Abstract The postulates presented at this point are generally agreed upon as being the primary set. But in the course of these postulates, there is no mention of the consequences of measurement. This chapter discusses this problem and the solution as provided by the Von-Neumann postulate. The concept of the projection operator is introduced, and this leads naturally to the study of the quantum entangled state. The results show in part the origin of the struggle that Einstein and others had with quantum, and the Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen (EPR) paradox. Quantum entanglement is the key to advanced ideas in quantum encryption, teleportation, and quantum computing.
Abstract The postulates presented at this point are generally agreed upon as being the primary set. But in the course of these postulates, there is no mention of the consequences of measurement. This chapter discusses this problem and the solution as provided by the Von-Neumann postulate. The concept of the projection operator is introduced, and this leads naturally to the study of the quantum entangled state. The results show in part the origin of the struggle that Einstein and others had with quantum, and the Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen (EPR) paradox. Quantum entanglement is the key to advanced ideas in quantum encryption, teleportation, and quantum computing.
The quantum measurement problems are revisited from a new perspective. One of the main ideas of this work is that the basic entities of our world are various types of particles, elementary or composite. It follows that each elementary process, hence each measurement process at its core, is a space–time, pointlike, event. Another key idea is that, when a microsystem [Formula: see text] gets into contact with the experimental device, factorization of [Formula: see text] rapidly fails and entangled mixed states appear. The wave functions for the microsystem-apparatus coupled systems for different measurement outcomes then lack overlapping space–time support. It means that the aftermath of each measurement is a single term in the sum: a “wave function collapse.” Our discussion leading to a diagonal density matrix, [Formula: see text] shows how the information encoded in the wave function [Formula: see text] gets transcribed, via entanglement with the experimental device and environment, into the relative frequencies [Formula: see text] for various experimental results [Formula: see text]. These results represent the first, significant steps towards filling in the logical gaps in the standard interpretation based on Born’s rule, and replacing it with a more natural one. Accepting objective reality of quantum fluctuations, independent of any experiments, and independently of human presence, one renounces the idea that in a fundamental, complete theory of Nature the result of each single experiment must necessarily be predictable. A few well-known puzzles such as the Schrödinger cat conundrum and the Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen (EPR) paradox are briefly reviewed: they can all be naturally explained away.
We first consider the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) paradox for the system of two particles with spin 1/2 with entangled spins in first-quantized quantum mechanics (QM). If measurement is governed by wavefunction collapse, then gedanken experiments show that a number of fundamental principles including conservation of angular momentum and the Heisenberg uncertainty principle can be violated. We conclude that the collapse of the spin part of the wavefunction cannot happen and therefore an EPR paradox does not arise for this system. QM unitarity alone is sufficient to rule out "spooky" action at a distance. The absence of spin wavefunction collapse leads to several interesting conclusions about how measurement works in QM: When wavefunction collapse does not happen, (i) a signal from a macroscopic measuring device indicating that a system is in a state S does not necessarily mean that it is or was in S and (ii) the uncertainty in QM at the microscopic level is transmitted to uncertainty in signals for the macroscopic measuring device. We derive two general results on how quantum measurement works and illustrate them in a spin-1/2 measurement. In contrast to first-quantized QM, in quantum field theory we are unable to fully rule out the possibility of wavefunction collapse. However, when we insist on unitarity (thereby excluding the possibility of wavefunction collapse) and additionally take into account in the wavefunction all degrees of freedom involved in the measurement (including those of the equipment, experimentalists, etc.), a consistant acceptable understanding of the Bell-inequality-type experiments involving entangled photon polarizations emerges including the absence of an EPR paradox. The ability of an experimentalist to be aware of his perceptions but unable to be conscious of other components of a generalized Schrodinger Cat plays a role in resolving the Measurement Problem.
Modern development of quantum technologies based on quantum information theory stimulated analysis of proposed computational, cryptographic and teleportational schemes from the viewpoint of quantum foundations. It is evident that not all mathematical calculations performed in complex Hilbert space can be directly realized in physical space. Recently by analyzing the original EPR paper we found that they argument was based on the misuse of the von Neumann's projection postulate. Opposite to von Neumann, Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen (EPR) applied this postulate to observables represented by operators with degenerate spectra. It was completely forbidden by von Neumann's axiomatics of QM. It is impossible to repeat the EPR considerations in the von Neumann's framework. In this note we analyze quantum teleportation by taking into account von Neumann's projection postulate. Our analysis shows that so called quantum teleportation is impossible in von Neumann's framework. On the other hand, our analysis implies that the main quantum algorithms are totally consistent with von Neumann's projection postulate.
Introduction We will now turn to quantum entanglements and their contemporary, possibly practical, interest. Entanglements, first discussed in the E.P.R. paradox (Einstein, Podolsky, Rosen, 1935) are a perplexing nonlocal feature of quantum mechanics. This was immediately and succinctly discussed by Schrödinger (1935). The long history of this apparent paradox is outlined in the wonderful book of Jammer (1974). We will not focus on the central issue of “hidden variables” and their resolution by the Bell inequalities (Bell, 1964) and the test, nor the failure, of these in experiment (see Fry, 1998). The distinctive quantum nature of entanglements has led to two quantum effects which we will discuss: quantum information teleportation (Zeilenger, 1998) and quantum computation by means of entangled states. A nice, recent, elementary introduction to the latter is in the Los Alamos reports of James and Kwiat (2002). The quantum correlations or entanglements are sensitive to environmental destruction. This was pointed out early by Zurek, who termed this “decoherence.” The loss of coherence may occur on a short time scale. Recent discussions have been given by Zurek (2002, 2003). We have already given a theoretical example early in Chapter 2. It is pertinent to discuss this here, since it is a property of opensystem quantum master equations that is a central part of our study in this book. In a sense, the decoherence of correlations has turned out to be a “practical” application of these theoretical notions. Are there remedies for unwanted decoherence? Quantum error correction is a possibility. This will be mentioned also. Entanglements: foundations Following the reading of the E.P.R. paper, Schrödinger (1935b) quickly repeated the argument from quantum theory, but more generally. He introduced the term “entanglement” to describe what he seemed to agree was a curious, if not unacceptable, property. Let us follow his point of view. Given a state ψ ( x, y ) of a composite system of particles x and y formed in their mutual interaction. ψ ( x , y ) is not a product state.
We show that it is possible to explain the quantum measurement process within the framework of quantum mechanics without any additional postulates. The key concept of the theory is decoherence, which appears as an inherent characteristic of quantum mechanics and results from the uncertainty relation. In contrast to environment-induced decoherence, this decoherence exists prior to a measurement being made. To clarify our idea, we examine three elemental experiments: a Stern-Gerlach-like experiment, the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen-Bohm (EPR-Bohm) experiment, and the double-slit experiment. By considering the first experiment, we explain how the uncertainty relation between position and momentum introduces decoherence prior to measurement. Consideration of the EPR-Bohm experiment leads us to conclude that the correlation of the EPR pair is not a consequence of what is known as the collapse of the wave function. Our theory of decoherence can also be applied to experiments with continuous eigenvalues, such as the double-slit experiment. Consideration of the double-slit experiment leads us to understand how pure quantum mechanics describes the fact that quanta behave as interfering particles.
This paper is devoted to analysis of the role of projection postulate in Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen-EPR [1] argument against completeness of QM. It will be shown that the EPR considerations do not match with von Neumann’s quantum measurement theory (QMT). The root of EPR’s conclusion on incompleteness of QM is the misuse of von Neumann’s projection postulate. EPR applied this postulate to observables with degenerate spectra (which is totally forbidden by von Neumann’s axiomatics of QM). Consequences for Bell’s inequality and quantum information theory are analyzed. This paper might stimulate discussion on the role of projection postulate in quantum information theory, especially quantum cryptography and teleportation.