Why protective measurement does not establish the reality of the quantum state
“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 “\(\psi \)-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.
KeywordsOntological model Quantum measurement Protective measurement
MP is grateful to Aharon Brodutch and Shan Gao for discussions, in particular to Shan for correcting MP’s initial misunderstanding of the Zeno scheme. Research at Perimeter Institute is supported in part by the Government of Canada through NSERC and by the Province of Ontario through MRI. CF was supported by NSF Grant No. PHY-1212445, the Canadian Government through the NSERC PDF program, the IARPA MQCO program, the ARC via EQuS Project Number CE11001013, and by the US Army Research Office Grant Numbers W911NF-14-1-0098 and W911NF-14-1-0103. ML is supported by the Foundational Questions Institute (FQXi). We would like to thank Paul Merriam for a careful proof reading.
- 2.Faye, J.: Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. In: Zalta, E.N. (ed). The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (2008, fall 2008 ed)Google Scholar
- 5.DeWitt, B.S., Graham, R.N. (eds.) The Many-Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. Princeton University Press, Princeton (1973)Google Scholar
- 13.Lombardi, O., Dieks, D.: Modal Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics. In: Zalta, E.N. (ed) The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (2013, fall 2013 ed)Google Scholar
- 17.Fuchs, C.A.: QBism, the perimeter of quantum bayesianism (2010). arXiv:1003.5209
- 22.Colbeck, R., Renner, R.: A system’s wave function is uniquely determined by its underlying physical state (2013). arXiv:1312.7353
- 26.Mansfield, S.: Reality of the quantum state: a stronger psi-ontology theorem (2014). arXiv:1412.0669
- 32.Gao, S.: Distinct quantum states cannot be compatible with a single state of reality. PhilSci:9609 (2013)Google Scholar
- 43.Hagar, A.: Does protective measurement tell us anything about quantum reality? (2014)Google Scholar
- 44.Schlosshauer, M., Claringbold, T.V.B.: Entanglement, scaling, and the meaning of the wave function in protective measurement. In: Gao, S. (ed.) Protective Measurement and Quantum Reality: Towards a New Understanding of Quantum Mechanics, pp. 180–194. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2014). arXiv:1402.1217 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 50.Brodutch, A., Nagaj, D., Sattath, O., Unruh, D.: An adaptive attack on Wiesner’s quantum money (2014). arXiv:1404.1507
- 52.James, M.R., Kosut, R.L.: Quantum Estimation and Control. In: Levine, W.S. (ed.) The Control Handbook: Control System Applications. Taylor and Francis, London (2010). (Chap. 31)Google Scholar