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.

Introduction

The physical meaning of the wave function is an important interpretative problem of quantum mechanics. Notwithstanding nearly ninety years of development of the theory, it is still an unsolved issue. During recent years, more and more research has been done on the ontological status and meaning of the wave function (see, e.g. Monton, 2002; Lewis, 2004; Gao, 2011a, 2011b; Pusey, Barrett and Rudolph, 2012; Ney and Albert, 2013). In particular, Pusey, Barrett and Rudolph (2012) demonstrated that under certain non-trivial assumptions such as the preparation independence assumption, the wave function of a quantum system is a representation of the physical state of the system. This poses a further question, namely whether the reality of the wave function can be argued without resorting to non-trivial assumptions. Moreover, a harder problem is to determine the ontological meaning of the wave function, which is still a hot topic of debate in the realistic alternatives to quantum mechanics such as the de Broglie–Bohm theory or Bohmian mechanics (Belot, 2012).

In this chapter, we will first give a clearer argument for the reality of the wave function in terms of protective measurements, which does not depend on non-trivial assumptions and can also overcome existing objections. Next, based on an analysis of the mass and charge properties of a quantum system, we will propose a new ontological interpretation of the wave function. According to this interpretation, the wave function of an N-body system represents the state of ergodic motion of N particles.

In 1993, Yakir Aharonov, Lev Vaidman and Jeeva Anandan discovered an important new method of measurement in quantum mechanics, the so-called protective measurement. Distinct from conventional 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. In this way, theoretical analysis of protective measurement may lead to a new and deeper understanding of quantum mechanics. Moreover, its experimental realization may also be useful for quantum information technology.

This book is an anthology celebrating the 20th anniversary of the discovery of protective measurement. It begins with a clear and concise introduction to standard quantum mechanics, conventional measurement and protective measurement, and contains fourteen original essays written by physicists and philosophers of physics, including Yakir Aharonov and Lev Vaidman, the two discoverers. The topics include the fundamentals of protective measurement, its meaning and applications, and current views on the importance and implications of protective measurement. The book is accessible to graduate students in physics and chemistry. It will be of value to students and researchers with an interest in the meaning of quantum theory and especially to physicists and philosophers working on the foundations of quantum mechanics.

When I contacted potential contributors to this anthology, one of them replied, “Protective measurements are something I know nothing about.” Indeed, as one referee of this book also admitted, although protective measurement has attracted attention over the last 20 years and has raised many interesting questions, it is still an under-studied aspect of quantum mechanics. In recent years the associated field of weak measurement has seen significant increased activity, and the latest Pusey–Barrett–Rudolph theorem has also caused many people to revisit the question of the reality of the wave function.

In this chapter, I summarize the general way in which the measurement process can be cast (by making use of effects and amplitude operators). Then, I show that there are two main problems with the state measurement: (i) how to avoid the disruptive back action on the state of the measured system during detection and (ii) how to extract complete information from this state. In order to deal with them I first introduce quantum non-demolition (QND) measurement and examine the problem whether the entire probability distribution of the measured observable is not altered by a QND measurement, which would allow repeated QND measurements with different observables to extract the whole information from the measured system. However, I show that this is not the case. Then, I deal with protective measurement as such and show that a reversible measurement is in fact not a measurement. However, by taking advantage of statistical methods (and therefore by renouncing measurement of the state of a single system), we can indeed reconstruct the wave function but only by partially recovering the information contained in the state. Two further prices to pay are to admit the existence of negative quasi-probabilities due to the interference terms and to make use of unsharp observables for guaranteeing informational completeness.

Introduction

The aim of this chapter is a review of the developments related to the measurement of the state vector and the problems that have been raised in this context.

Traditionally, the state vector or the wave function describing quantum systems has been considered as a formal tool for calculating the probabilities associated with certain events like measurement outcomes, but few scholars have tried to attribute to it an ontological status. It is well known how many difficulties are related to an attempt at assigning a kind of reality to the state of quantum systems.

Introduction

It is not exaggeration to claim that one of the major divides in the foundations of non-relativistic quantum mechanics derives from the way physicists and philosophers understand the status of the wave function. On the instrumentalist side of the camp, the wave function is regarded as a mere instrument to calculate probabilities that have been established by previous measurement outcomes. On the other “realistic” camp, the wave function is regarded as a new physical entity or a physical field of some sort. While both sides agree about the existence of quantum “particles” (the so-called theoretical entities), and therefore reject the radical agnosticism about them preached by van Fraassen (1980), the various “realistic” (and consequently, instrumentalist) philosophies of quantum mechanics are typically formulated in different, logically independent ways, so their implications need to be further investigated.

For instance, on the one hand it seems plausible to claim that a realistic stance about the wave function is not the only way to defend “realism” about quantum theory. One can support a “flash” or a “density-of-stuff ” ontology (two variants of GRW), or an ontology of particles with well-defined positions (as in Bohmian mechanics), as primitive ontologies for observer-independent formulations of quantum mechanics (Allori, Goldstein, Tumulka and Zanghí, 2008). “Primitive ontologies”, as here are understood, are not only a fundamental ground for other ontological posits, but also entail a commitment to something concretely existing in spacetime (see also Allori, 2013). On the other hand, however, it is still debated whether such primitive ontologies can be autonomous from some form of realism about the wave function (Albert, 1996).

In order to discuss this problem, we begin with a preliminary clarification of the meaning of “realism” and “instrumentalism” in physics, which are often subject to ideological and abstract discussions that often have little to do with the practice of physics (Section 9.2).

Protective measurement, in the language of standard quantum mechanics, is a method to measure the expectation value of an observable on a single quantum system (Aharonov and Vaidman, 1993; Aharonov, Anandan and Vaidman, 1993). For a conventional impulsive measurement, the state of the measured system is strongly entangled with the state of the measuring device during the measurement, and the measurement result is one of the eigenvalues of the measured observable. By contrast, during a protective measurement, the measured state is protected by an appropriate procedure so that it neither changes nor becomes entangled with the state of the measuring device appreciably. In this way, such protective measurements can measure the expectation values of observables on a single quantum system, and in particular, the wave function of the system can also be measured as expectation values of certain observables. It is expected that protective measurements can be performed in the near future with the rapid development of weak measurement technologies (e.g. Kocsis et al., 2011; Lundeen et al., 2011). In this chapter, we will give a clear introduction to protective measurement in quantum mechanics.

Standard quantum mechanics and impulsive measurement

The standard formulation of quantum mechanics, which was first developed by Dirac (1930) and von Neumann (1955), is based on the following basic principles.

1 Physical states

The state of a physical system is represented by a normalized wave function or unit vector |ψ(t)〉 in a Hilbert space. The Hilbert space is complete in the sense that every possible physical state can be represented by a state vector in the space.

2 Physical properties

Every measurable property or observable of a physical system is represented by a Hermitian operator on the Hilbert space associated with the system. A physical system has a determinate value for an observable if and only if it is in an eigenstate of the observable (this is often called the eigenvalue–eigenstate link).

The explanatory role of empty waves in quantum theory

In this chapter we are concerned with two classes of interpretations of quantum mechanics: the epistemological (the historically dominant view) and the ontological. The first views the wave function as just a repository of (statistical) information on a physical system. The other treats the wave function primarily as an element of physical reality, whilst generally retaining the statistical interpretation as a secondary property. There is as yet only theoretical justification for the program of modelling quantum matter in terms of an objective spacetime process; that some way of imagining how the quantum world works between measurements is surely better than none. Indeed, a benefit of such an approach can be that “measurements” lose their talismanic aspect and become just typical processes described by the theory.

In the quest to model quantum systems one notes that, whilst the formalism makes reference to “particle” properties such as mass, the linearly evolving wave function ψ(x) does not generally exhibit any feature that could be put into correspondence with a localized particle structure. To turn quantum mechanics into a theory of matter and motion, with real atoms and molecules consisting of particles structured by potentials and forces, it is necessary to bring in independent physical elements not represented in the basic formalism. The notion of an “empty wave” is peculiar to those representatives of this class of extended theories which postulate that the additional physical element is a corpuscle-like entity or point particle. For clarity, we shall develop the discussion in terms of a definite model of this kind whose properties are well understood and which it is established reproduces the empirical content of quantum mechanics: the de Broglie–Bohm theory, a prominent representative of the class of ontological interpretations (Holland, 1993).

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:

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

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:

Introduction

It is a prima facie reasonable assumption that if a physical quantity is measurable, then it corresponds to a genuine physical property of the measured system. You can measure a person's mass because human beings have such a property. You can measure the average mass of a group of people because groups of people have such a collective property. And so on.

Now it would be truly surprising – miraculous, perhaps – if you could determine the average mass of a group of people by making measurements on just one of them. To ascribe such a statistical property to an individual looks like a category mistake. At first glance, protective measurements seem to pull off just such a miracle, determining, for example, the expectation value of position for an ensemble of particles via a measurement performed on one of them. The lesson we are supposed to draw, of course, is that expectation values are not statistical properties at all, despite their name. Rather than being an average over an ensemble of systems, the expectation value of position for a particle is a physical property of the individual system, and the wave function, as the bearer of these properties, is a physical entity (Aharonov, Anandan and Vaidman, 1993).

The protective measurement procedure has been challenged (Uffink, 1999; Gao, 2013; Uffink, 2013), but for present purposes I will assume that protective measurements exist, at least in principle, that are capable of revealing “statistical” properties like expectation values in a single measurement. My aim here is not to challenge the existence of such a physical procedure, but rather to explore the arguments that connect the existence of protective measurements with conclusions concerning the nature of physical reality. What protective measurements are sup- posed to show is that “epistemological” interpretations of the quantum state are untenable – that the wave function of a system must instead be interpreted “onto- logically” (Aharonov, Anandan and Vaidman, 1993: 4617).

Protective measurements illustrate how Yakir Aharonov's fundamental insights into quantum theory yield new experimental paradigms that allow us to test quantum mechanics in ways that were not possible before. As for quantum theory itself, protective measurements demonstrate that a quantum state describes a single system, not only an ensemble of systems, and reveal a rich ontology in the quantum state of a single system. We discuss in what sense protective measurements anticipate the theorem of Pusey, Barrett, and Rudolph (PBR), stating that, if quantum predictions are correct, then two distinct quantum states cannot represent the same physical reality.

Introduction

Although protective measurements [1, 2] are a new tool for quantum theory and experiment, they have yet to find their way into the laboratory; also theorists have not put them to best use, beyond a 1993 paper by Anandan on “Protective measurement and quantum reality” [3]. In Section 10.2, we point out that protective measurements offer new experimental tests of quantum mechanics, and we review recent experiments attempting to measure quantum wave functions. In Section 10.3, we present the Pusey–Barrett–Rudolph (PBR) theorem and discuss their conclusion that the quantum state represents physical reality, and in Section 10.4, we discuss in what sense protective measurements anticipate this conclusion.

Protective measurement: implications for experiment and theory

In 1926, Schrödinger postulated his equation for “material waves” in analogy with light waves: paths of material particles – which obey the principle of least action – are an approximation to material waves, just as rays of light – which obey the principle of least time – are an approximation to light waves [4]. But Born soon discarded “the physical pictures of Schr00F6;dinger” [5] and gave the “material wave” Ψ(x, t) a new interpretation: |Ψ(x, t)|2 is the probability density to find a particle at x at time t. Even Schrödinger was obliged to accept Born's interpretation.