Why protective measurement does not establish the reality of the quantum state

Abstract“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 “$$\psi $$ψ-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.

[1]  Does Protective Measurement Tell Us Anything about Quantum Reality ? , 2015 .

[2]  Albert Einstein,et al.  Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality Be Considered Complete? , 1935 .

[3]  Vaidman,et al.  Meaning of the wave function. , 1993, Physical review. A, Atomic, molecular, and optical physics.

[4]  Shan Gao,et al.  Distinct Quantum States Cannot Be Compatible with a Single State of Reality , 2013 .

[5]  Lev Vaidman,et al.  Measurement of the Schrödinger Wave of a Single Particle , 1993 .

[6]  Shane Mansfield,et al.  Reality of the Quantum State: A Stronger Psi-ontology Theorem , 2014 .

[7]  Lev Vaidman,et al.  Protective measurements of the wave function of a single system , 2014, 1401.6696.

[8]  Robert W. Spekkens,et al.  Reconstruction of Gaussian quantum mechanics from Liouville mechanics with an epistemic restriction , 2011, 1111.5057.

[9]  Guido Bacciagaluppi,et al.  Quantum Theory at the Crossroads: The new dynamics of quanta , 2009 .

[10]  Jos Uffink.  How to protect the interpretation of the wave function against protective measurements , 1999 .

[11]  Guy Hetzroni,et al.  Protective measurements and the PBR theorem , 2014 .

[12]  C. Fuchs.  QBism, the Perimeter of Quantum Bayesianism , 2010, 1003.5209.

[13]  N. D. Hari Dass,et al.  Critique of protective measurements , 1999 .

[14]  Bryce S. DeWitt,et al.  The Many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics , 2015 .

[15]  Partha Ghose,et al.  An analysis of the Aharonov-Anandan-Vaidman model , 1995 .

[16]  E. Sudarshan,et al.  Zeno's paradox in quantum theory , 1976 .

[17]  A. Ipsen,et al.  Disturbance in weak measurements and the difference between quantum and classical weak values , 2014, 1409.3538.

[18]  Christopher Ferrie,et al.  How the result of a single coin toss can turn out to be 100 heads. , 2014, Physical review letters.

[19]  C. Fuchs,et al.  Unknown Quantum States: The Quantum de Finetti Representation , 2001, quant-ph/0104088.

[20]  C. Fuchs.  Quantum mechanics as quantum information, mostly , 2003 .

[21]  Guido Bacciagaluppi,et al.  Quantum Theory at the Crossroads: Reconsidering the 1927 Solvay Conference , 2009 .

[22]  Roger Colbeck,et al.  A system’s wave function is uniquely determined by its underlying physical state , 2013, 1312.7353.

[23]  M. S. Leifer,et al.  Is the Quantum State Real? An Extended Review of -ontology Theorems , 2014, 1409.1570.

[24]  Robert W. Spekkens,et al.  Einstein, Incompleteness, and the Epistemic View of Quantum States , 2007, 0706.2661.

[25]  Robert Kosut,et al.  Quantum Estimation and Control , 2010 .

[26]  Shan Gao.  Protective Measurement and Quantum Reality: Towards a New Understanding of Quantum Mechanics , 2014 .

[27]  Zach DeVito,et al.  Opt , 2017 .

[28]  Caslav Brukner,et al.  Information and Fundamental Elements of the Structure of Quantum Theory , 2002, quant-ph/0212084.

[29]  Maximilian Schlosshauer,et al.  Protective Measurement and Quantum Reality: Entanglement, scaling, and the meaning of the wave function in protective measurement , 2015 .

[30]  Unruh.  Reality and measurement of the wave function. , 1994, Physical review. A, Atomic, molecular, and optical physics.

[31]  Matthew F Pusey.  Anomalous weak values are proofs of contextuality. , 2014, Physical review letters.

[32]  Lev Vaidman,et al.  The meaning of protective measurements , 1994 .

[33]  D. Kribs.  QUANTUM CHANNELS, WAVELETS, DILATIONS AND REPRESENTATIONS OF $\mathcal{O}_{n}$ , 2003, Proceedings of the Edinburgh Mathematical Society.

[34]  D. Bohm.  A SUGGESTED INTERPRETATION OF THE QUANTUM THEORY IN TERMS OF "HIDDEN" VARIABLES. II , 1952 .

[35]  Yuen,et al.  Impossibility of measuring the wave function of a single quantum system. , 1996, Physical review letters.

[36]  Shan Gao,et al.  An argument for psi-ontology in terms of protective measurements , 2015, 1508.07684.

[37]  Dominique Unruh,et al.  An adaptive attack on Wiesner's quantum money , 2014, Quantum Inf. Comput..

[38]  C. Ross.  Found , 1869, The Dental register.

[39]  Isaac L. Chuang,et al.  Prescription for experimental determination of the dynamics of a quantum black box , 1997 .

[40]  V. A. JULIUS,et al.  On Time , 1877, Nature.

[41]  Alberto Montina.  Communication complexity and the reality of the wave-function , 2014, ArXiv.

[42]  Adam Bouland,et al.  ψ-epistemic theories: The role of symmetry , 2013, 1303.2834.

[43]  Rovelli.  Comment on "Meaning of the wave function" , 1994, Physical review. A, Atomic, molecular, and optical physics.

[44]  Eric G. Cavalcanti,et al.  Weak values in a classical theory with an epistemic restriction , 2015 .

[45]  Lucien Hardy,et al.  ARE QUANTUM STATES REAL , 2012, 1205.1439.

[46]  Roderich Tumulka,et al.  What Is Bohmian Mechanics , 2001, Compendium of Quantum Physics.

[47]  Christopher A. Fuchs,et al.  QUANTUM BAYESIANISM AT THE PERIMETER , 2010, 1003.5182.

[48]  C. Allen,et al.  Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy , 2011 .

[49]  S Pironio,et al.  No-go theorems for ψ-epistemic models based on a continuity assumption. , 2012, Physical review letters.

[50]  Gus Gutoski,et al.  Process tomography for unitary quantum channels , 2013, 1309.0840.

[51]  D. Wallace.  The Emergent Multiverse: Quantum Theory according to the Everett Interpretation , 2012 .

[52]  Jos Uffink,et al.  Reply to Gao's “On Uffink's criticism of protective measurements” , 2013 .

[53]  Angelo Bassi,et al.  Models of Wave-function Collapse, Underlying Theories, and Experimental Tests , 2012, 1204.4325.

[54]  Weber,et al.  Unified dynamics for microscopic and macroscopic systems. , 1986, Physical review. D, Particles and fields.

[55]  Matthew F Pusey,et al.  On the reality of the quantum state , 2011, Nature Physics.

[56]  Stephen Wiesner,et al.  Conjugate coding , 1983, SIGA.

[57]  N. David Mermin,et al.  An introduction to QBism with an application to the locality of quantum mechanics , 2013, 1311.5253.

[58]  H. Everett.  "Relative State" Formulation of Quantum Mechanics , 1957 .

[59]  R. Spekkens.  Evidence for the epistemic view of quantum states: A toy theory , 2004, quant-ph/0401052.

[60]  Renato Renner,et al.  Is a system's wave function in one-to-one correspondence with its elements of reality? , 2011, Physical review letters.