The recently proposed idea of ``protective'' measurement of a quantum state is critically examined, and generalized. Earlier criticisms of the idea are discussed, and their relevance to the proposal assessed. Several constraints on measuring apparatus required by ``protective'' measurements are discussed, with emphasis on how they may restrict their experimental feasibility. Though ``protective'' measurements result in an unchanged system state and a shift of the pointer proportional to the expectation value of the measured observable in the system state, the actual reading of the pointer position gives rise to several subtleties. We propose several schemes for reading the pointer position, both when the apparatus is treated as a classical system as well as when its quantum aspects are taken into account, that address these issues. The tiny entanglement which is always present due to deviation from extreme adiabaticity in realistic situations is argued to be the weakest aspect of the proposal. Because of this, one can never perform a protective measurement on a single quantum system with absolute certainty. This clearly precludes an ontological status for the wave function. Several other conceptual issues are also discussed.
The recently proposed idea of protective'' measurement of a quantum state is critically examined, and generalized. Earlier criticisms of the idea are discussed, and their relevance to the proposal assessed. Several constraints on measuring apparatus required by protective'' measurements are discussed, with emphasis on how they may restrict their experimental feasibility. Though ``protective'' measurements result in an unchanged system state and a shift of the pointer proportional to the expectation value of the measured observable in the system state, the actual reading of the pointer position gives rise to several subtleties. We propose several schemes for reading the pointer position, both when the apparatus is treated as a classical system as well as when its quantum aspects are taken into account, that address these issues. The tiny entanglement which is always present due to deviation from extreme adiabaticity in realistic situations is argued to be the weakest aspect of the proposal. Because of this, one can never perform a protective measurement on a single quantum system with absolute certainty. This clearly precludes an ontological status for the wave function. Several other conceptual issues are also discussed.
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. […]
Introduction One of the crucial issues about protective measurements is the extent to which they provide (additional) grounds for some realist understanding of the wave function. This issue is notoriously subject to debate, which is not the aim of this chapter. Rather, this chapter aims at clarifying the further issue of the ontological picture corresponding to the realist understanding of the wave function possibly suggested by protective measurements. Oddly enough, proponents of a realist reading of protective measurements remain in general rather vague about ontology (see for instance Aharonov et al. (1993, 4624), who assimilate the wave function to an “extended object” without further details, or the brief and somewhat unprecise discussion in Dickson (1995, 135–136) of the interpretation of the wave function within Bohmian mechanics (BM) and within the theoretical framework elaborated by Ghirardi, Rimini and Weber (GRW); in this volume, Gao does propose a more elaborated ontological model for quantum mechanics (QM) based on protective measurements). Despite this vagueness (or maybe because of it), it seems that the most obvious ontological intuition resulting from protective measurements points towards some form of straightforward realism about the wave function understood in the sense of a real, physical field: indeed, protective measurements are claimed to allow measuring expectation values of observables on a single quantum system, thereby providing the possibility of reconstructing (i.e. “measuring” in some sense) the wave function of a single quantum system. Aharonov et al. (1996, 125) clearly express this intuition: “We can observe the expectations values of operators, and we can observe the density and the current of the Schrödinger wave. We can “see” in some sense the Schrödinger wave. This leads us to believe that it has physical reality.” Therefore, this kind of intuition seems in line with a realist conception of the wave function, according to which the wave function is considered as a real substantial, material in some sense) entity on its own (this view is often called “wave function realism”).
We study protective quantum measurements in the presence of an environment and decoherence. We consider the model of a protectively measured qubit that also interacts with a spin environment during the measurement. We investigate how the coupling to the environment affects the two characteristic properties of a protective measurement, namely (i) the ability to leave the state of the system approximately unchanged and (ii) the transfer of information about expectation values to the apparatus pointer. We find that even when the interaction with the environment is weak enough not to lead to appreciable decoherence of the initial qubit state, it causes a significant broadening of the probability distribution for the position of the apparatus pointer at the conclusion of the measurement. This washing out of the pointer position crucially diminishes the accuracy with which the desired expectation values can be measured from a readout of the pointer. We additionally show that even when the coupling to the environment is chosen such that the state of the system is immune to decoherence, the environment may still detrimentally affect the pointer readout.
It has been debated whether protective measurement implies the reality of the wave function. In this paper, I present a new analysis of the relationship between protective measurement and the reality of the wave function. First, I briefly introduce protective measurements and the ontological models framework for them. Second, I give a simple proof of Hardy's theorem in terms of protective measurements. It shows that when assuming the ontic state of the protected system keeps unchanged during a protective measurement, the wave function must be real. Third, I analyze two suggested psi-epistemic models of a protective measurement, in which the ontic state of the system is affected by the measurement. It is shown that although these models can explain the appearance of expectation values of observables in a single measurement, their predictions about the variance of the result of a non-ideal protective measurement are different from those of quantum mechanics. Finally, I argue that no psi-epistemic models exist for an ideal protective measurement in the ontological models framework, and in order to account for the definite result of an ideal protective measurement, the wave function must be a property of the protected system, defined either at a precise instant or during an infinitesimal time interval around an instant. Moreover, this result can also be extended to the wave function of an unprotected system. This new proof of the reality of the wave function does not rely on auxiliary assumptions, and it may help settle the issue about the nature of the wave function.
In this book, I have argued that the wave function in quantum mechanics is real, and it represents the state of random discontinuous motion (RDM) of particles in three-dimensional space. Moreover, this picture of quantum ontology is complete in accounting for our definite experience, but it requires that the quantum dynamics be revised to include a stochastic, nonlinear evolution term resulting from the RDM of particles. Obviously I took a road less traveled by researchers in the foundations of quantum mechanics. In order to convince more readers that this road is deserved to be taken, I will review the main results of this book and discuss them in a broader context. The starting point of my road is protective measurements (Chapter 1). In 1993, this new method of measurement in quantum mechanics was discovered (Aharonov and Vaidman, 1993; Aharonov, Anandan, and Vaidman, 1993). Distinct from conventional projective measurements, protective measurement is a method for measuring the expectation value of an observable on a single quantum system. By a series of protective measurements, one can even measure the wave function of a single quantum system. Therefore, besides the Born rule for projective measurements, protective measurements provide another, more direct connection between the wave function and results of measurements, which is not probabilistic but definite. It can be expected that a definite connection between the wave function and results of measurements is more important for understanding the meaning of the wave function and searching for the ontology of quantum mechanics. However, it seems that this connection provided by protective measurements is still less well known today, and its significance has not been fully realized by most researchers, either. The first stop on my road is the reality of the wave function (Chapter 4). It is correct to say that protective measurements alone do not imply the reality of the wave function. An additional connection between the state of reality and results of measurements is needed.
Making measurements on single quantum systems is considered difficult, almost impossible if the state is a-priori unknown. Protective measurements suggest a possibility to measure single quantum systems and gain some new information in the process. Protective measurement is described, both in the original and generalized form. The degree to which the system and the apparatus remain entangled in a protective measurement, is assessed. A possible experimental test of protective measurements is discussed.