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.
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.
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.
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.
The newly revised edition of this well-known book categorizes prevalent views on measurement as described by quantum mechanics, discusses basics agreed to by many who on other issues disagree, and describes some of the problems. Although many paragraphs rest unchanged from the first (1991) edition, results found since 1991 are used to reorganize and sharpen the focus of the book, so that even the old paragraphs are now understood differently and more clearly. One advance in the second edition is a new and more general no-go theorem; another is separation of formal derivations from interpretation. The dozen or so definitions essential to following the book even casually are stated clearly. By this means the authors succeed pretty well in achieving their stated desire to make the book comprehensible to those who do not share their philosophic predispositions. While I differ in philosophy from the authors, attending to their discussion uncovered weaknesses in my own thinking and improved it. The mathematical language of quantum mechanics expresses a system under measurement by states (as rays in a Hilbert space) and a hamiltonian operator, distinct from the apparatus that produces outcomes, which is expressed by a positive operator-valued (POV) measure. In this way quantum language separates state preparation from state measurement. Often the Hilbert space is viewed as a tensor product of subspaces, allowing further conceptual separations. The authors take the stance that quantum mechanics calls for splitting the empirical world into parts, the most essential being (1) objective systems S (to be observed) and (2) apparatus A (preparation and registration devices that produces outcomes (or, as the authors write, definite pointer values) of the observed system). In some interpretations, one or both of an observer and an environment appear as additional parts. What is to be included in the system S versus the apparatus A is not specified by the language, but is open to the theoretician; a probe, for example, can be analysed as either part of the apparatus or as part of the system, as was discussed by von Neumann in work cited by the authors. With what should a theory of measurement be concerned? A broad division of approaches is defined by how one answers the question: should one try to do away with the cut between measuring apparatus and system? The authors phrase this as a choice of REFERENT, a term which in my mind puts them on shaky semantic ground; anyway The Quantum Theory of Measurement is concerned with implications of the `yes'. The book unfolds with the power of a tragedy, in which the logical consequences lead, step-by-step, to the statement and proof of theorem 6.2.1, which, roughly speaking, asserts the non-existence of a solution to the problem of getting definite pointer values from measuring apparatus that exhibits the superposition demanded by its description as a quantum system. Possible responses to this theorem are discussed, among them the many-worlds interpretation and a modification of quantum mechanics that elevates decoherence to a principle. Citations of the literature are thorough, and many points of view are crisply summarized. The book is indispensable to both those who work in the broad direction chosen by the authors and to those who wish to set any other direction in context.
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 quantum mechanical measurement process is analysed in detail, especially from the group theoretical point of view. The first three chapters review the results obtained before briefly. In §1, the classical theory of measurement, originated by von Neumann, is birefly described. The importance of considering more general schemes of measurements than the original one is, however, emphasized. In §2, the role of conservation laws, in imposing limitations on the possibility of measurements, is discussed. Accurately measurable quantities are defined in this context. In §3, the role of conservation laws is further analysed. It is shown that the conserved quantity of the apparatus cannot be used for a “pointer reading.” The following two chapters discuss the nature of the exactly measurable quantities. In §4, exactly measurable quantities are explicitly determined. It is shown that the measurement of projection operators in the Hilbert space of the object which commute with the operators of the restricted Poincaré group give all the information on the states of the object that can be obtained by accurate measurements. In §5, the measurement on objects which are composed of more than one particle is discussed. The last chapter, §6, deals with approximately measurable quantities, but no complete estimate of the unavoidable inaccuracy of the measurement of these is obtained. It also contains some concluding remarks.
The concept of a quantum state represents one of the most fundamental pillars of the paradigm of quantum theory.'3 Contrary to its mathematical elegance and convenience in calculations, the physical interpretation of a quantum state is not so transparent. The problem is that the quantum state (described either by a state vector, or density operator or a phase-space probability density distribution) does not have a well defined objective status, i.e. a state vector is not an objective property of a particle. According to Peres (see,1 p. 374): "There is no physical evidence whatsoever that every physical system has at every instant a well defined state. .. In strict interpretation of quantum theory these mathematical symbols [i.e., state vectorsi represent statistical information enabling us to compute the probabilities of occurrence of specific events." Once this point of view is adopted then it becomes clear that any "measurement" or a reconstruction of a density operator (or its mathematical equivalent) can be understood exclusively as an expression of our knowledge about the quantum mechanical state based on a certain set of measured data. To be more specific, any quantum-mechanical reconstruction scheme is nothing more than an a posteriori estimation of the density operator of a quantum-mechanical (microscopic) system based on data obtained with the help of a macroscopic measurement apparatus.3 The quality of the reconstruction depends on the "quality" of the measured data and the efficiency of the reconstruction procedure with the help of which the data analysis is performed. In particular, we can specify three different situations. Firstly, when all system observables are precisely measured. In this case the complete reconstruction of an initially unknown state can be performed (we will call this the reconstruction on the complete observation level) . Secondly, when just part of the system observables is precisely measured then one cannot perform a complete reconstruction of the measured state. Nevertheless, the reconstructed density operator still uniquely determines mean values of the measured observables (we will denote this scheme as reconstruction on incomplete observation levels) . Finally, when measurement does not provide us with sufficient information to specify the exact mean values (or probability distributions) but only the frequencies of appearances of eigenstates of the measured observables, then one can perform an estimation (e.g. reconstruction based on quantum Bayesian inference) which is the "best" with respect to the given measured data and the a priori knowledge about the state of the measured system.