Abstract Precursing now popular ‘spontaneous reduction’ views, this chapter argues that the measurement problem in quantum mechanics is not a problem of measurement at all. Reductions happen in a variety of circumstances and are particularly important in the preparation of quantum states. But there is no reason to think there is any simple physical characterization of situations in which reduction of the wave packet occurs from when it does not. There is a difference in the mathematical characteristics of the evolution operator between the two (unitary operators versus non‐unitary), but this mathematical difference need mark no interesting physical difference distinguishing the situations to which operators apply.
Abstract Precursing now popular ‘spontaneous reduction’ views, this chapter argues that the measurement problem in quantum mechanics is not a problem of measurement at all. Reductions happen in a variety of circumstances and are particularly important in the preparation of quantum states. But there is no reason to think there is any simple physical characterization of situations in which reduction of the wave packet occurs from when it does not. There is a difference in the mathematical characteristics of the evolution operator between the two (unitary operators versus non‐unitary), but this mathematical difference need mark no interesting physical difference distinguishing the situations to which operators apply.
In most textbooks, measurement does not receive the full attention it deserves and sometimes is even not treated at all, apart a brief and cryptic mention of the “reduction of the wave packet.” However, in the last decades, the situation has profoundly changed and it is time to consider measurement a fundamental part of quantum mechanics, even, to a certain extent, an important generalization of the traditional theory (see also Chs. 14–15). This chapter consists of three major parts. In the first block (Secs. 9.1–9.4) we develop the main physical features of the measurement process: the heart of the argument is here represented by the aspects related to the interpretation. In the second part (Secs. 9.5–9.8) we discuss several special (and partly interdependent) topics of measurement: the heart here is represented by experimental aspects. In the third part (Secs. 9.9–9.12) we deal with the measurement process on a more formal plane, making use, in particular, of the generalization represented by the concepts of effect and positive operator valued measure (POVM). As we have said, the measurement problem is one of the most fundamental issues in the conceptual structure of quantum mechanics (as described in Sec. 9.1) and has a long history that will be examined in Sec. 9.2. In this context, the existence of apparently paradoxical quantum states comes about: the so-called Schrödinger cat states (see Sec. 9.3).
Introduction This paper, I am afraid, advocates the philosophy of technology without actually doing it. It can best be seen as a plea for the philosophical importance of technology; in this case, importance to one of the most widely discussed problems in philosophy of physics—the measurement problem in quantum mechanics. What I want to do here is to lay out a point of view that takes the measurement problem out of the abstract mathematical structure of theory, where we discuss questions about unitary operators or conditions for the disappearance of certain inner products supposed to represent interference terms, and locate it elsewhere. Where is the measurement problem? Answer: It had better be found in the quantum technology or it is not to be found at all. My view in many respects follows ideas I have learned from Willis Lamb. The evolution of states is supposed to be governed by the Schroedinger equation. The measurement problem arises when we become convinced that there are a range of cases in which we no longer want to assign the state dictated by the Schroedinger equation but want to assign a different state instead. Why do we want to assign this second state? We call the problem “the measurement problem” and this canonical example is a good illustration. You can't measure a quantum system without coupling to it.
Abstract In this mainly pedagogical article, we discuss under what circumstances measurements play a special role in quantum processes. In particular, we discuss the following facts that appear to be a common area of confusion. (i) From a fundamental point of view, measurements play no special role whatsoever: all dynamics that can be generated by measurements can be generated by unitary processes (for which post-selection is no exception). (ii) From a purely physical point of view, measurements are not ‘outside’ of quantum mechanics. (iii) The only difference between the abilities of measurement-based protocols and unitary circuits for quantum computing comes from practical (technology dependent) constraints. We emphasise the importance of distinguishing between differences that are (i) fundamental but without physical import; (ii) fundamental and possess physical import; and (iii) are not fundamental but have practical import. We also emphasise the importance of separating theoretical and experimental elements of measurement, primarily projection and amplification , which are physically very different. Note that since we are concerned with facts regarding physical processes, this article has little if anything to do with interpretations of quantum mechanics.
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.
This paper, I am afraid, advocates the philosophy of technology without actually doing it. It can best be seen as a plea for the philosophical importance of technology; in this case, importance to one of the most widely discussed problems in philosophy of physics—the measurement problem in quantum mechanics. What I want to do here is to lay out a point of view that takes the measurement problem out of the abstract mathematical structure of theory, where we discuss questions about unitary operators or conditions for the disappearance of certain inner products supposed to represent interference terms, and locate it elsewhere. Where is the measurement problem? Answer: It had better be found in the quantum technology or it is not to be found at all. My view in many respects follows ideas I have learned from Willis Lamb.
Abstract In rough terms, the quantum measurement problem is the problem of explaining how, when a system in a superposition state is measured, the pointer observable of the measuring apparatus is always found in a definite value. Although quantum mechanics involves several interpretative challenges, the measurement problem has been the main focus of the interest of physicists and philosophers working on the foundations of the theory: most interpretations were designed specifically to solve it. In this chapter, it is shown that the MHI offers a solution to the measurement problem for both ideal and non-ideal measurements, and that, in the non-ideal case, the interpretation distinguishes between reliable and non-reliable measurements. I have also explained how the MHI accounts for consecutive measurements. Finally, it is emphasized that the MHI approach provides a new, more physical understanding of the concept of quantum measurement.