Are there consistent and physically reasonable alternatives to the projection postulate? Does it have unique properties compared to acceptable alternatives? We answer these questions by systematically investigating hypothetical state-update rules for quantum systems that Nature could have chosen over the Lüders rule. Among other basic properties, any prospective rule must define unique post-measurement states and not allow for superluminal signalling. Particular attention will be paid to consistently defining post-measurement states when performing local measurements in composite systems. Explicit examples of valid unconventional update rules are presented, each resulting in a distinct, well-defined foil of quantum theory. This framework of state-update rules allows us to identify operational properties that distinguish the projective update rule from all others and to put earlier derivations of the projection postulate into perspective.
Are there consistent and physically reasonable alternatives to the projection postulate? Does it have unique properties compared to acceptable alternatives? We answer these questions by systematically investigating hypothetical state-update rules for quantum systems that Nature could have chosen over the Lüders rule. Among other basic properties, any prospective rule must define unique post-measurement states and not allow for superluminal signalling. Particular attention will be paid to consistently defining post-measurement states when performing local measurements in composite systems. Explicit examples of valid unconventional update rules are presented, each resulting in a distinct, well-defined foil of quantum theory. This framework of state-update rules allows us to identify operational properties that distinguish the projective update rule from all others and to put earlier derivations of the projection postulate into perspective.
Are there consistent and physically reasonable alternatives to the projection postulate? Does it have unique properties compared with acceptable alternatives? We answer these questions by systematically investigating hypothetical state-update rules for quantum systems that Nature could have chosen over the Lüders rule. Among other basic properties, any prospective rule must define unique post-measurement states and not allow for superluminal signaling. Particular attention will be paid to consistently defining post-measurement states when performing local measurements in composite systems. Explicit examples of valid unconventional update rules are presented, each resulting in a distinct, well-defined foil of quantum theory. This framework of state-update rules allows us to identify operational properties that distinguish the projective update rule from all others and to put earlier derivations of the projection postulate into perspective.
Masanes, Galley and Müller \cite{masanes2019measurement} argue that the measurement postulates of non-relativistic quantum mechanics follow from the structural postulates together with an assumption they call the "possibility of state estimation". Their argument also relies on what they term a "theory-independent characterization of measurements for single and multipartite systems". We refute their conclusion, giving explicit examples of non-quantum measurement and state update rules that satisfy all their assumptions. We also show that their "possibility of state estimation" assumption is neither necessary nor sufficient to ensure a sensible notion of state estimation within a theory whose states are described by the quantum formalism. We further show their purportedly "theory-independent" characterization assumes several properties of quantum measurements that exclude plausible alternative types of measurement. We illustrate all these points with specific alternative measurement postulates and post-measurement state update rules. We conclude that, contrary to some folklore, quantum mechanics is by no means an island in theory-space. It can consistently be extended by rules for obtaining information about quantum states other than via POVMs. Whether such rules are realised in nature, for example in linking quantum theory and gravity, is an empirical question that cannot be resolved by theoretical analysis alone.
The standard measurement postulate of quantum mechanics stipulates an instantaneous, non-local update of the global wavefunction upon measurement of an entangled subsystem. This postulate has been a persistent source of foundational tension, both with the locality structure of relativistic physics and with the dynamical character of the decoherence program. We separate the measurement postulate into three logically independent claims: definite outcome realization, Born-rule probability assignment, and instantaneous projection for the global wavefunction. We argue that the third claim can be eliminated at the axiomatic level and propose a modified measurement postulate, Postulate M, that replaces it. Under Postulate M, a single pointer outcome is realized locally when environmental decoherence has einselected a pointer basis at the measurement site; the corresponding selection acts on the global wavefunction as a conditional restriction to a branch rather than as a physical operation on spacelike-separated regions. We show that Postulate M recovers the standard measurement postulate as a limiting idealization for vanishing decoherence time, derives Lüders’ rule for sequential measurements, and yields no-signaling as an automatic structural consequence — not only at the level of measurement statistics but at the level of physical states themselves. Two explicit illustrations in the EPR scenario — with one and with both particles coupled to local spin environments — demonstrate the framework concretely and exhibit its frame-independent, manifestly local character. The framework is built on standard decoherence theory, compatible with multiple candidate mechanisms for single-outcome realization including gravitationally-induced collapse proposals, and naturally situated within a ψ-ontic reading of the quantum state. It represents, we argue, a reformulation of quantum mechanics as a local, state-realist theory — preserving Einstein’s aspiration for an objective physical world in the only form consistent with the empirical content of quantum mechanics, namely realism about the wavefunction rather than about pre-measurement observable values.
Quantum theory provides a significant example of two intermingling hallmarks of science: the ability to consistently combine physical systems and study them compositely, and the power to extract predictions in the form of correlations. A striking consequence of this facet is the violation of Bell inequalities, which has been experimentally demonstrated via Bell tests. The prediction of this phenomenon originates as quantum systems are prescribed to combine according to the composition postulate, i.e. the tensor-product rule. This rule has also an operationally salient formulation given in terms of discriminability of composite states via local measurements. However, both the theoretical and the empirical status of such a postulate have been repeatedly challenged, questioning its independence from other physical principles -- most notably from quantum postulates pertaining solely to single systems. Is the composition postulate the only viable way to combine quantum systems into a consistent physical theory? Here, this long-standing problem is resolved by answering in the negative. This is achieved by adopting an operational approach to physical theories and exhibiting a family of theories that differ from standard quantum theory in their system-composition rule. These theories have the same predictions as standard quantum theory as far as Bell-like correlation scenarios are concerned. Quantum theory is thus established to embody genuinely more than quantum correlations. As a result, foundational programmes based on single-system principles only, or on mere Bell-like correlations, are operationally incomplete. On the experimental side, ascertaining the independence of postulates is a fundamental step to adjudicate between quantum theory and alternative physical theories: hence, the composition postulate calls for experimental scrutiny independently of the other features of quantum theory.
Understanding the invasive nature of quantum measurement and its implications in quantum foundations and information science demands a mathematically rigorous and physically well-grounded characterization of intrinsic back-action in general measurement processes. However, such a framework remains elusive, leaving a critical gap in quantum theory. Here, we address this issue by conceptualizing a general quantum measurement as a reduction of extended projection measurements ensured by Naimark's theorem and, derive a state-updating rule for the concerned measurement as a reduction of the projective measurements postulate. Our framework provides a detailed analysis by explicitly decomposing the disturbance effects into two distinct contributions: those arising from the measurement elements themselves and those resulting from the dilation process. Notably, this formulation naturally recovers the projection postulate in the case of projective measurements. Beyond providing insights into joint measurability, non-disturbance, our rule establishes quantitaive connections between intrinsic disturbance and other fundamental quantum features, such as randomness, uncertainty, and information gain.
A well-recognized open conceptual problem in relativistic quantum field theory concerns the relation between measurement and causality. Naive generalizations of quantum measurement rules can allow for superluminal signaling (``impossible measurements''). This raises the problem of delineating physically allowed quantum measurements and operations. We analyze this issue in a recently proposed framework in which local measurements (in possibly curved spacetime) are described physically by coupling the system to a probe. We show that the state-update rule in this setting is consistent with causality provided that the coupling between the system and probe is local. Thus, by establishing a well-defined framework for successive measurements, we also provide a class of physically allowed operations. Conversely, impossible measurements can only be performed using impossible (nonlocal) apparatus.