As openly stated by Willis Lamb, the field of quantum measurements has not been helped by the ample participation of theorists in it (although Lamb himself has been described as a theorist turned experimentalist). The point is, as validly exposed by Lamb, that when it comes to quantum measurements there is a plethora of misunderstandings that mystify and confuse those who describe them and those who listen. Here, the so called ‘measurement problem’ comes to mind. The very first concept in explaining what is a measurement, and not just a quantum measurement, is that no measurement is exact . In physics no one can measure https://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"> x with https://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"> Δ x = 0 . When we measure https://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"> x we always measure it as https://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"> x ± Δ x where https://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"> Δ x is a nonzero quantity. This observation alone immediately brings in stochasticity into the measurement arena. In measurements there is no escape from stochasticity . In this chapter the measurement process is described from an interferometric perspective.
As openly stated by Willis Lamb, the field of quantum measurements has not been helped by the ample participation of theorists in it (although Lamb himself has been described as a theorist turned experimentalist). The point is, as validly exposed by Lamb, that when it comes to quantum measurements there is a plethora of misunderstandings that mystify and confuse those who describe them and those who listen. Here, the so called ‘measurement problem’ comes to mind. The very first concept in explaining what is a measurement, and not just a quantum measurement, is that no measurement is exact . In physics no one can measure https://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"> x with https://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"> Δ x = 0 . When we measure https://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"> x we always measure it as https://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"> x ± Δ x where https://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"> Δ x is a nonzero quantity. This observation alone immediately brings in stochasticity into the measurement arena. In measurements there is no escape from stochasticity . In this chapter the measurement process is described from an interferometric perspective.
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.
Heisenberg's uncertainty principle is one of the unique and iconic features of quantum mechanics that distinctly separates this physics, based on indeterminacy, from any and all classical deterministic theories. Besides its succinct utter beauty, https://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"> Δ x Δ p ≈ h , as articulated by Feynman ‘it protects quantum mechanics.’ In addition to its foundational importance and ‘protection’ function, the uncertainty principle plays crucial experimental roles in the measurement of coherent emission linewidth https://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"> Δ ν and in determining the nonlocality of the photon via measurements of coherence length https://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"> Δ x . Physically, it can be shown that https://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"> Δ x Δ p ≈ h has its origin in the physics of measurable interferometric quantum probability distributions. This insight teaches us that, unlike probability amplitudes, https://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"> Δ x Δ p ≈ h firmly resides in the measurable realm.
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.
Ever since the beginning of quantum mechanics, the measurement problem has been a subject of sometimes discontinued but nevertheless recurrent concern. As students, most physicists have raised questions about it, but the spectacular and renewed successes of quantum theory were a strong incentive for them to work out applications without further worrying about foundations. In each generation, however, some dissatisfaction reemerges, which leads to slow progress, and we may expect that the measurement problem will some day be cleared up rather than forgotten. The situation recalls statistical mechanics, the foundations of which still give rise to scientific discussions, in spite of more than one century’s achievements. Actually, the paradoxes of irreversibility and of Maxwell’s demon share some common features with quantum measurements, to wit, they involve probabilities in a crucial fashion and their explanation requires elucidating the role of the observer.
This Chapter introduces the Feynman Path Integral description of quantum transition amplitudes, considering the simplest case of a quantum system described by one quantum variable q and its conjugate momentum p . The transition amplitude from time https://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"> t 1 to time https://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"> t 2 = t 1 + T is obtained by discretising the time axis in N time steps of amplitude https://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"> ϵ , implying T=N https://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"> ϵ . For https://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"> ϵ → 0 , the Feynman Path Integral formula is derived: https://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"> < q N | e - i T H / ℏ | q 0 > = ∫ d [ q ( t ) ] e i S q ( t ) , q ' ( t ) / ℏ , where integration is over all trajectories https://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"> q ( t ) which satisfy the boundary conditions at https://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"> t 1 and t 2 . https://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"> S ( q , q ' ) is the classical Action, a function of https://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"> q and of its time derivative. The classical limit, corresponding to https://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"> ℏ → 0 , is considered, whereby the solution of the Feynman Path Integral reduces to the classical trajectory, https://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"> q c ( t ) , which minimises the classical Action. The lattice approximation , i.e. small, non vanishing https://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"> ϵ , with evaluation of the Feynman integral by numerical integration, provides a useful approximation in the case of the fundamental theory of the strong interactions (Quantum Chromodynamics, or QCD), to be considered later; Chapters 17 to19. This chapter is completed by consideration of the extension of gthe formalism to imaginary time, where the Feynman Path Integral becomes the Partition Function of Statistical Mechanics, and by the definition of the Green's functions, ground-state expectation values of products of quantum operators q(t) taken at different times, https://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"> t 1 , t 2 … t N .
The basic thesis of this book is that there is no quantum measurement problem. I do not mean by this that the apparent paradoxes of quantum mechanics arise because we fail to recognize ‘that quantum theory does not describe physical reality’ (Fuchs and Peres 2000a). Quantum theory describes reality just fine, like any other scientific theory worth taking seriously: describing (and explaining) reality is what the scientific enterprise is about. Nor do I mean that we have found solutions to the problem, ways to modify or supplement quantum mechanics so that the paradoxes are removed. I don’t actually think that we have found any very satisfactory solutions in this sense (at least not in the relativistic domain) but that isn’t my theme: even if we did have these modifications, they would be ways of changing from quantum physics, which supposedly does have a measurement problem, to some other theory, which supposedly doesn’t.