic as the application of complex truth values to statements in an inaccurate language, and find that the properties of vector space hold for approximate measurement as well as for measurement of optimal accuracy, suggesting that Planck's constant governs the scale of the fundamental structures of matter.

arXiv:physics/9909047•Sep 23, 1999•2 citations
The classical theory of measurement is built upon the conception of an interaction between the system of interest and the measuring apparatus that can be made arbitrarily small, or at least precisely compensated, so that one can speak meaningfully of an idealized measurement that disturbs no property of the system. In the most elementary type of measurement, an ensemble of independent similar systems is sorted by the apparatus into subensembles, distinguished by definite values of the physical quantity being measured. The use of complex numbers in the measurement algebra implies the existence of a dual algebra in which all numbers are replaced, by the complex conjugate numbers. No physical result can depend upon which algebra is employed. The measurement symbols of a given description provide a basis for the representation of an arbitrary operator by N 2 numbers, and the abstract properties of operators are realized by the combinatorial laws of these arrays of numbers, which are those of matrices.
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.
A measurement is a physical operation in space and in time. The properties of a system are described in relation to measurements at a given time, and no value of the time is intrinsically distinguished from another by the results of measurements on an isolated physical system. The operators symbolizing analogous properties at different times must be related by a unitary transformation. The propagation in time of the disturbance produced by a measurement implies that physical quantities referring to different times are incompatible, in general. The development of the fundamental dynamical variables through an infinitesimal time interval is described by an infinitesimal unitary transformation, which implies first order differential equations of motion for these variables. The necessity of an even number of variables and the possibility of dividing them into two complementary sets also appears for variables of the second kind.
The term measurement theory refers to that part of a physical theory in which the empirical and operational content of the concepts of the theory is determined. Measurements are analyzed both as operational procedures defining the → observables of the theory and as physical processes which are themselves subject to the laws of physics. In classical physics, measurements are performed in order to deter-mine the values of one or several observables of the physical system un-der consideration. Classical physics allowed the idealized notion that every physical quantity has a definite value at any time, and that this value can be determined with certainty by measurement without influ-encing the object system in a significant way. By contrast, in quantum mechanics both features fail to hold without strong qualifications. Ac-cordingly, in their seminal paper of 1935 [1], Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen used elements of this description as a sufficient criterion of phys-ical reality, applicable both in classical and 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.
We take the view that physical quantities are values generated by processes in measurement, not pre-existent objective quantities, and that a measurement result is strictly a product of the apparatus and the subject of the measurement. We habitually make an inaccurate statements when we speak of the measurement of a quantity by an apparatus. These statements can be formalised as a many valued logic with the structure of a vector space with a hermitian form in such a way as to generate probabilities in the results of measurement. The difference between this and classical probability theory is that we are not finding probabilities generated by unknown variables, but probabilities generated by unknown structure. We thus interpret quantum logic as the application of complex truth values to statements in an inaccurate language, and find that the properties of vector space hold for approximate measurement as well as for measurement of optimal accuracy, suggesting that Planck's constant governs the scale of the fundamental structures of matter.