Protective measurements yield properties of the quantum state of a single quantum system without affecting the quantum state. A protective measurement involves adiabatic coupling to the measuring device together with a procedure to protect the state from changing. For nondegenerate energy eigenstates the protection is provided by the system itself. In this case it is actually possible to measure the Schrödinger wave via measurements on a single system. This fact provides an argument in favor of associating physical reality with a quantum state of a single system, challenging the usual ensemble interpretation. We also believe that the complete description of a quantum system requires a two-state vector formalism involving (in addition to the usual one)a future quantum state evolving backwards in time. Protective measurements testing the two-state vector reality are constructed.
Protective measurements yield properties of the quantum state of a single quantum system without affecting the quantum state. A protective measurement involves adiabatic coupling to the measuring device together with a procedure to protect the state from changing. For nondegenerate energy eigenstates the protection is provided by the system itself. In this case it is actually possible to measure the Schrödinger wave via measurements on a single system. This fact provides an argument in favor of associating physical reality with a quantum state of a single system, challenging the usual ensemble interpretation. We also believe that the complete description of a quantum system requires a two-state vector formalism involving (in addition to the usual one)a future quantum state evolving backwards in time. Protective measurements testing the two-state vector reality are constructed.
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).
We examine the entanglement and state disturbance arising in a protective measurement and argue that these inescapable effects doom the claim that protective measurement establishes the reality of the wave function. An additional challenge to this claim results from the exponential number of protective measurements required to reconstruct multi-qubit states. We suggest that the failure of protective measurement to settle the question of the meaning of the wave function is entirely expected, for protective measurement is but an application of the standard quantum formalism, and none of the hard foundational questions can ever be settled in this way. Introduction From the start, the technical result of protective measurement has been suggested to have implications for the interpretation of quantum mechanics. Consider how Aharonov and Vaidman [2] chose to begin their original paper introducing the idea of protective measurement: We show that it is possible to measure the Schrödinger wave of a single quantum system. This provides a strong argument for associating physical reality with the quantum state of a single system.… Since then, the pioneers of protective measurement seem to have taken a more moderate stance. Vaidman [42], in a recent synopsis of protective measurement, concedes that the protective measurement procedure is not a proof that we should adopt one interpretation instead of the other, but it is a good testbed which shows advantages and disadvantages of various interpretations. Notwithstanding this more subtle perspective and a number of critical studies of the technical and foundational aspects of protective measurement, Gao [21] has maintained, if not amplified, the force of Aharonov and Vaidman's original argument: An immediate implication is that the result of a protective measurement, namely the expectation value of the measured observable in the measured state, reflects the actual physical property of the measured system, as the system is not disturbed after this result has been obtained. […]
Based on an analysis of protective measurements, we show that the quantum state represents the physical state of a single quantum system. This result is more definite than the PBR theorem [Pusey, Barrett, and Rudolph, Nature Phys. 8, 475 (2012)]. The physical meaning of the quantum state is an important interpreta-tive problem of quantum mechanics. A long-standing question is whether a pure state relates only to an ensemble of identically prepared systems or di-rectly to the state of a single system. Recently, Pusey, Barrett and Rudolph (PBR) demonstrated that under an independence assumption, the quantum state is a representation of the physical state of a single quantum system [1]. This poses a further interesting question, namely whether ψ-ontology can be argued without resorting to nontrivial assumptions such as the in-dependence assumption (cf. Ref. [2-4]). In this Letter, we will show that protective measurements [5,6] already provide such an argument. The meaning of the quantum state is usually analyzed in the context of conventional impulsive measurements of an ensemble of identically prepared systems. However, it has been known that the quantum state of a single prepared system can be protectively measured [5-9]. During a protective measurement, the measured system is protected by an appropriate procedure (e.g. via the quantum Zeno effect) so that its quantum state neither changes nor becomes entangled with the quantum state of the measuring device appreciably. In this way, such protective measurements can measure the expectation values of observables from a single quantum system, even if the system is initially not in an eigenstate of the measured observable, and in particular, the quantum state of the system can also be measured as expectation values of certain observables. It is expected that protective measurements will be realized in the near future with the rapid development of quantum technologies.
We show that it is possible to measure the Schrödinger wave of a single quantum system. This provides a strong argument for associating physical reality with the quantum state of a single system, and challenges the usual assumption that the quantum state has physical meaning only for an ensemble of identical systems. While the Schrödinger wave is a basic element of quantum theory, it is generally believed that one cannot associate physical reality to the wave of a single particle. Rather, the Schrödinger wave is often viewed as a mathematical tool for calculating the probabilities of various outcomes of certain experiments when many such experiments are performed on an ensemble of identical systems, all in the same quantum state. Several arguments seem to support this point of view: i) We have never seen the quantum state of a single particle in a laboratory. Indeed, while a wave is typically spread over a region of space, we never see a particle simultaneously in several distinct locations. ii) If we could see a quantum state, we could presumably distinguish it from any other quantum state, but the unitary time evolution of states in quantum
“Protective measurement” refers to two related schemes for finding the expectation value of an observable without disturbing the state of a quantum system, given a single copy of the system that is subject to a “protecting” operation. There have been several claims that these schemes support interpreting the quantum state as an objective property of a single quantum system. Here we provide three counter-arguments, each of which we present in two versions tailored to the two different schemes. Our first argument shows that the same resources used in protective measurement can be used to reconstruct the quantum state in a different way via process tomography. Our second argument is based on exact analyses of special cases of protective measurement, and our final argument is to construct explicit “휓-epistemic” toy models for protective measurement, which strongly suggest that protective measurement does not imply the reality of the quantum state. The common theme of the three arguments is that almost all of the information comes from the “protection” operation rather than the quantum state of the system, and hence the schemes have no implications for the reality of the quantum state.
Protective measurements illustrate how Yakir Aharonov's fundamental insights into quantum theory yield new experimental paradigms that allow us to test quantum mechanics in ways that were not possible before. As for quantum theory itself, protective measurements demonstrate that a quantum state describes a single system, not only an ensemble of systems, and reveal a rich ontology in the quantum state of a single system. We discuss in what sense protective measurements anticipate the theorem of Pusey, Barrett, and Rudolph (PBR), stating that, if quantum predictions are correct, then two distinct quantum states cannot represent the same physical reality. Introduction Although protective measurements [1, 2] are a new tool for quantum theory and experiment, they have yet to find their way into the laboratory; also theorists have not put them to best use, beyond a 1993 paper by Anandan on “Protective measurement and quantum reality” [3]. In Section 10.2, we point out that protective measurements offer new experimental tests of quantum mechanics, and we review recent experiments attempting to measure quantum wave functions. In Section 10.3, we present the Pusey–Barrett–Rudolph (PBR) theorem and discuss their conclusion that the quantum state represents physical reality, and in Section 10.4, we discuss in what sense protective measurements anticipate this conclusion. Protective measurement: implications for experiment and theory In 1926, Schrödinger postulated his equation for “material waves” in analogy with light waves: paths of material particles – which obey the principle of least action – are an approximation to material waves, just as rays of light – which obey the principle of least time – are an approximation to light waves [4]. But Born soon discarded “the physical pictures of Schr00F6;dinger” [5] and gave the “material wave” Ψ ( x , t ) a new interpretation: | Ψ ( x , t )| 2 is the probability density to find a particle at x at time t . Even Schrödinger was obliged to accept Born's interpretation.