The term measurement theory refers to that part of a physical theory in which the empirical and operational content of the concepts of the theory is determined. Measurements are analyzed both as operational procedures defining the → observables of the theory and as physical processes which are themselves subject to the laws of physics. In classical physics, measurements are performed in order to deter-mine the values of one or several observables of the physical system un-der consideration. Classical physics allowed the idealized notion that every physical quantity has a definite value at any time, and that this value can be determined with certainty by measurement without influ-encing the object system in a significant way. By contrast, in quantum mechanics both features fail to hold without strong qualifications. Ac-cordingly, in their seminal paper of 1935 [1], Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen used elements of this description as a sufficient criterion of phys-ical reality, applicable both in classical and quantum mechanics:
The term measurement theory refers to that part of a physical theory in which the empirical and operational content of the concepts of the theory is determined. Measurements are analyzed both as operational procedures defining the → observables of the theory and as physical processes which are themselves subject to the laws of physics. In classical physics, measurements are performed in order to deter-mine the values of one or several observables of the physical system un-der consideration. Classical physics allowed the idealized notion that every physical quantity has a definite value at any time, and that this value can be determined with certainty by measurement without influ-encing the object system in a significant way. By contrast, in quantum mechanics both features fail to hold without strong qualifications. Ac-cordingly, in their seminal paper of 1935 [1], Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen used elements of this description as a sufficient criterion of phys-ical reality, applicable both in classical and quantum mechanics:
This introductory chapter sets out a general structure of physical theories which is applicable to both classical and quantum mechanics. We start with measurable properties of a given physical system, be it classical or quantum. These properties are called observables . We then introduce a definition of the state of a physical system in terms of measured values of a sufficiently large set of observables. A theory to describe the system should consists of four basic components: Basic mathematical framework This comprises a set of elements endowed with some specific mathematical structure and properties. In mathematics such a set is generally known as a space . Description of states States are described by elements of the space in the chosen mathematical framework. For this reason the space is called the state space of the system. Description of observables Observables are to be described by quantities defined on the state space. The description should yield all possible values of observables. The relationship between observables and states should be explicitly stated. The following two cases are of particular interest: 2 For a deterministic theory like classical mechanics a state should determine the values of all observables. For a probabilistic theory like quantum mechanics a state should determine the probability distribution of the values of all observables. Description of time evolution (dynamics).
This article reconsiders the concept of physical reality in quantum theory and the concept of quantum measurement, following Bohr, whose analysis of quantum measurement led him to his concept of a (quantum) "phenomenon," referring to "the observations obtained under the specified circumstances," in the interaction between quantum objects and measuring instruments. This situation makes the terms "observation" and "measurement," as conventionally understood, inapplicable. These terms are remnants of classical physics or still earlier history, from which classical physics inherited it. As defined here, a quantum measurement does not measure any preexisting property of the ultimate constitution of the reality responsible for quantum phenomena. An act of measurement establishes a quantum phenomenon by an interaction between the instrument and the quantum object or in the present view the ultimate constitution of the reality responsible for quantum phenomena and, at the time of measurement, also quantum objects. In the view advanced in this article, in contrast to that of Bohr, quantum objects, such as electrons or photons, are assumed to exist only at the time of measurement and not independently, a view that redefines the concept of quantum object as well. This redefinition becomes especially important in high-energy quantum regimes and quantum field theory and allows this article to define a new concept of quantum field. The article also considers, now following Bohr, the quantum measurement as the entanglement between quantum objects and measurement instruments. The argument of the article is grounded in the concept "reality without realism" (RWR), as underlying quantum measurement thus understood, and the view, the RWR view, of quantum theory defined by this concept. The RWR view places a stratum of physical reality thus designated, here the reality ultimately responsible for quantum phenomena, beyond representation or knowledge, or even conception, and defines the corresponding set of interpretations quantum mechanics or quantum field theory, such as the one assumed in this article, in which, again, not only quantum phenomena but also quantum objects are (idealizations) defined by measurement. As such, the article also offers a broadly conceived response to J. Bell's argument "against 'measurement'".
The EPR controversy between Albert Einstein and Niels Bohr about the completeness of the quantum mechanics is one of the most essential contemporary debates in physics with respect to the issue of realism. Initially considered as a though-experiment, the EPR paradox was meant to evidence the inadequacy of quantum mechanics with respect to the traditional leading principle of physics such as locality, independence of the system elements of reality with respect to the observer or semantic reference of theories to elements of the reality in itself. Bell’s mathematical inquiry opened the possibility to empirically discriminate between the view of Bohr and Einstein through the so-called Bell’s inequalities. Based on these inequalities, the experimental test provided in particular by the work of Alain Aspect settled the debate in favor of Bohr and the completeness of quantum mechanics. The previously evident assumption that physical theories are describing the reality in it-self can thus be questioned. Several approaches have been proposed to face that challenge, such as the orthodox quantum physics formulation coupled with the interpretation of Bernard d’Espagnat , the non-local theory of De Broglie-Bohm or the quantum mechanics approach with extended probability of James B. Hartle . In this paper, we consider the idea according to which the field of experiments and measurements on quantum systems is a research context where several epistemic values traditionally leading the scientific activity are in conflict. Instead of conceiving the transition from classical to quantum physics along Thomas Kuhns’ theory of revolutionary paradigm change , characterized by a strong incommensurability between the old and the new approaches, we argue that this epistemological shift could be rationally understood as an incremental evolution of the epistemic values leading scientific activity. As the analysis in this paper aims to show, such a rational reconstruction shows a process of gradual change, where core epistemic values are maintained, while others are broadened to account for the new scientific approaches. The settling of the EPR controversy could be understood as the indication that the previously assumed epistemic values cannot be consistently held together in the quantum context. The values of logical consistency and empirical adequacy remained universally shared, but the controversy leads to question the other traditionally admitted principles, such as the locality, the requirement of semantic references to the reality in itself and the independence of experimental results with respect to the observer, all tightly connected with the realistic conceptions of the world. This first part of the paper characterizes the selected contemporary approaches in quantum context with respect to the modification of the epistemic principles they adopt to restore their consistency. While the de Broglie-Bohm theory explicitly follows the requirement of referring to the reality in itself at the expense of the locality principle, the approaches of d’Espagnat and of Hartle give priority to the values of theoretical framework simplicity and predictive power. In the case of d’Espagnat, the descriptive purpose of the scientific activity remains, but only in a weak objectivity perspective, restricted to the “empirical reality” in which the observer is involved. In the case of Hartle, the extended probability formulation of quantum mechanics is conceived as “an extension of familiar probability theory that incorporates negative probabilities”6, which relies on the Bayesian conception of “probabilities as instruction for betting” (negative probability is thus associated to the instruction “don’t bet”). In a second part, the paper uses this reconstruction of the various theories in order to address the epistemic status of the principles of descriptive power and of independence of the observed system with respect to the observer. In particular, our analysis aims to assess if a reference to the observer is part of the reality description or if such reference is avoidable. This is of prior interest in exploring the main characteristics of a realistic approach that would be applicable in the context of experiments and measurements on quantum systems. In that perspective, we argue that the direct holistic realism, developed by Hilary Putnam in The Threefold Cord , could be a promising intermediate option between a classical realism, which assumes that theoretical structures are describing the reality in it-self, and a more instrumentalist view, focusing mainly on the modeling of the empirical reality as a result of experimental operations while rejecting access to the reality in itself.
This chapter examines the reasons why measurement theory is a particularly controversial part of modern theoretical physics. The problem of measurement in quantum mechanics is considered as nonexistent or trivial by an impressive body of theoretical physicists and as presenting almost insurmountable difficulties by a somewhat lesser but steadily growing number of their colleagues. The law of evolution in time constitutes the essential part of the conventional measurement theory. In this theory, the existence of a Hamiltonian describing the instrument-system interaction is postulated, not derived. In other words, this assumption is considered as a legitimate idealization of the experimental facts. A wave packet reduction can be considered as a phenomenological procedure that, in many instances, can be applied in order to calculate the results of successive observations and the correlations between them without introducing into the formulas the complicated wave functions of the various instruments.
Von Neumann's Hilbert-space formalism of quantum mechanics constitutes a logico-physical theory of observed or measured reality. Imposing the logical constraint of Booleanity, essential for objectively shareable descriptions among observers, reveals the physical meaning of classicality inherently embedded within the formalism itself. Starting from this consideration, the present work reformulates the quantum-classical transition via Hilbert-space classical mechanics (HCM), grounding classicality not in the dynamical limit (ℏ→0), but in the logical constraint of Booleanity (i.e., the mutual commutativity of preparable states). Within this state-centric framework, applying the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) criterion alongside locality and measurement independence reduces standard quantum mechanics to the HCM model. Thus, the EPR argument reveals not quantum incompleteness, but the implicit classical boundaries of its own premises. To resolve this impasse, we articulate a nuanced quantum ontology grounded in a fundamental structural bipartition between the observational environment and the observed object, which accommodates three categorical distinctions: ontic, processional, and tropos-existential. Building on this, we propose a criterion of objective reality wherein descriptive objectivity is treated as merely a sufficient condition for physical reality. This addresses the historical Bohr-Einstein ambiguity, enabling the quantum formalism to ontologically unify objective measured phenomena and non-objective observed interference within a context-dependent framework.
Introduction and overview Much that is studied in quantum measurement theory, and thus in this book, is very different from that studied in its classical counterpart, Bayesian inference. While quantum measurement theory is in one sense a minimal extension of the latter to quantum states, quantum measurements cause dynamical changes that never need appear in a classical theory. This has a multitude of ramifications, many of which you will find in this book. One such consequence is a limit to the information that can be obtained about the state of a quantum system, and this results in relationships between information gained and dynamics induced that do not exist in classical systems. Because of the limits to information extraction, choosing the right kinds of measurements becomes important in a way that it never was for classical systems. Finding the best measurements for a given purpose, and working out how to realize these measurements, is often nontrivial. The relationship between information and disturbance impacts the control of quantum systems using measurements and feedback, and we discuss this application in Chapter 5. The ability to extract information about quantum systems is also important in using quantum systems to make precise measurements of classical quantities such as time, acceleration, and the strengths of electric and magnetic fields. This subject is referred to as quantum metrology, and we discuss it in Chapter 6.