In Chapter 3, we have discussed the direct measurement scheme in which a measured field is directly absorbed by photodetectors. In the direct detection process, the field is destroyed as the detector absorbs all the field interacting with it. From the point of view of quantum physics, the measurement destroys the state vector of the field such that the state collapses to the appropriate eigenstate of the measured field. For example, if prior to the measurement the state vector of the field is |α〉 + |β〉, at the measurement the state vector collapses to |α〉 if the value α is obtained, or |β〉 if β is obtained.
In Chapter 3, we have discussed the direct measurement scheme in which a measured field is directly absorbed by photodetectors. In the direct detection process, the field is destroyed as the detector absorbs all the field interacting with it. From the point of view of quantum physics, the measurement destroys the state vector of the field such that the state collapses to the appropriate eigenstate of the measured field. For example, if prior to the measurement the state vector of the field is |α〉 + |β〉, at the measurement the state vector collapses to |α〉 if the value α is obtained, or |β〉 if β is obtained.
The process of measurement plays an important role in quantum theory. Measurements can be direct, if the physical system S interacts directly with the measurement apparatus M (as we have assumed until now), or indirect. In the latter case, the physical system first interacts with an ancillary system B , which may have a space of states that is very different from that of S , for instance much larger; after this interaction has finished, M is used to perform a measurement on B , without any direct interaction with A . Because S is then “protected” from any direct interaction with the measurement apparatus, the state of S is not necessarily strongly modified, and may even be only weakly affected. In both cases, the process implies entanglement between several physical systems. In this chapter, we study how this entanglement is created and used for measurements as well as the notion of weak and continuous measurements. These questions play an important role in several of the interpretations of quantum mechanics that we discuss in Chapter 10. Direct measurements The Von Neumann model of quantum measurement [4] provides a general frame for describing the process in terms of correlations appearing (or disappearing) in the state vector associated with the whole system S + M . In this model, the two systems S and M are initially described by a product state ∣ψ 0 〈 and interact during the time of measurement, so that they become entangled; they then reach a final state ∣ψ′〈 and do not interact anymore.
The quantities in physics that can be measured are conventionally denoted observables : entities that can be observed (directly or indirectly) and to which a value in appropriate units can be assigned. Examples include position, momentum, and energy. Unlike in classical physics, the concept of an observable in quantum theory possesses a significance beyond that of the measurable: to each observable there corresponds a unique operator in an abstract, linear vector space. These operators (and others) govern all aspects of quantum systems. Quantum operators act on abstract vectors in the linear space. Especially important are the eigenvectors and eigenvalues of these operators, in particular because some of the eigenvectors are the quantum states mentioned in the preceding chapters. Furthermore, for any operator that is the mathematical image of an observable, its eigenvalues constitute the entire set of values that measurement of the observable can yield . Finally, from the quantum states one can obtain the probabilities for the occurrence of events in the microscopic world, for example, the most likely value that measurement of an observable will yield. The concepts of operators and eigenvalue problems, as well as those of quantal probabilities, of Hermiticity, and of complete sets, were encountered and exemplified in the preceding chapter using the language of differential equations. While much of quantum mechanics could be presented in terms of this language alone, certain fundamental concepts (spin, for instance) cannot be, and it eventually becomes necessary to consider quantum mechanics as a theoretical framework embedded in that abstract linear vector space known as a Hilbert space.
The beauty of the quantum circuit lies in the fact that it can perform certain tasks which are impossible in the classical world. For example, consider teleportation and superdense coding. Teleportation is a quantum task in which an unknown quantum state is transmitted from a sender (Alice) to a spatially separated receiver (Bob) via an entangled quantum channel and with the help of some classical communications. Dense coding is another communication scheme in which if Alice and Bob share a prior entanglement then one of them can send n bits of classical information to the other by communicating m-qubits (m < n). Before we go into the technical details of these two schemes let us try to lucidly visualize the uniqueness of teleportation. Suppose Alice and Bob are spatially separated and Alice wants to send an unknown quantum state |ψ〉 = α|0〉 + β|1〉 to Bob. For some reason she is not allowed to send the state directly through a quantum channel. She cannot measure it and send the information to Bob because the moment she will try to measure the state, it will collapse either to |0〉 or to |1〉. But the state can be sent by using a simple quantum circuit (pre-shared entanglement) and some classical communications. In the process the unknown quantum state gets destroyed at Alice’s end and reappears at Bob’s end. The state never exists in the communication channel. This process is called quantum teleportation. The uniqueness of quantum teleportation will be clearer if we note that the Fax is not an example of teleportation because the original copy remains with the sender. Again a letter posted in a letter box is not an example of teleportation because the letter exists (travels) in its original form in the communication channel. In brief, there is no classical analogue of quantum teleportation. The same is true for dense coding. In this chapter we will describe these two unique quantum communication schemes and discuss their significance and applications.
In this chapter, the simplest quantum measurement situation, i.e., where the state is an eigenvector of the observable to be measured, is considered. The states are therefore non-superimposed and measurement Axiom 3.2 of Section 13.7 in the previous chapter is applicable. We consider states in https://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"> ℂ 2 , ℂ 2 ⊗ ℂ 2 https://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xlink:href=" https://s3-euw1-ap-pe-df-pch-content-public-p.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/9781003264569/7139ce19-0d58-4a0c-820f-b76fb033e438/content/math14_1.tif "/> and https://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"> ℂ 2 ⊗ ℂ 2 ⊗ ℂ 2 https://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xlink:href=" https://s3-euw1-ap-pe-df-pch-content-public-p.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/9781003264569/7139ce19-0d58-4a0c-820f-b76fb033e438/content/math14_2.tif "/> . The generalisation to https://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"> ⊗ n ℂ 2 https://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xlink:href=" https://s3-euw1-ap-pe-df-pch-content-public-p.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/9781003264569/7139ce19-0d58-4a0c-820f-b76fb033e438/content/math14_3.tif "/> is then clear.
We demonstrate that CHSH Bell inequality violations (S=2.829S=2.829, matching the Tsirelson bound 2222 to 0.04%) emerge naturally in the Lattice Field Medium (LFM) framework when measurement is modeled as a non-separable interaction with a shared wave state. Four measurement models are compared: (A) local deterministic phase readout yields S=2.000S=2.000 (classical bound exactly), (B) local probabilistic measurement yields S=1.416S=1.416, (C) non-separable joint sampling from the full bipartite wave state yields S=2.829S=2.829, and (D) analytical quantum mechanics gives S=2.828S=2.828. The key insight is that in LFM, entangled particles share a common wave field governed by GOV-01/GOV-02, and measurement is an irreducibly joint interaction with this globally coherent state. Each detector interacts locally with the field at its position, but the field configuration at both positions was established by their shared causal past---measurement outcomes reflect the joint structure of the field, not pre-existing local properties. The resulting correlation function E(α,β)=cos(α−β)E(α,β)=cos(α−β) is not injected but emerges from the overlap integral of the measurement-perturbed field, yielding the Born rule probabilities P(A=B∣α,β)=cos2((α−β)/2)P(A=B∣α,β)=cos2((α−β)/2). This is analogous to two observers independently describing different parts of the same painting---their descriptions are correlated not because they communicated, but because they are describing the same object. All experiments use 106106 independent trials with binary (±1±1) outcomes at optimal CHSH angles (α=0°α=0°, α′=90°α′=90°, β=45°β=45°, β′=−45°β′=−45°). The null hypothesis that outcomes arise from a local factorizable model is rejected at >200σ>200σ. This work closes the last remaining gap (IT-05: Entanglement / Bell Inequalities) in the LFM Physics Equation Emergence Catalog, achieving 100% effective coverage of 208 cataloged physics equations across 15 domains.
A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it. – Max Planck, 1936 The only way quantum theory allows us to interact with quantum systems is via quantum processes. Thus, the only way we can extract information about the state of a quantum system is to apply some non-deterministic process and observe which of the branches happened. For that reason, many people refer to the act of applying certain quantum processes as measurement and sometimes even as observation . A consequence of this unfortunate terminology is that one of the most touted ‘strange’ features of quantum theory is often misleadingly described as follows: ‘The mere act of observing a quantum state changes it.’ ‘Misleading’, since the concept of measurement described in the previous paragraph is far from the passive concept of observation familiar from our macroscopic world, but is rather a non-trivial process that will almost always drastically affect the quantum state. So, the mysterious aspect of quantum theory is not that ‘observation’ alters the quantum state but, rather, that it is impossible, even in principle, to ‘observe’ a quantum system in the classical sense. Given this fundamental restriction on how we can extract information from a quantum system, what can we learn about that system by means of a quantum process? The answer is, in fact, very little! First, performing a particular measurement could, for the vast majority of quantum states, yield any outcome i with a non-zero probability. In that case, obtaining an outcome i doesn't tell us much about what the state of the system was. Second, we say ‘was’, because the measurement will moreover irreversibly change the state according to the outcome. So rather than revealing the state of a system, a quantum measurement typically erases that state from history! Nonetheless, these quantum measurements are crucial to quantum theory since they constitute the only interface between us, in our classical world, and the quantum world. The great insight of the quantum computing community is that the non-deterministic changes induced by these quantum measurements are not a nuisance, but rather an extremely useful resource.