Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Log inSign up
Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Blog
Job Board
Q3AS

© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

TermsPrivacyLegal Notice

Physical review. D. Particles, fields, gravitation, and cosmology/Physical review. D. Particles and fields

Approximate measurement in quantum mechanics. I

Mary H. Fehrs, Abner Shimony

Published Apr 15, 1974• 5 citations
Publisher

Abstract

This is the first of two papers showing that the quantum problem of measurement remains unsolved even when the initial state of the apparatus is described by a statistical operator and when the results of measurement have a small probability of being erroneous. A realistic treatment of the measurement of observables of microscopic objects (e.g., the position or the spin of an electron) by means of observables of macroscopic apparatus (e.g., the position of a spot on a photographic plate) requires the consideration of errors. The first paper considers measurement procedures of the following type: An initial eigenstate of the object observable leads to a final statistical operator of the object plus apparatus which describes a mixture of "approximate" eigenstates of the apparatus observable. It is proved that each of a large class of initial states leads to a final statistical operator which does not describe any mixture containing even one "approximate" eigenstate of the apparatus observable.

DOI
10.1103/physrevd.9.2317

Related papers

Approximate measurement in quantum mechanics

Mary H. Fehrs

This is the first of two papers showing that the quantum problem of measurement remains unsolved even when the initial state of the apparatus is described by a statistical operator and when the results of measurement have a small probability of being erroneous. A realistic treatment of the measurement of observables of microscopic objects (e.g., the position or the spin of an electron) by means of observables of macroscopic apparatus (e.g., the position of a spot on a photographic plate) requires the consideration of errors. The first paper considers measurement procedures of the following type: An initial eigenstate of the object observable leads to a final statistical operator of the object plus apparatus which describes a mixture of “approximate” eigenstates of the apparatus observable. It is proved that each of a large class of initial states leads to a final statistical operator which does not describe any mixture containing even one “approximate” eigenstate of the apparatus observable. INTRODUCTION Several writers have tried to solve the quantum-mechanical problem of measurement through one or both of the following proposals: (a) describthe initial state of the measuring apparatus by a projection onto a subspace of the associated Hilbert space or by a statistical operator, thus taking into account the practical impossibility of knowing the exact quantum state of a macroscopic object; (b) recognizing that there may be some physical inaccuracy, such as a small error in the position of a pointer needle, in the final registration of the outcome of the measurement by the apparatus.

Cambridge University Press eBooks•Feb 26, 1993•1 citation

Approximate measurement in quantum mechanics. II

Abner Shimony

An approximate measurement procedure of the following type is considered: (i) An initial eigenstate of the object observable leads to a final statistical operator of the object plus apparatus describing a mixture of exact eigenstates of the apparatus observable; (ii) almost all the statistical weight of the mixture is assigned to eigenstates associated with one eigenvalue of the apparatus observable, which is uniquely determined by the initial value of the object observable. It is proved that each of a large class of initial states of the object leads to a final statistical operator which does not describe any mixture of exact eigenstates of the apparatus observable. The analysis also yields a proof of a theorem on measurement stated by Fine.

Physical review. D. Particles, fields, gravitation, and cosmology/Physical review. D. Particles and fields•Apr 15, 1974•33 citations

Measurement and quantum states

Richard Healey

MEASUREMENT INTERACTIONS In the present interpretation terms such as ‘measurement,’ ‘observation,’ ‘find,’ ‘classical,’ and ‘apparatus’ do not appear in the formulation of quantum mechanics. Yet it must of course be true that quantum mechanics can be used to predict features of the results of measurements – in particular their statistics. What is required, then, is an account in quantum mechanical terms of those physical interactions capable of being used to perform measurements of quantum dynamical variables, from which it follows that the predicted probabilities for specified behavior of certain quantum systems in these interactions coincide with what, on a more conventional interpretation, are simply postulated as the quantum mechanical probabilities for various measurement results on a system with a given quantum state. It is necessary to see how this consequence may be derived, not only in order to explicate the Born rules, but also to explain the role of quantum states within the present interpretation. The first step toward the required account is to analyze the nature of an interaction capable of being used to perform a measurement of the value of a quantum dynamical variable in a quantum system. Any such interaction will be called an M -type interaction, whether or not it is in fact used to perform a measurement. The basic characteristic of an M -type interaction is that it establishes a correlation between the initial dynamical state of one quantum system σ (the object system) and the final dynamical state of another quantum system α (the apparatus system).

Cambridge University Press eBooks•Nov 24, 1989•0 citations

Insolubility of the Quantum Measurement Problem

Arthur I. Fine

The problem of whether a measurement interaction can leave the joint object-apparatus system in a mixture of states, in each state of which the apparatus's observable displays a definite value, is set within the most general quantum-theoretic framework for treating measurements. It is shown that the question posed by this problem admits only a negative answer. Some schemes for approximating the true object-apparatus state by means of such mixtures are examined. It is argued that such schemes constitute fundamental changes in the interpretation of quantum theory.

Physical review. D. Particles, fields, gravitation, and cosmology/Physical review. D. Particles and fields•Dec 15, 1970•142 citations

Quantum Mechanics with Spontaneous Localization

T. Weber

One of the fundamental conceptual difficulties in quantum mechanics arises from the fact that two of the axioms of the theory concerning the evolution of a microscopic system are contradictory. The first axiom assumes that the state of a quantum system evolving undisturbed by any observer obeys a linear deterministic law expressed by the SchrSdinger equation. The second one (wave-packet reduction principle) states that, when the quantum system interacts with an apparatus devised to measure some of its dynamical variables, its state changes abruptly and stochastically, jumping into a normalized eigenstate of the measured variable. This evolution is not deterministic nor linear and cannot be accounted for by the SchrSdinger equation. As a consequence the internal coherence of the theory becomes questionable. On one side the influence of the apparatus on the quantum system cannot be described as an interaction of the quantum constituents of the measuring macroscopic apparatus with the measured quantum system. On the other side, the impossibility of considering a macroscopic object as made by quantum constituents, i .e . the difficulty of quantum mechanics in describing the behaviour of macroscopic systems, is even more dramatic if we consider the evolution of the closed system consisting of the macroscopic apparatus and of the microscopic system. In such a case the appearance of superpositions of macr0scopically distinguishable states related to the apparatus cannot be avoided. These superpositions contradict both our classical experience and wave-packet reduction principle, which provides for statistical mixtures.

•Jan 1, 1991•0 citations

Problems of Quantum Measurement

Joseph F. Johnson

We derive the probabilities of measurement results from Schroedinger's equation plus a definition of macroscopic as a particular kind of thermodynamic limit. Bohr's insight that a measurement apparatus must be classical in nature and classically describable is made precise in a mathematical sense analogous to the procedures of classical statistical mechanics and the study of Hamiltonian heat baths.

arXiv:quant-ph/0502124•Feb 21, 2005•0 citations
This is the first of two papers showing that the quantum problem of measurement remains unsolved even when the initial state of the apparatus is described by a statistical operator and when the results of measurement have a small probability of being erroneous. A realistic treatment of the measurement of observables of microscopic objects (e.g., the position or the spin of an electron) by means of observables of macroscopic apparatus (e.g., the position of a spot on a photographic plate) requires the consideration of errors. The first paper considers measurement procedures of the following type: An initial eigenstate of the object observable leads to a final statistical operator of the object plus apparatus which describes a mixture of "approximate" eigenstates of the apparatus observable. It is proved that each of a large class of initial states leads to a final statistical operator which does not describe any mixture containing even one "approximate" eigenstate of the apparatus observable.
This is the first of two papers showing that the quantum problem of measurement remains unsolved even when the initial state of the apparatus is described by a statistical operator and when the results of measurement have a small probability of being erroneous. A realistic treatment of the measurement of observables of microscopic objects (e.g., the position or the spin of an electron) by means of observables of macroscopic apparatus (e.g., the position of a spot on a photographic plate) requires the consideration of errors. The first paper considers measurement procedures of the following type: An initial eigenstate of the object observable leads to a final statistical operator of the object plus apparatus which describes a mixture of “approximate” eigenstates of the apparatus observable. It is proved that each of a large class of initial states leads to a final statistical operator which does not describe any mixture containing even one “approximate” eigenstate of the apparatus observable. INTRODUCTION Several writers have tried to solve the quantum-mechanical problem of measurement through one or both of the following proposals: (a) describthe initial state of the measuring apparatus by a projection onto a subspace of the associated Hilbert space or by a statistical operator, thus taking into account the practical impossibility of knowing the exact quantum state of a macroscopic object; (b) recognizing that there may be some physical inaccuracy, such as a small error in the position of a pointer needle, in the final registration of the outcome of the measurement by the apparatus.
An approximate measurement procedure of the following type is considered: (i) An initial eigenstate of the object observable leads to a final statistical operator of the object plus apparatus describing a mixture of exact eigenstates of the apparatus observable; (ii) almost all the statistical weight of the mixture is assigned to eigenstates associated with one eigenvalue of the apparatus observable, which is uniquely determined by the initial value of the object observable. It is proved that each of a large class of initial states of the object leads to a final statistical operator which does not describe any mixture of exact eigenstates of the apparatus observable. The analysis also yields a proof of a theorem on measurement stated by Fine.
MEASUREMENT INTERACTIONS In the present interpretation terms such as ‘measurement,’ ‘observation,’ ‘find,’ ‘classical,’ and ‘apparatus’ do not appear in the formulation of quantum mechanics. Yet it must of course be true that quantum mechanics can be used to predict features of the results of measurements – in particular their statistics. What is required, then, is an account in quantum mechanical terms of those physical interactions capable of being used to perform measurements of quantum dynamical variables, from which it follows that the predicted probabilities for specified behavior of certain quantum systems in these interactions coincide with what, on a more conventional interpretation, are simply postulated as the quantum mechanical probabilities for various measurement results on a system with a given quantum state. It is necessary to see how this consequence may be derived, not only in order to explicate the Born rules, but also to explain the role of quantum states within the present interpretation. The first step toward the required account is to analyze the nature of an interaction capable of being used to perform a measurement of the value of a quantum dynamical variable in a quantum system. Any such interaction will be called an M -type interaction, whether or not it is in fact used to perform a measurement. The basic characteristic of an M -type interaction is that it establishes a correlation between the initial dynamical state of one quantum system σ (the object system) and the final dynamical state of another quantum system α (the apparatus system).
The problem of whether a measurement interaction can leave the joint object-apparatus system in a mixture of states, in each state of which the apparatus's observable displays a definite value, is set within the most general quantum-theoretic framework for treating measurements. It is shown that the question posed by this problem admits only a negative answer. Some schemes for approximating the true object-apparatus state by means of such mixtures are examined. It is argued that such schemes constitute fundamental changes in the interpretation of quantum theory.
One of the fundamental conceptual difficulties in quantum mechanics arises from the fact that two of the axioms of the theory concerning the evolution of a microscopic system are contradictory. The first axiom assumes that the state of a quantum system evolving undisturbed by any observer obeys a linear deterministic law expressed by the SchrSdinger equation. The second one (wave-packet reduction principle) states that, when the quantum system interacts with an apparatus devised to measure some of its dynamical variables, its state changes abruptly and stochastically, jumping into a normalized eigenstate of the measured variable. This evolution is not deterministic nor linear and cannot be accounted for by the SchrSdinger equation. As a consequence the internal coherence of the theory becomes questionable. On one side the influence of the apparatus on the quantum system cannot be described as an interaction of the quantum constituents of the measuring macroscopic apparatus with the measured quantum system. On the other side, the impossibility of considering a macroscopic object as made by quantum constituents, i .e . the difficulty of quantum mechanics in describing the behaviour of macroscopic systems, is even more dramatic if we consider the evolution of the closed system consisting of the macroscopic apparatus and of the microscopic system. In such a case the appearance of superpositions of macr0scopically distinguishable states related to the apparatus cannot be avoided. These superpositions contradict both our classical experience and wave-packet reduction principle, which provides for statistical mixtures.