Skip to main content
×
×
Home
  • Get access
    Check if you have access via personal or institutional login
  • Cited by 3
  • Cited by
    This (lowercase (translateProductType product.productType)) has been cited by the following publications. This list is generated based on data provided by CrossRef.

    Combes, Joshua Ferrie, Christopher Leifer, Matthew S. and Pusey, Matthew F. 2018. Why protective measurement does not establish the reality of the quantum state. Quantum Studies: Mathematics and Foundations, Vol. 5, Issue. 2, p. 189.

    Stacey, Blake C. 2016. Von Neumann was not a Quantum Bayesian. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, Vol. 374, Issue. 2068, p. 20150235.

    Gao, Shan 2015. An argument for ψ-ontology in terms of protective measurements. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, Vol. 52, Issue. , p. 198.

    ×
  • Print publication year: 2015
  • Online publication date: January 2015

13 - Entanglement, scaling, and the meaning of the wave function in protective measurement

from Part II - Meanings and implications
Summary

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.

[…]

Recommend this book

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this book to your organisation's collection.

Protective Measurement and Quantum Reality
  • Online ISBN: 9781107706927
  • Book DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107706927
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to *
×
[1] Aaronson, S. 2007. The learnability of quantum states. Proc. R. Soc. A, 463, 3089–3114.
[2] Aharonov, Y. and Vaidman, L. 1993. Measurement of the Schrödinger wave of a single particle. Phys. Lett. A, 178, 38–12.
[3] Aharonov, Y., Anandan, J., and Vaidman, L. 1993. Meaning of the wave function. Phys. Rev. A, 47, 4616–1626.
[4] Alter, O. and Yamamoto, Y. 1995. Inhibition of the measurement of the wave function of a single quantum system in repeated weak quantum nondemolition measurements. Phys. Rev. Lett., 74, 4106–4109.
[5] Alter, O. and Yamamoto, Y. 1996. Protective measurement of the wave function of a single squeezed harmonic oscillator state. Phys.Rev. A, 53, R2911–R2914.
[6] Alter, O. and Yamamoto, Y. 1997. Reply to “Comment on ‘Protective measurement of the wave function of a single squeezed harmonic oscillator state’”. Phys.Rev.A, 56, 1057–1059.
[7] Bell, J. S. 1964. On the Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen paradox. Physics, 1, 195–200.
[8] Bell, J. S. 1966. On the problem of hidden variables in quantum mechanics. Rev. Mod. Phys., 38, 447–152.
[9] Camilleri, K. 2009. A history of entanglement: decoherence and the interpretation problem. Stud. Hist. Phil. Mod. Phys., 40, 290–302.
[10] Chen, J., Dawkins, H., Ji, Z., et al. 2013. Uniqueness of quantum states compatible with given measurement results. Phys. Rev. A, 88, 012109.
[11] Colbeck, R. and Renner, R. 2012. Is a system's wave function in one-to-one correspondence with its elements of reality?Phys. Rev. Lett., 108, 150402.
[12] D'Ariano, G. M. and Yuen, H. P. 1996. Impossibility of measuring the wave function of a single quantum system. Phys. Rev. Lett., 76, 2832–2835.
[13] Dass, N. D. H. and Qureshi, T. 1999. Critique of protective measurements. Phys. Rev. A, 59(4), 2590–2601.
[14] Dickson, M. 1995. An empirical reply to empiricism: protective measurement opens the door for quantum realism. Phil. Sci., 62, 122–140.
[15] Englert, B.-G. 2013. On quantum theory. Eur. Phys.J.D, 67, 238.
[16] Fuchs, C. A. and Schack, R. 2013. Quantum-Bayesian coherence. Rev. Mod. Phys., 85, 1693–1715.
[17] Fuchs, C. A. 2010. QBism, the perimeter of quantum Bayesianism. arXiv: 1003.5209v1 [quant-ph].
[18] Gao, S. 2011. Comment on “How to protect the interpretation of the wave function against protective measurements” by Jos Uffink. philsci-archive.pitt.edu/8942.
[19] Gao, S. 2013a. Distinct quantum states cannot be compatible with a single state of reality. philsci-archive.pitt.edu/9609.
[20] Gao, S. 2013b. On Uffink's criticism of protective measurements. Stud. Hist. Phil. Mod. Phys., 44, 513–518.
[21] Gao, S. 2013c. Protective measurement: a paradigm shift in understanding quantum mechanics. philsci-archive.pitt.edu/9627.
[22] Häffner, H., Hänsel, W., Roos, C. F., et al. 2005. Scalable multiparticle entanglement of trapped ions. Nature, 438, 643–646.
[23] Hardy, L. 2012. Are quantum states real? arXiv:1205.1439v3 [quant-ph].
[24] Heinosaari, T., Mazzarella, L., and Wolf, M. M. 2013. Quantum tomography under prior information. Comm. Math. Phys., 318, 355–374.
[25] İmamoğlu, A. 1993. Logical reversibility in quantum-nondemolition measurements. Phys.Rev.A, 47, R4577–R4580.
[26] Mermin, N. D. 2012. Quantum mechanics: fixing the shifty split. Phys. Today, 65, 8–10.
[27] Pusey, M. F., Barrett, J., and Rudolph, T. 2012. On the reality of the quantum state. Nature Phys., 8, 475–478.
[28] Rovelli, C. 1994. Comment on “Meaning of the wave function.”Phys. Rev. A, 50, 2788–2792.
[29] Samuel, J. and Nityananda, R. 1994. Comment on “Meaning of the wave function.” arXiv:gr-qc/9404051v1.
[30] Schlosshauer, M. 2004. Decoherence, the measurement problem, and interpretations of quantum mechanics. Rev. Mod. Phys., 76, 1267–1305.
[31] Schlosshauer, M. 2007. Decoherence and the Quantum-to-Classical Transition. 1st edn. Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer.
[32] Schlosshauer, M. 2011. Elegance and Enigma: the Quantum Interviews. 1st edn. Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer.
[33] Schlosshauer, M. and Fine, A. 2012. Implications of the Pusey–Barrett–Rudolph quantum no-go theorem. Phys. Rev. Lett, 108, 260404.
[34] Schlosshauer, M. and Fine, A. 2014. No-go theorem for the composition of quantum systems. Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 070407
[35] Schwinger, J. 1993. Quantum mechanics: not mysterious. Science, 262, 826–827.
[36] Spekkens, R. W. 2007. Evidence for the epistemic view of quantum states: a toy theory. Phys. Rev. A, 75, 032110.
[37] Ueda, M. and Kitagawa, M. 1992. Reversibility in quantum measurement processes. Phys. Rev. Lett., 68, 3424–3427.
[38] Uffink, J. 1999. How to protect the interpretation of the wave function against protective measurements. Phys. Rev. A, 60, 3474–3481.
[39] Uffink, J. 2012. Reply to Gao's “Comment on ‘How to protect the interpretation of the wave function against protective measurements’ ”. philsci-archive.pitt.edu/9286.
[40] Uffink, J. 2013. Reply to Gao's “On Uffink's criticism of protective measurements.”Stud. Hist. Phil. Mod. Phys., 44, 519–523.
[41] Unruh, W. G. 1994. Reality and measurement of the wave function. Phys. Rev. A, 50, 882–887.
[42] Vaidman, L. 2009. Protective measurements. In: Greenberger, D., Hentschel, K., and Weinert, F. (eds.), Compendium of Quantum Physics: Concepts, Experiments, History and Philosophy. Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer, pp. 505–508.
[43] Wallden, P. 2013. Distinguishing initial state-vectors from each other in histories formulations and the PBR argument. Found. Phys., 43, 1502–1525.
[44] Zeh, H. D. 1970. On the interpretation of measurement in quantum theory. Found. Phys., 1, 69–76.