Advances in Mathematical Physics

Advances in Mathematical Physics / 2010 / Article
Special Issue

Quantum Information and Entanglement

View this Special Issue

Review Article | Open Access

Volume 2010 |Article ID 945460 | https://doi.org/10.1155/2010/945460

Andrei Khrennikov, "Two Versions of the Projection Postulate: From EPR Argument to One-Way Quantum Computing and Teleportation", Advances in Mathematical Physics, vol. 2010, Article ID 945460, 11 pages, 2010. https://doi.org/10.1155/2010/945460

Two Versions of the Projection Postulate: From EPR Argument to One-Way Quantum Computing and Teleportation

Academic Editor: Shao-Ming Fei
Received17 Aug 2009
Accepted29 Dec 2009
Published20 Jan 2010

Abstract

Nowadays it is practically forgotten that for observables with degenerate spectra the original von Neumann projection postulate differs crucially from the version of the projection postulate which was later formalized by Lรผders. The latter (and not that due to von Neumann) plays the crucial role in the basic constructions of quantum information theory. We start this paper with the presentation of the notions related to the projection postulate. Then we remind that the argument of Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen against completeness of QM was based on the version of the projection postulate which is nowadays called Lรผders postulate. Then we recall that all basic measurements on composite systems are represented by observables with degenerate spectra. This implies that the difference in the formulation of the projection postulate (due to von Neumann and Lรผders) should be taken into account seriously in the analysis of the basic constructions of quantum information theory. This paper is a review devoted to such an analysis.

1. Introduction

We recall that for observables with nondegenerate spectra the two versions of the projection postulate, see von Neumann [1] and Lรผders [2], coincide. We restrict our considerations to observables with purely discrete spectra. In this case each pure state is projected as the result of measurement onto another pure state, the corresponding eigenvector. Lรผders postulated that the situation is not changed even in the case of degenerate spectra; see [2]. By projecting a pure state we obtain again a pure state, the orthogonal projection on the corresponding eigen-subspace. However, von Neumann pointed out that in general the postmeasurement state is not pure, it is a mixed state. The difference is crucial! And it is surprising that so little attention was paid up to now to this important problem. It is especially surprising if one takes into account the fundamental role which is played by the projection postulate in quantum information (QI) theory. QI is approaching the stage of technological verification and the absence of a detailed analysis of the mentioned problem is a weak point in its foundations.

This paper is devoted to such an analysis. We start with a short recollection of the basic facts on the projection postulates and conditional probabilities in QM. Then we analyze the EPR argument against completeness of QM [3]. Since Einstein et al. proceeded on the physical level of rigorousness, it is a difficult task to extract from their considerations which version of the projection postulate was used. We did this in [4, 5]. Now we shortly recall our previous analysis of the EPR argument. We will see that they really applied the Lรผders postulate. They used the fact that a measurement on a composite system transforms a pure state into another pure state, the orthogonal projection of the original state. The formal application of the original von Neumann postulate blocks the EPR considerations completely.

We analyze the quantum teleportation scheme. We will see again that it is fundamentally based on the use of the Lรผders postulate. The formal application of the von Neumann postulate blocks the teleportation type schemes; see for more detail [6].

Finally, we remark that โ€œone way quantum computing,โ€ for example, [7โ€“9] (an exciting alternative to the conventional scheme of quantum computing) is irreducibly based on the use of the Lรผders postulate.

The results of this analysis ought to be an alarm signal for people working in the quantum foundations. If one assumes that von Neumann was right, but Lรผders as well as Einstein et al. were wrong, then all basic schemes of QI should be reanalysed. However, a deeper study of von Neumannโ€™s considerations on the projection postulate [1] shows that, in fact, under quite natural conditions the von Neumann postulate implies the Lรผders postulate. The detailed (rather long and technical) proof of this unexpected result can be found in preprint [10]. In this paper we just formulate the above mentioned conditions and the theorem on the reduction of one postulate to another. Thus the basic QI schemes seem to be save in their appealing to the Lรผders version of the projection postulate. However, following additional analysis is still needed to understand the adequacy of conditions of a theorem on the reduction of one postulate to another to the original considerations of von Neumann in his book [1]. He wrote on the physical level of rigorousness. To make a mathematically rigorous reformulation of his arguments is not an easy task!

The main conclusion of the present paper is that the study of the foundations of QM and QI is far from being completed; see also the recent monograph of Jaeger [11]. (We can also point to the recent study on teleportation of Asano et al. [12]. It is the teleportation scheme in the infinite-dimensional Hilbert space, known as Kossakowski-Ohya scheme. It would be interesting to analyze this scheme to understand the role of the projection postulate in its realization. We emphasize that measurements on composite systems play the crucial point of QI.) We remark that the operational approach to QM, see, for example, [13], considers not only the von Neumann and Lรผders versions of the projection postulate, but general theory of postmeasurement states. Formally, one may say that from the viewpoint of the operational approach it is not surprising that, for example, the von Neumann postulate can be violated for some measurement. It is neither surprising that even both projection postulates can be violated. But this viewpoint is correct only on the level of formal mathematical considerations. If we turn to the real physical situation, that is, experiments, we should carefully analyze concrete experiments to understand which type of postmeasurement state is produced. Finally, we mention the viewpoint of De Muynck [14, 15] who emphasized that all projection type postulates are merely about conditional probabilities. In principle, I agree with him, compare with my recent monograph [16]. However, experimenters are interested not only in probabilities of results of measurements, but also in the postmeasurement states. We can mention the quantum teleportation schemes or one-way quantum computing.

2. Projection Postulate

2.1. Nondegenerate Case

Everywhere below ๐ป denotes a complex Hilbert space. Let ๐œ“โˆˆ๐ป be a pure state, that is, โ€–๐œ“โ€–2=1. We remark that any pure state induces a density operator ฬ‚๐œŒ๐œ“๎๐‘ƒ=๐œ“โŠ—๐œ“=๐œ“,(2.1)

where ๎๐‘ƒ๐œ“ denotes the orthogonal projector on the vector ๐œ“. This operator describes an ensemble of identically prepared systems each of them in the same state ๐œ“.

For an observable ๐ด represented by the operator ๎๐ด with nondegenerate spectrum von Neumannโ€™s and Lรผdersโ€™ projection postulates coincide. For simplicity we restrict our considerations to operators with purely discrete spectra. In this case the spectrum consists of eigenvalues ๐›ผ๐‘˜ of ๎๎๐ดโˆถ๐ด๐‘’๐‘˜=๐›ผ๐‘˜๐‘’๐‘˜. Nondegeneracy of the spectrum means that subspaces consisting of eigenvectors corresponding to different eigenvalues are one dimensional. The following definition was formulated by von Neumann [1] in the case of nondegenerate spectrum. It coincides with Lรผdersโ€™ definition (we remain once again that Lรผdersโ€™ did not distinguish the cases of degenerate and nondegenerate spectra).

PP:Let ๐ด be an observable described by the self-adjoint operator ๎๐ด having purely discrete nondegenerate spectrum. Measurement of observable ๐ด on a system in the (pure) quantum state ๐œ“ producing the result ๐ด=๐›ผ๐‘˜ induces transition from the state ๐œ“ into the corresponding eigenvector ๐‘’๐‘˜ of the operator ๎๐ด.

If we select only systems with the fixed measurement result ๐ด=๐›ผ๐‘˜, then we obtain an ensemble described by the density operator ฬ‚๐‘ž๐‘˜=๐‘’๐‘˜โŠ—๐‘’๐‘˜. Any system in this ensemble is in the same state ๐‘’๐‘˜. If we do not perform selections, we obtain an ensemble described by the density operator ฬ‚๐‘ž๐œ“=๎“๐‘˜||โŸจ๐œ“,๐‘’๐‘˜โŸฉ||2๎๐‘ƒ๐‘’๐‘˜=๎“๐‘˜๎ซฬ‚๐œŒ๐œ“๐‘’๐‘˜,๐‘’๐‘˜๎ฌ๎๐‘ƒ๐‘’๐‘˜=๎“๐‘˜๎๐‘ƒ๐‘’๐‘˜ฬ‚๐œŒ๐œ“๎๐‘ƒ๐‘’๐‘˜,(2.2)

where ๎๐‘ƒ๐‘’๐‘˜ is the projector on the eigenvector ๐‘’๐‘˜.

2.2. Degenerate Case

Lรผders generalized this postulate to the case of operators having degenerate spectra. Let us consider the spectral decomposition for a self-adjoint operator ๎๐ด having purely discrete spectrum ๎๎“๐ด=๐‘–๐›ผ๐‘–๎๐‘ƒ๐‘–,(2.3)

where ๐›ผ๐‘–โˆˆ๐‘ are different eigenvalues of ๎๐ด (so ๐›ผ๐‘–โ‰ ๐›ผ๐‘—) and ๎๐‘ƒ๐‘–, ๐‘–=1,2,โ€ฆ, is the projector onto subspace ๐ป๐‘– of eigenvectors corresponding to ๐›ผ๐‘–.

By Lรผdersโ€™ postulate after a measurement of an observable ๐ด represented by the operator ๎๐ด that gives the result ๐›ผ๐‘– the initial pure state ๐œ“ is transformed again into a pure state, namely, ๐œ“๐‘–=๎๐‘ƒ๐‘–๐œ“โ€–โ€–๎๐‘ƒ๐‘–๐œ“โ€–โ€–.(2.4)

Thus for the corresponding density operator we have ๎๐‘„๐‘–=๐œ“๐‘–โŠ—๐œ“๐‘–=๎๐‘ƒ๐‘–๎๐‘ƒ๐œ“โŠ—๐‘–๐œ“โ€–โ€–๎๐‘ƒ๐‘–๐œ“โ€–โ€–2=๎๐‘ƒ๐‘–ฬ‚๐œŒ๐œ“๎๐‘ƒ๐‘–โ€–โ€–๎๐‘ƒ๐‘–๐œ“โ€–โ€–2.(2.5)

If one does not make selections corresponding to the values ๐›ผ๐‘– the final postmeasurement state is given by ฬ‚๐‘ž๐œ“=๎“๐‘–๐‘๐‘–๎๐‘„๐‘–,๐‘๐‘–=โ€–โ€–๎๐‘ƒ๐‘–๐œ“โ€–โ€–2,(2.6) or simply ฬ‚๐‘ž๐œ“=๎“๐‘–ฬ‚๐‘ž๐‘–,ฬ‚๐‘ž๐‘–=๎๐‘ƒ๐‘–๐œŒ๐œ“๎๐‘ƒ๐‘–.(2.7) This is the statistical mixture of the pure states ๐œ“๐‘–. Thus by Lรผders there is no essential difference between measurements of observables with degenerate and nondegenerate spectra.

von Neumann had a completely different viewpoint on the postmeasurement state [1]. Even for a pure state ๐œ“ the postmeasurement state (for a measurement with selection with respect to a fixed result ๐ด=๐›ผ๐‘˜) will not be a pure state again. If ๎๐ด has degenerate (discrete) spectrum, then according to von Neumann [1].

A measurement of an observable ๐ด giving the value ๐ด=๐›ผ๐‘– does not induce a projection of ๐œ“ on the subspace ๐ป๐‘–.

The result will not be a fixed pure state, in particular, not Lรผdersโ€™ state ๐œ“๐‘–. Moreover, the postmeasurement state, say ฬ‚๐‘”๐œ“, is not uniquely determined by the formalism of QM! Only a subsequent measurement of an observable ๐ท such that ๐ด=๐‘“(๐ท) and ๎๐ท is an operator with nondegenerate spectrum (refinement measurement) will determine the final state.

Following von Neumann, we choose an orthonormal basis {๐‘’in} in each ๐ป๐‘–. Let us take a sequence of real numbers {๐›พin} such that all numbers are distinct. We define the corresponding self-adjoint operator ๎๐ท having eigenvectors {๐‘’in} and eigenvalues {๐›พin}: ๎๎“๐ท=๐‘–๎“๐‘›๐›พin๎๐‘ƒ๐‘’in.(2.8)

A measurement of the observable ๐ท represented by the operator ๎๐ท can be considered as a measurement of the observable ๐ด, because ๐ด=๐‘“(๐ท), where ๐‘“ is some function such that ๐‘“(๐›พin)=๐›ผ๐‘–. The ๐ท-measurement (without postmeasurement selection with respect to eigenvalues) produces the statistical mixture ๎๐‘‚๐ท;๐œ“=๎“๐‘–๎“๐‘›||โŸจ๐œ“,๐‘’inโŸฉ||2๎๐‘ƒ๐‘’in.(2.9) By selection for the value ๐›ผ๐‘– of ๐ด (its measurements realized via measurements of a refinement observable ๐ท) we obtain the statistical mixture described by normalization of the operator ๎๐‘‚๐‘–,๐ท;๐œ“=๎“๐‘›||โŸจ๐œ“,๐‘’inโŸฉ||2๎๐‘ƒ๐‘’in.(2.10)

von Neumann emphasized that the mathematical formalism of QM could not describe in a unique way the postmeasurement state for measurements (without refinement) in the case of degenerate observables. He did not discuss the properties of such states directly, he described them only indirectly via refinement measurements. (For him this state was a kind of hidden variable. It might even be that he had in mind that it โ€œdoes not exist at all,โ€ i.e., it could not be described by a density operator.) We would like to proceed by considering this (hidden) state under the assumptions that it can be described by a density operator, say ฬ‚๐‘”๐œ“. We formalize a list of properties of this hidden (postmeasurement) state each of which can be extracted from von Neumannโ€™s considerations on refinement measurements. Finally, we prove, see Theorem 5.3, that ฬ‚๐‘”๐œ“ should coincide with the postmeasurement state postulated by Lรผders in [2].

Consider the ๐ด-measurement without refinement. By von Neumann, for each quantum system ๐‘  in the initial pure state ๐œ“,the ๐ด-measurement with the ๐›ผ๐‘–-selection transforms the ๐œ“ in one of states ๐œ™=๐œ™(๐‘ ) belonging to the eigensubspace ๐ป๐‘–. Unlike Lรผdersโ€™ approach, it implies that, instead of one fixed state, namely, ๐œ“๐‘–โˆˆ๐ป๐‘–, such an experiment produces a probability distribution of states on the unit sphere of the subspace ๐ป๐‘–.

3. von Neumannโ€™s Viewpoint on the EPR Experiment

Consider any composite system ๐‘ =(๐‘ 1,๐‘ 2). Consider any ๐ป1=๐ป2=๐ฟ2(๐‘…3,๐‘‘๐‘ฅ). Let ๐‘Ž1 and ๐‘Ž2 be observables represented by the operators ฬ‚๐‘Ž1 and ฬ‚๐‘Ž2 with purely discrete nondegenerate spectra: ฬ‚๐‘Ž๐‘–๐‘’๐›ผ๐‘–=๐œ†๐›ผ๐‘–๐‘’๐›ผ๐‘–,๐‘–=1,2.(3.1)

Any state ๐œ“โˆˆ๐ป=๐ป1โŠ—๐ป2 can be represented as ๎“๐œ“=๐›ผ,๐›ฝ๐‘๐›ผ๐›ฝ๐‘’๐›ผ1โŠ—๐‘’๐›ฝ2,(3.2)

where โˆ‘๐›ผ,๐›ฝ|๐‘๐›ผ๐›ฝ|2=1. Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen claimed that measurement of ๐ด1 given by ๎๐ด1=ฬ‚๐‘Ž1โŠ—๐ผ(3.3)

induces a projection of ๐œ“ onto one of states ๐‘’๐›ผ1โŠ—๐‘ข, ๐‘ขโˆˆ๐ป2.

In particular, for a state of the form ๎“๐œ“=๐›พ๐‘๐›พ๐‘’๐›พ1โŠ—๐‘’๐›พ2,(3.4)

one of states ๐‘’๐›พ1โŠ—๐‘’๐›พ2 is created.

Thus by performing a measurement on the ๐‘ 1 with the result ๐œ†๐›พ1 the โ€œelement of realityโ€ ๐‘Ž2=๐œ†๐›พ2(3.5)

is assigned to ๐‘ 2. This is the crucial point of the considerations of Einstein et al. [3]. Now by selecting another observable, say ๐‘2 acting on ๐‘ 2, we can repeat our considerations for the operators ฬ‚๐‘Ž1โŠ—ฬ‚๐‘2. This operator induces another decomposition of the state ๐œ“. Another element of reality can be assigned to the same system ๐‘ 2. If the operators ฬ‚๐‘Ž2 and ฬ‚๐‘2 do not commute, then the observables ๐‘Ž2 and ๐‘2 are incompatible. Nevertheless, EPR was able to assign to the system ๐‘ 2 elements of reality corresponding to these obervables. This contradicts to the postulate of QM that such an assignment is impossible (because of Heisenberg uncertainty relations). To resolve this paradox EPR proposed that QM is incomplete, that is, in spite of Heisenbergโ€™s uncertainty relation, two elements of reality corresponding to incompatible observables can be assigned to a single system. As an absurd alternative to incompleteness, they considered the possibility of action at distance. By performing a measurement on ๐‘ 1 we change the state of ๐‘ 2 and assign it a new element of reality.

However, the EPR considerations did not match von Neumannโ€™s projection postulate, because the spectrum of ๎๐ด1 is degenerate. Thus by von Neumann to obtain an element of reality one should perform a measurement of a โ€œnonlocal observableโ€ ๐ด given by a nonlocal refinement of, for example, ๎๐ด1=ฬ‚๐‘Ž1โŠ—๐ผ and ๎๐ด2=๐ผโŠ—ฬ‚๐‘Ž2.

Finally, (after considering of operators with discrete spectra) Einstein et al. considered operators of position and momentum having continuous spectra. According to the von Neumann [1] one should proceed by approximating operators with continuous spectra by operators with discrete spectra.

In Section 5 we will show that under quite natural conditions von Neumann postulate implies Lรผders postulate, even for observables with degenerate spectrum. It will close โ€œloopholeโ€ in the EPR considerations.

4. von Neumannโ€™s Viewpoint on the Canonical Teleportation Scheme

We will proceed across the quantum teleportation scheme, see, for example, [11], and point to applications of the projection postulate. In this section following the QI-tradition we will use Diracโ€™s symbols to denote the states of systems. There are Alice (๐ด) and Bob (๐ต), and Alice has a qubit in some arbitrary quantum state |๐œ“โŸฉ. Assume that this quantum state is not known to Alice and she would like to send this state to Bob. Suppose Alice has a qubit that she wants to teleport to Bob. This qubit can be written generally as |๐œ“โŸฉ=๐›ผ|0โŸฉ+๐›ฝ|1โŸฉ.

The quantum teleportation scheme requires Alice and Bob to share a maximally entangled state before, for instance, one of the four Bell states: |ฮฆ+โˆšโŸฉ=(1/2)(|0โŸฉ๐ดโŠ—|0โŸฉ๐ต+|1โŸฉ๐ดโŠ—|1โŸฉ๐ต), |ฮฆโˆ’โˆšโŸฉ=(1/2)(|0โŸฉ๐ดโŠ—|0โŸฉ๐ตโˆ’|1โŸฉ๐ดโŠ—|1โŸฉ๐ต), |ฮจ+โˆšโŸฉ=(1/2)(|0โŸฉ๐ดโŠ—|1โŸฉ๐ต+|1โŸฉ๐ดโŠ—|0โŸฉ๐ต), |ฮจโˆ’โˆšโŸฉ=(1/2)(|0โŸฉ๐ดโŠ—|1โŸฉ๐ตโˆ’|1โŸฉ๐ดโŠ—|0โŸฉ๐ต). Alice takes one of the particles in the pair, and Bob keeps the other one. We will assume that Alice and Bob share the entangled state |ฮฆ+โŸฉ. So, Alice has two particles (the one she wants to teleport, and ๐ด, one of the entangled pair), and Bob has one particle, ๐ต. In the total system, the state of these three particles is given by ||||ฮฆ๐œ“โŸฉโŠ—+๎ฌ=๎€ท๐›ผ||||๎€ธโŠ—10โŸฉ+๐›ฝ1โŸฉโˆš2๎€ท||||||||๎€ธ0โŸฉโŠ—0โŸฉ+1โŸฉโŠ—1โŸฉ.(4.1)

Alice will then make a partial measurement in the Bell basis on the two qubits in her possession. To make the result of her measurement clear, we will rewrite the two qubits of Alice in the Bell basis via the following general identities (these can be easily verified): โˆš|0โŸฉโŠ—|0โŸฉ=(1/2)(|ฮฆ+โŸฉ+|ฮฆโˆ’โŸฉ), โˆš|0โŸฉโŠ—|1โŸฉ=(1/2)(|ฮจ+โŸฉ+|ฮจโˆ’โŸฉ), โˆš|1โŸฉโŠ—|0โŸฉ=(1/2)(|ฮจ+โŸฉโˆ’|ฮจโˆ’โŸฉ), โˆš|1โŸฉโŠ—|1โŸฉ=(1/2)(|ฮฆ+โŸฉโˆ’|ฮฆโˆ’โŸฉ). Evidently the result of her (local) measurement are that the three-particle state would collapse to one of the following four states (with equal probability of obtaining each): |ฮฆ+โŸฉโŠ—(๐›ผ|0โŸฉ+๐›ฝ|1โŸฉ), |ฮฆโˆ’โŸฉโŠ—(๐›ผ|0โŸฉโˆ’๐›ฝ|1โŸฉ), |ฮจ+โŸฉโŠ—(๐›ฝ|0โŸฉ+๐›ผ|1โŸฉ), |ฮจโˆ’โŸฉโŠ—(โˆ’๐›ฝ|0โŸฉ+๐›ผ|1โŸฉ). The four possible states for Bobโ€™s qubit are unitary images of the state to be teleported. The crucial step, the local measurement done by Alice on the Bell basis, is done. It is clear how to proceed further. Alice now has complete knowledge of the state of the three particles; the result of her Bell measurement tells her which of the four states the system is in. She simply has to send her results to Bob through a classical channel. Two classical bits can communicate which of the four results she obtained. After Bob receives the message from Alice, he will know which of the four states his particle is in. Using this information, he performs a unitary operation on his particle to transform it to the desired state ๐›ผ|0โŸฉ+๐›ฝ|1โŸฉ.

If Alice indicates that her result is |ฮฆ+โŸฉ, Bob knows that his qubit is already in the desired state and does nothing. This amounts to the trivial unitary operation, the identity operator.

If the message indicates |ฮฆโˆ’โŸฉ, Bob would send his qubit through the unitary gate given by the Pauli matrix ๐œŽ3=[100โˆ’1] to recover the state. If Aliceโ€™s message corresponds to |ฮจ+โŸฉ, Bob applies the gate ๐œŽ1=[0110] to his qubit. Finally, for the remaining case, the appropriate gate is given by ๐œŽ3๐œŽ1=๐‘–๐œŽ2=[01โˆ’10]. Teleportation is therefore achieved.

The main problem is that Aliceโ€™s measurement is represented by a degenerate operator in the 3-qubit space. It is nondegenerate with respect to her 2 quibits, but not in the total space. Thus the standard conclusion that by obtaining, for example, ๐ด=1, Alice can be sure that Bob obtained the right state |๐œ“โŸฉ, does not match the quantum measurement theory. According to von Neumann, to get this state Bob should perform a refinement measurement. In order to perform it, Bob should know the state |๐œ“โŸฉ. Thus from von Neumannโ€™s viewpoint there is a loophole in the quantum teleportation scheme. It will be closed (under quite natural conditions) in the next section.

5. Reduction of von Neumannโ€™s Postulate to Lรผdersโ€™ Postulate

In this section we try to formalize von Neumannโ€™s considerations on the measurement of observables with degenerate spectra.

Consider an ๐ด-measurement without refinement. By von Neumann, for each quantum system ๐‘  in the initial pure state ๐œ“, the ๐ด-measurement with the ๐›ผ๐‘–-selection transforms ๐œ“ in one of the states ๐œ™=๐œ™(๐‘ ) belonging to the eigensubspace ๐ป๐‘–. This implies that, instead of one fixed state, namely, ๐œ“๐‘–โˆˆ๐ป๐‘–, such an experiment produces a probability distribution of states on the unit sphere of the subspace ๐ป๐‘–.

We postulate (it is one of the steps in the formalization of von Neumannโ€™s considerations).

DO: For any value ๐›ผ๐‘– such that ๎๐‘ƒ๐‘–๐œ“โ‰ 0, the postmeasurement probability distribution on ๐ป๐‘– can be described by a density operator, say ๎ฮ“๐‘–.

Here ๎ฮ“๐‘–โˆถ๐ป๐‘–โ†’๐ป๐‘– is such that ๎ฮ“๐‘–โ‰ฅ0 and ๎ฮ“Tr๐‘–=1. Consider now the corresponding density operator ๎๐บ๐‘– in ๐ป. Its restriction on ๐ป๐‘– coincides with ๎ฮ“๐‘–. In particular this implies its property ๎๐บ๐‘–๎€ท๐ป๐‘–๎€ธโŠ‚๐ป๐‘–.(5.1) We remark that ๎๐บ๐‘– is determined by ๐œ“, so ๎๐บ๐‘–โ‰ก๎๐บ๐‘–;๐œ“.

We would like to present the list of other properties of ๎๐บ๐‘– induced by von Neumannโ€™s considerations on refinement. Since, for each refinement measurement ๐ท, the operators ๎๐ด and ๎๐ท commute, the measurement of ๐ด with refinement can be performed in two ways. First we perform the ๐ท-measurement and then we get ๐ด as ๐ด=๐‘“(๐ท). However, we also can first perform the ๐ด-measurement, obtain the postmeasurement state described by the density operator ๎๐บ๐‘–, then measure ๐ท and, finally, we again find ๐ด=๐‘“(๐ท).

Take an arbitrary ๐œ™โˆˆ๐ป๐‘– and consider a refinement measurement ๐ท such that ๐œ™ is an eigenvector of ๎๐ท. Thus ๎๐ท๐œ™=๐›พ๐œ™๐œ™. Then for the casesโ€”[direct measurement of ๐ท] and [first ๐ด and then ๐ท]โ€”we get probabilities which are coupled in a simple way. In the first case (by Bornโ€™s rule) ๐๎€ท๐ท=๐›พ๐œ™โˆฃฬ‚๐œŒ๐œ“๎€ธ=||||โŸจ๐œ“,๐œ™โŸฉ2.(5.2) In the second case, after the ๐ด-measurement, we obtain the state ๎๐บ๐‘– with probability ๐๎€ท๐ด=๐›ผ๐‘–โˆฃฬ‚๐œŒ๐œ“๎€ธ=โ€–โ€–๎๐‘ƒ๐‘–๐œ“โ€–โ€–2.(5.3)

Performing the ๐ท-measurement for the state ๎๐บ๐‘– we get the value ๐›พ๐œ™ with probability ๐๎‚€๐ท=๐›พ๐œ™โˆฃ๎๐บ๐‘–๎‚๎๐บ=Tr๐‘–๎๐‘ƒ๐œ™.(5.4) By (classical) Bayesโ€™ rule, we have ๐๎€ท๐ท=๐›พ๐œ™โˆฃฬ‚๐œŒ๐œ“๎€ธ๎€ท=๐๐ด=๐›ผ๐‘–โˆฃฬ‚๐œŒ๐œ“๎€ธ๐๎‚€๐ท=๐›พ๐œ™โˆฃ๎๐บ๐‘–๎‚.(5.5) Finally, we obtain ๐๎‚€๐ท=๐›พ๐œ™โˆฃ๎๐บ๐‘–๎‚๎๐บ=Tr๐‘–๎๐‘ƒ๐œ™=||||โŸจ๐œ“,๐œ™โŸฉ2โ€–โ€–๎๐‘ƒ๐‘–๐œ“โ€–โ€–2.(5.6) Thus ๎๐บTr๐‘–๎๐‘ƒ๐œ™=||||โŸจ๐œ“,๐œ™โŸฉ2โ€–โ€–๎๐‘ƒ๐‘–๐œ“โ€–โ€–2.(5.7) This is one of the basic features of the postmeasurement state ๎๐บ๐‘– (for the ๐ด-measurement with the ๐›ผ๐‘–-selection, but without any refinement). Another basic equality we obtain in the following way. Take an arbitrary ๐œ™๎…žโˆˆ๐ปโŸ‚๐‘–, and consider a measurement of the observable described by the orthogonal projector ๎๐‘ƒ๐œ™โ€ฒ under the state ๎๐บ๐‘–. Since the later describes a probability distribution concentrated on ๐ป๐‘–, we have ๐๎‚€๐‘ƒ๐œ™โ€ฒ๎๐บ=1โˆฃ๐‘–๎‚=0.(5.8) Thus ๎๐บTr;๐‘–๎๐‘ƒ๐œ™โ€ฒ=0.(5.9) This is the second basic feature of the postmeasurement state. Our aim is to show that (5.7) and (5.9) imply that, in fact, ๎๐บ๐‘–=๎๐‘ƒ๐‘–ฬ‚๐œŒ๐œ“๎๐‘ƒ๐‘–โ€–โ€–๎๐‘ƒ๐‘–๐œ“โ€–โ€–2โ‰ก๎๐‘ƒ๐‘–๎๐‘ƒ๐œ“โŠ—๐‘–๐œ“โ€–โ€–๎๐‘ƒ๐‘–๐œ“โ€–โ€–2,(5.10) that is, to derive Lรผders postulate which is a theorem in our approach.

Lemma 5.1. The postmeasurement density operator ๎๐บ๐‘– maps ๐ป into ๐ป๐‘–.

Proof. By (5.1) it is sufficient to show that ๎๐บ๐‘–(๐ปโŸ‚๐‘–)โŠ‚๐ป๐‘–. By (5.9) we obtain ๎‚ฌ๎๐บ๐‘–๐œ™๎…ž,๐œ™๎…ž๎‚ญ=0(5.11) for any ๐œ™๎…žโˆˆ๐ปโŸ‚๐‘–. This immediately implies that โŸจ๎๐บ๐‘–๐œ™๎…ž1,๐œ™๎…ž2โŸฉ=0 for any pair of vectors from ๐ปโŸ‚๐‘–. The latter implies that ๎๐บ๐‘–๐œ™๎…žโˆˆ๐ป๐‘– for any ๐œ™๎…žโˆˆ๐ปโŸ‚๐‘–.

Consider now the ๐ด-measurement without refinement and selection. The postmeasurement state ฬ‚๐‘”๐œ“ can be represented as ฬ‚๐‘”๐œ“=๎“๐‘š๐‘๐‘š๎๐บ๐‘š,๐‘๐‘š=โ€–โ€–๎๐‘ƒ๐‘š๐œ“โ€–โ€–2.(5.12)

Proposition 5.2. For any pure state ๐œ“ and self-adjoint operator ๎๐ด with purely discrete (degenerate) spectrum the postmeasurement state (in the absence of a refinement measurement) can be represented as ฬ‚๐‘”๐œ“=๎“๐‘šฬ‚๐‘”๐‘š,(5.13) where ฬ‚๐‘”๐‘šโˆถ๐ปโ†’๐ป๐‘š, ฬ‚๐‘”๐‘šโ‰ฅ0, and, for any ๐œ™โˆˆ๐ป๐‘š, โŸจฬ‚๐‘”๐‘š||||๐œ™,๐œ™โŸฉ=โŸจ๐œ“,๐œ™โŸฉ2.(5.14)

Theorem 5.3. Let ฬ‚๐‘”โ‰กฬ‚๐‘”๐œ“ be a density operator described by Proposition 5.2. Then ฬ‚๐‘”๐‘š=๎๐‘ƒ๐‘š๎๐‘ƒ๐œ“โŠ—๐‘š๐œ“.(5.15)

6. Conclusion

We performed a comparative analysis of two versions of the projection postulateโ€”due to von Neumann and Lรผders. We recalled that for observables with degenerate spectra these versions imply consequences which at least formally different. In the case of a composite system any measurement on a single subsystem is represented by an operator with degenerate spectrum. Such measurements play the fundamental role in quantum foundations and quantum information: from the original EPR argument to shemes of quantum teleportation and quantum computing. We formulated natural conditions reducing the von Neumann projection postulate to the Lรผders projection postulate; see the theorem. This theorem closed mentioned loopholes in QI-schemes. However, conditions of this theorem are the subject of further analysis.

References

  1. J. von Neumann, Mathematische Grundlagen der Quantenmechanik, Springer, Berlin, Germany, 1932.
  2. G. Lüders, โ€œUber die Zustansanderung durch den Messprozess,โ€ Ann. Phys. Lpz., vol. 8, p. 322, 1951. View at: Google Scholar
  3. A. Einstein, B. Podolsky, and N. Rosen, โ€œCan quantum-mechanical description of physical reality be considered complete?โ€ Physical Review, vol. 47, p. 777, 1935. View at: Google Scholar
  4. A. Khrennikov, โ€œThe role of von Neumann and Lüders postulates in the Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen considerations: comparing measurements with degenerate and nondegenerate spectra,โ€ Journal of Mathematical Physics, vol. 49, no. 5, Article ID 052102, 5 pages, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar | Zentralblatt MATH | MathSciNet
  5. A. Khrennikov, โ€œEPR “Paradox”, projection postulate, time synchronization “nonlocality”,โ€ International Journal of Quantum Information, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 71โ€“78, 2009. View at: Google Scholar
  6. A. Khrennikov, โ€œAnalysis of the role of von Neumann's projection postulate in the canonical scheme of quantum teleportation,โ€ Journal of Russian Laser Research, vol. 29, no. 3, pp. 296โ€“301, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  7. R. Raussendorf and H. J. Briegel, โ€œA one-way quantum computer,โ€ Physical Review Letters, vol. 86, no. 22, pp. 5188โ€“5191, 2001. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  8. G. Vallone, E. Pomarico, F. De Martini, and P. Mataloni, โ€œOne-way quantum computation with two-photon multiqubit cluster states,โ€ Physical Review A, vol. 78, no. 4, Article ID 042335, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  9. N. C. Menicucci, S. T. Flammia, and O. Pfister, โ€œOne-way quantum computing in the optical frequency comb,โ€ Physical Review Letters, vol. 101, no. 13, Article ID 130501, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  10. A. Khrennikov, โ€œThe role of von Neumann and Lüders postulates in the EPR-Bohm-Bell considerations: did EPR make a mistake?โ€ http://arxiv.org/abs/0801.0419. View at: Google Scholar
  11. G. Jaeger, Quantum Information: An Overview, Springer, New York, NY, USA, 2007. View at: MathSciNet
  12. M. Asano, M. Ohya, and Y. Tanaka, โ€œComplete m-level teleportation based on Kossakowski-Ohya scheme,โ€ in Proceedings of QBIC-2, Quantum Probability and White Noise Analysis, vol. 24, pp. 19โ€“29, 2009. View at: Google Scholar
  13. M. Ozawa, โ€œConditional probability and a posteriori states in quantum mechanics,โ€ Publications of Research Institute for Mathematical Sciences, vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 279โ€“295, 1985. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar | Zentralblatt MATH | MathSciNet
  14. W. M. De Muynck, โ€œInterpretations of quantum mechanics, and interpretations of violations of Bell's inequality,โ€ Quantum Probability and White Noise Analysis, vol. 13, pp. 95โ€“104, 2001. View at: Google Scholar
  15. W. M. De Muynck, Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, an Empiricists Approach, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dodrecht, The Netherlands, 2002.
  16. A. Khrennikov, Contextual Approach to Quantum Formalism, Springer, Berlin, Germany, 2009.

Copyright © 2010 Andrei Khrennikov. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Related articles

No related content is available yet for this article.
 PDF Download Citation Citation
 Download other formatsMore
 Order printed copiesOrder
Views1975
Downloads851
Citations

Related articles

No related content is available yet for this article.

Article of the Year Award: Outstanding research contributions of 2020, as selected by our Chief Editors. Read the winning articles.