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 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.
We provide an introduction to the theory of quantum measurements that is centered on the pivotal role played by John von Neumann's model. This introduction is accessible to students and researchers from outside the field of foundations of quantum mechanics and presented within a historical context. We first explain the origins and the meaning of the measurement problem in quantum theory, and why it is not present in classical physics. We perform a chronological review of the quantization of action and explain how this led to successive restrictions on what could be measured in atomic phenomena, until the consolidation of the orthodox interpretation of quantum mechanics. The clear separation between quantum system and classical apparatus that causes these restrictions is subverted in von Neumann's paradigmatic model of quantum measurements, a subject whose concepts we explain, while also providing the mathematical tools necessary to apply it to new problems. We show how this model was important in discussing the interpretations of quantum mechanics and how it is still relevant in modern applications. In particular, we explain in detail how it can be used to describe weak measurements and the surprising results they entail. We also discuss the limitations of von Neumann's model of measurements, and explain how they can be overcome with POVMs and Kraus operators. We provide the mathematical tools necessary to work with these generalized measurements and to derive master equations from them. Finally, we demonstrate how these can be applied in research problems by calculating the Quantum Zeno Effect.
In this chapter, we study the properties of quantum entanglement, and more generally the way correlations can appear in quantum mechanics. Quantum entanglement is an important notion that we have already discussed, for instance in the context of the Von Neumann chain or of the Schrödinger cat, but here we give more details on its properties. In classical physics, the notion of correlation is well known. It hinges on the calculation of probabilities and on linear averages over a number of possibilities. A distribution gives the probability of having the first system in a some given state and the second in another state. If this distribution is not a product, the two systems are correlated. If it is a product, they are uncorrelated; measuring the properties of one system does not bring any information on the other. This is in particular the case if the state of each of the two systems is perfectly defined (which also defines the state of the whole system perfectly well). The notion of correlation between sub-systems therefore stems from the multiplicity of possible states of the whole system; fluctuations of this state are necessary to give its full meaning to the classical notion of correlation. In quantum mechanics, the situation is different: as we have seen (in particular in Chapter 4), even a physical system that is perfectly defined by a given state vector already contains fluctuations.
Until now we have treated measurement apparatuses as devices taking quantum systems as their inputs and producing measurement outcomes as outputs. At this level of description, measurement apparatuses are fully described by observables, as discussed in Chapter 3. The measurement outcome distribution is determined by the particular input state and the observable describing the measurement device. In this chapter we explore a mathematical framework suitable for the description of measurement apparatuses for which, in addition to the measurement outcomes, the measured systems are available after the measurement is performed. In such cases we may try to obtain more information on the system by measuring some other observable, or, perhaps by filtering out some preferred output states we may use our measurement apparatus as a preparator. Clearly, in this kind of situation we need a description of measurement apparatuses that is more detailed than that of observables. Therefore, two more refined concepts, measurement models and instruments , will be investigated in this chapter. There is no customary name for a measurement model. As used here, it was first formalized in a general way by Ozawa [106], [107] who referred to the measurement process . A comprehensive general reference on quantum measurements is the monograph by Busch et al. [35], where measurement models are called premeasurements . Some other authors use the term indirect measurements . Three levels of description of measurements It is convenient to think of three levels of description when considering measurements.
Protective measurement, in the language of standard quantum mechanics, is a method to measure the expectation value of an observable on a single quantum system (Aharonov and Vaidman, 1993; Aharonov, Anandan and Vaidman, 1993). For a conventional impulsive measurement, the state of the measured system is strongly entangled with the state of the measuring device during the measurement, and the measurement result is one of the eigenvalues of the measured observable. By contrast, during a protective measurement, the measured state is protected by an appropriate procedure so that it neither changes nor becomes entangled with the state of the measuring device appreciably. In this way, such protective measurements can measure the expectation values of observables on a single quantum system, and in particular, the wave function of the system can also be measured as expectation values of certain observables. It is expected that protective measurements can be performed in the near future with the rapid development of weak measurement technologies (e.g. Kocsis et al., 2011; Lundeen et al., 2011). In this chapter, we will give a clear introduction to protective measurement in quantum mechanics. Standard quantum mechanics and impulsive measurement The standard formulation of quantum mechanics, which was first developed by Dirac (1930) and von Neumann (1955), is based on the following basic principles. 1 Physical states The state of a physical system is represented by a normalized wave function or unit vector | ψ ( t )〉 in a Hilbert space. The Hilbert space is complete in the sense that every possible physical state can be represented by a state vector in the space. 2 Physical properties Every measurable property or observable of a physical system is represented by a Hermitian operator on the Hilbert space associated with the system. A physical system has a determinate value for an observable if and only if it is in an eigenstate of the observable (this is often called the eigenvalue–eigenstate link).
Introduction As discussed in Chapter 1, to understand the general evolution, conditioned and unconditioned, of a quantum system, it is necessary to consider coupling it to a second quantum system. In the case in which the second system is much larger than the first, it is often referred to as a bath, reservoir or environment , and the first system is called an open system . The study of open quantum systems is important to quantum measurement for two reasons. First, all real systems are open to some extent, and the larger a system is, the more important its coupling to its environment will be. For a macroscopic system, such coupling leads to very rapid decoherence . Roughly, this term means the irreversible loss of quantum coherence, that is the conversion of a quantum superposition into a classical mixture. This process is central to understanding the emergence of classical behaviour and ameliorating, if not solving, the so-called quantum measurement problem . The second reason why open quantum systems are important is in the context of generalized quantum measurement theory as introduced in Chapter 1. Recall from there that, by coupling a quantum system to an ‘apparatus’ (a second quantum system) and then measuring the apparatus, a generalized measurement on the system is realized. For an open quantum system, the coupling to the environment is typically continuous (present at all times).
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.