A new type of procedures, called protective measurements, was proposed by Aharonov, Anandan, and Vaidman [Phys. Rev. A 97, 4616 (1993); Found. Phys. 26, 117 (1996)]. These authors argued that a protective measurement allows the determination of arbitrary observables of a single quantum system, and claimed that this favors a realistic interpretation of the quantum state. This paper proves that only observables that commute with the system's Hamiltonian can be measured protectively. It is argued that this restriction saves the coherence of alternative interpretations.
A new type of procedures, called protective measurements, was proposed by Aharonov, Anandan, and Vaidman [Phys. Rev. A 97, 4616 (1993); Found. Phys. 26, 117 (1996)]. These authors argued that a protective measurement allows the determination of arbitrary observables of a single quantum system, and claimed that this favors a realistic interpretation of the quantum state. This paper proves that only observables that commute with the system's Hamiltonian can be measured protectively. It is argued that this restriction saves the coherence of alternative interpretations.
Protective measurement is a new measuring method introduced by Aharonov, Anandan and Vaidman (1993). By a protective measurement, one can measure the expectation value of an observable on a single quantum system, even if the system is initially not in an eigenstate of the measured observable. This remarkable feature of protective measurements was challenged by Uffink (1999, 2012). He argued that only observables that commute with the system's Hamiltonian can be protectively measured, and a protective measurement of an observable that does not commute with the system's Hamiltonian does not actually measure the observable, but measure another related observable that commutes with the system's Hamiltonian. In this paper, we show that there are several errors in Uffink's arguments, and his alternative interpretation of protective measurements is untenable.
My view on the meaning of the quantum wave function and its connection to protective measurements is described. The wave function and only the wave function is the ontology of the quantum theory. Protective measurements support this view although they do not provide a decisive proof. A brief review of the discovery and the criticism of protective measurement is presented. Protective measurements with postselection are discussed. Introduction In the first graduate course of quantum mechanics I remember asking the question: “Can we consider the wave function as a description of a single quantum system?” I got no answer. Twelve years later, in South Carolina, after I completed my Ph.D. studies at Tel Aviv University under the supervision of Yakir Aharonov in which we developed the theory of weak measurements [1], I asked Aharonov: Can we use weak measurement to observe the wave function of a single particle? At that time I had already become a strong believer in the many-worlds interpretation (MWI) of quantum mechanics [2] and had no doubt that a single system is described by the wave function. Yakir Aharonov never shared with me the belief in the MWI. When we realized that using what is called now protective measurement , we can, under certain conditions, observe the wave function of a single quantum system, he was really excited by the result. At 1992 I was invited to a conference on the Foundations of Quantum Mechanics in Japan where I presented this result: “The Schrödinger wave is observable after all!”[3]. Then I went home to Tel Aviv where I finished writing a letter which received mixed reviews in Phys. Rev. Lett. , while Jeeva Anandan, working on the topic with Aharonov in South Carolina, wrote a paper accepted in Phys. Rev. A [4]. After acceptance of the PRA paper it was hard to fight the referees in PRL, but PLA accepted it immediately [5].
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. […]
Quantum theory has traditionally – and not altogether unreasonably – been taken as a challenge to “realism” about physical theories. At the very least, the ways in which it is often formulated, presented and used suggest a non-realist understanding of the theory because the significance of the “state” of a system is described in terms of a catalogue of predictions. While protective measurement does not force one to give up on this standard view, it does support an alternative contention, namely, that the state of a physical system (a wave function, for example) has a somewhat more direct physical significance. I conclude with what I take to be the upshot of these observations for approaches to interpreting quantum theory and evaluating those interpretations. Introduction In 1993 I wrote an article (Dickson, 1995) about the scheme for protective measurement first described (to my knowledge) by Aharonov, Anandan and Vaidman (1993). There I claimed that protective measurement makes “realism” about quantum theory more attractive than it might otherwise have been. I still believe some form of that claim to be true, and I am grateful to the editor and to Cambridge University Press for the opportunity to say so in the manner that I'm inclined to now, 20 years later. Of course, the debates about the interpretation of quantum theory have moved on quite a bit in the intervening time. We've seen a rise to prominence of “subjectivist” interpretations, largely based on developments in quantum information theory (but with its own historical precedents, as Timpson (2010) has pointed out – see Fuchs (2002) for a landmark paper in the modern development, and Timpson (2013) for a thorough overview and evaluation). The various “many-somethings” (worlds, minds, perspectives, whatever) interpretations have, arguably, seen a rise in fortune as well.
An experiment that would measure noncommuting quantum-mechanical observables without collapsing the wave function has been recently proposed by Y. Aharonov, J. Anandan, and L. Vaidman [Phys. Rev. A 47, 4616 (1993)]. These authors argue that this ``protected measurement'' may give an indication on ``the reality of the wave function.'' We show that the proposed experiment admits a much simpler interpretation: it is an experiment in which the quantum system is (assumed to be) in an eigenstate of the observable being measured. As such, the fact that no collapse occurs is trivial and can be understood without the need of the concept of ``protective'' devices. We argue that the experiment does not provide a way for measuring noncommuting observables without a collapse, does not bear on the issue of the ``reality of the wave function,'' and does not add any particular insight into our understanding (or nonunderstanding) of quantum mechanics.
An experiment that would measure non--commuting quantum mechanical observables without collapsing the wave function has been recently proposed by Y Aharonov and J Anandan. These authors argue that this "protected measurement" may give indication on "the reality of the wave function". We argue that, depending of the precise version of the experiment considered, either the author's prediction is incorrect and the wave function does collapse, or the measurement is not a measurement on a quantum system. In either case, the experiment does not provide a way for measuring non--commuting observables without collapse, and it does not bear on the issue of the "reality of the wave function".