“Protective measurement” refers to two related schemes for finding the expectation value of an observable without disturbing the state of a quantum system, given a single copy of the system that is subject to a “protecting” operation. There have been several claims that these schemes support interpreting the quantum state as an objective property of a single quantum system. Here we provide three counter-arguments, each of which we present in two versions tailored to the two different schemes. Our first argument shows that the same resources used in protective measurement can be used to reconstruct the quantum state in a different way via process tomography. Our second argument is based on exact analyses of special cases of protective measurement, and our final argument is to construct explicit “휓-epistemic” toy models for protective measurement, which strongly suggest that protective measurement does not imply the reality of the quantum state. The common theme of the three arguments is that almost all of the information comes from the “protection” operation rather than the quantum state of the system, and hence the schemes have no implications for the reality of the quantum state.
“Protective measurement” refers to two related schemes for finding the expectation value of an observable without disturbing the state of a quantum system, given a single copy of the system that is subject to a “protecting” operation. There have been several claims that these schemes support interpreting the quantum state as an objective property of a single quantum system. Here we provide three counter-arguments, each of which we present in two versions tailored to the two different schemes. Our first argument shows that the same resources used in protective measurement can be used to reconstruct the quantum state in a different way via process tomography. Our second argument is based on exact analyses of special cases of protective measurement, and our final argument is to construct explicit “휓-epistemic” toy models for protective measurement, which strongly suggest that protective measurement does not imply the reality of the quantum state. The common theme of the three arguments is that almost all of the information comes from the “protection” operation rather than the quantum state of the system, and hence the schemes have no implications for the reality of the quantum state.
We examine the entanglement and state disturbance arising in a protective measurement and argue that these inescapable effects doom the claim that protective measurement establishes the reality of the wave function. An additional challenge to this claim results from the exponential number of protective measurements required to reconstruct multi-qubit states. We suggest that the failure of protective measurement to settle the question of the meaning of the wave function is entirely expected, for protective measurement is but an application of the standard quantum formalism, and none of the hard foundational questions can ever be settled in this way. Introduction From the start, the technical result of protective measurement has been suggested to have implications for the interpretation of quantum mechanics. Consider how Aharonov and Vaidman [2] chose to begin their original paper introducing the idea of protective measurement: We show that it is possible to measure the Schrödinger wave of a single quantum system. This provides a strong argument for associating physical reality with the quantum state of a single system.… Since then, the pioneers of protective measurement seem to have taken a more moderate stance. Vaidman [42], in a recent synopsis of protective measurement, concedes that the protective measurement procedure is not a proof that we should adopt one interpretation instead of the other, but it is a good testbed which shows advantages and disadvantages of various interpretations. Notwithstanding this more subtle perspective and a number of critical studies of the technical and foundational aspects of protective measurement, Gao [21] has maintained, if not amplified, the force of Aharonov and Vaidman's original argument: An immediate implication is that the result of a protective measurement, namely the expectation value of the measured observable in the measured state, reflects the actual physical property of the measured system, as the system is not disturbed after this result has been obtained. […]
It has been debated whether protective measurement implies the reality of the wave function. In this article, I present a new analysis of the relationship between protective measurements and the reality of the wave function. First, I briefly introduce protective measurements and the ontological models framework for them. Second, I give a simple proof of Hardy’s theorem in terms of protective measurements. Third, I analyse two suggested ψ-epistemic models of a protective measurement. It is shown that although these models can explain the appearance of expectation values of observables in a single measurement, their predictions about the variance of the result of a non-ideal protective measurement are different from those of quantum mechanics. Finally, I argue that under an auxiliary finiteness assumption about the dynamics of the ontic state, protective measurement implies the reality of the wave function in the ontological models framework.
It has been debated whether protective measurement implies the reality of the wave function. In this paper, I present a new analysis of the relationship between protective measurement and the reality of the wave function. First, I briefly introduce protective measurements and the ontological models framework for them. Second, I give a simple proof of Hardy's theorem in terms of protective measurements. It shows that when assuming the ontic state of the protected system keeps unchanged during a protective measurement, the wave function must be real. Third, I analyze two suggested psi-epistemic models of a protective measurement, in which the ontic state of the system is affected by the measurement. It is shown that although these models can explain the appearance of expectation values of observables in a single measurement, their predictions about the variance of the result of a non-ideal protective measurement are different from those of quantum mechanics. Finally, I argue that no psi-epistemic models exist for an ideal protective measurement in the ontological models framework, and in order to account for the definite result of an ideal protective measurement, the wave function must be a property of the protected system, defined either at a precise instant or during an infinitesimal time interval around an instant. Moreover, this result can also be extended to the wave function of an unprotected system. This new proof of the reality of the wave function does not rely on auxiliary assumptions, and it may help settle the issue about the nature of the wave function.
Recently the first protective measurement has been realized in experiment [Nature Phys. 13, 1191 (2017)], which can measure the expectation value of an observable from a single quantum system. This raises an important and pressing issue of whether protective measurement implies the reality of the wave function. If the answer is yes, this will improve the influential PBR theorem [Nature Phys. 8, 475 (2012)] by removing auxiliary assumptions, and help settle the issue about the nature of the wave function. In this paper, we demonstrate that this is indeed the case. It is shown that a psi-epistemic model and quantum mechanics have different predictions about the variance of the result of a Zeno-type protective measurement with finite N.
Based on an analysis of protective measurements, we show that the quantum state represents the physical state of a single quantum system. This result is more definite than the PBR theorem [Pusey, Barrett, and Rudolph, Nature Phys. 8, 475 (2012)]. The physical meaning of the quantum state is an important interpreta-tive problem of quantum mechanics. A long-standing question is whether a pure state relates only to an ensemble of identically prepared systems or di-rectly to the state of a single system. Recently, Pusey, Barrett and Rudolph (PBR) demonstrated that under an independence assumption, the quantum state is a representation of the physical state of a single quantum system [1]. This poses a further interesting question, namely whether ψ-ontology can be argued without resorting to nontrivial assumptions such as the in-dependence assumption (cf. Ref. [2-4]). In this Letter, we will show that protective measurements [5,6] already provide such an argument. The meaning of the quantum state is usually analyzed in the context of conventional impulsive measurements of an ensemble of identically prepared systems. However, it has been known that the quantum state of a single prepared system can be protectively measured [5-9]. During a protective measurement, the measured system is protected by an appropriate procedure (e.g. via the quantum Zeno effect) so that its quantum state neither changes nor becomes entangled with the quantum state of the measuring device appreciably. In this way, such protective measurements can measure the expectation values of observables from a single quantum system, even if the system is initially not in an eigenstate of the measured observable, and in particular, the quantum state of the system can also be measured as expectation values of certain observables. It is expected that protective measurements will be realized in the near future with the rapid development of quantum technologies.
In this chapter, I summarize the general way in which the measurement process can be cast (by making use of effects and amplitude operators). Then, I show that there are two main problems with the state measurement: (i) how to avoid the disruptive back action on the state of the measured system during detection and (ii) how to extract complete information from this state. In order to deal with them I first introduce quantum non-demolition (QND) measurement and examine the problem whether the entire probability distribution of the measured observable is not altered by a QND measurement, which would allow repeated QND measurements with different observables to extract the whole information from the measured system. However, I show that this is not the case. Then, I deal with protective measurement as such and show that a reversible measurement is in fact not a measurement. However, by taking advantage of statistical methods (and therefore by renouncing measurement of the state of a single system), we can indeed reconstruct the wave function but only by partially recovering the information contained in the state. Two further prices to pay are to admit the existence of negative quasi-probabilities due to the interference terms and to make use of unsharp observables for guaranteeing informational completeness. Introduction The aim of this chapter is a review of the developments related to the measurement of the state vector and the problems that have been raised in this context. Traditionally, the state vector or the wave function describing quantum systems has been considered as a formal tool for calculating the probabilities associated with certain events like measurement outcomes, but few scholars have tried to attribute to it an ontological status. It is well known how many difficulties are related to an attempt at assigning a kind of reality to the state of quantum systems.