3
$\begingroup$

I have a very simple question on Generalized measurements.

The definition I was given is the one below:
A set of operator $\left \{ M_{\alpha} \right \}$ is called generalized measurements for an measurement operator $M_{\alpha}$ (not necessary projections operator) if $\sum_{\alpha} M_{\alpha}^H M_{\alpha}$

But does anyone have an other definition to help me understand?

  • What does it means that $M_{\alpha}$ is an operator?
  • It just has to be a linear operators ?
  • Moreover all the different operator of the set $\left \{ M_{\alpha} \right \}$ has to measure the same quantity $\alpha$ but what does it mean? That means that each $M_{\alpha}$ is susceptible to give us a different possible value of the quantity $\alpha$ ? It is strange because when we only want operators to be Hermitian the same operator $H$ apply on a state can give all the possible values of the quantity (that are the eigenvalues of $H$) that the operator $H$ represent? (At least this is what I've learned).

More generally any more precise, even longer definition/explanation on what is Generalized measurements will be great.

$\endgroup$

2 Answers 2

1
$\begingroup$

$\newcommand{\bra}[1]{\left<#1\right|}\newcommand{\ket}[1]{\left|#1\right>}\newcommand{\bk}[2]{\left<#1\middle|#2\right>}\newcommand{\bke}[3]{\left<#1\middle|#2\middle|#3\right>}$ I will try to explain the generalized measurements, and I hope I address all of your questions in my explanation.

Quantum measurements are described by a set $\{M_k\}$ of measurement operators satisfying one constraint $$\begin{align} \sum_k M_k^\dagger M_k = I \,.\tag{1} \end{align}$$

Given a state $\ket{\psi}$, immediately after measurement, it becomes $\ket{\psi_k}$, \begin{equation} \ket{\psi} \xrightarrow[]{\{M_k\}}\ket{\psi_k} \equiv \frac{M_k \ket{\psi}}{\sqrt{p_k}}\,,\tag{2} \end{equation}

with probability

\begin{align} p_k &= \bra{\psi}M^\dagger_kM_k\ket{\psi}\tag{3.1}\,,\\ &= \lVert M_k \ket{\psi} \rVert^2\tag{3.2}\,,\\ &\geq 0 \tag{3.3}\,. \end{align} Measurement outcome is the index $k$ of the state that resulted.

Assume if you perform measurement corresponding to $\{ M_1, M_2, \cdots, M_k \}$ on state $\ket{\psi}$, then there can be $k$ different outcomes which can occur. Any of these outcomes can occur at random with probabilistic odds given by Eq.$(3.1)$.

\begin{equation} \ket{\psi}\xrightarrow[]{\{ M_1,M_2, \cdots, M_k \}}\begin{cases} \ket{\psi_1}, & \text{with probability $p_1$ ----- Getting outcome 1}\\ \ket{\psi_2}, & \text{with probability $p_2$ ----- Getting outcome 2}\\ \vdots\\ \ket{\psi_k}, & \text{with probability $p_k$ ----- Getting outcome $k$} \end{cases} \end{equation}

You can think of these outcomes as some pointer device in your laboratory. If you have $k$ different possible outcomes for the measurement, in the lab, your apparatus will point to one of the $k$ possible points, and then you can say that $k$-outcome has happened, and then you can deduce that state of your system now is $\ket{\psi_k}$.

So, in general, these operators $\{M_k\}$ can be any linear operators, i.e. matrices, which satisfy the condition given in Eq. $(1)$.

However, there are special cases of this general mathematical framework of generalized measurements where, in each special case, apart from Eq.$(1)$, there are some additional conditions on measurement operators. For example, in Projective (Vonn Neumann) measurements, these measurement operators form a complete set of orthogonal projectors.

$\endgroup$
5
  • $\begingroup$ Thank a lot for your time and your details answer! $\endgroup$
    – OffHakhol
    Feb 10 at 10:11
  • $\begingroup$ So if I understood you well given a Hermitian operator is a special case. The set of $(M_{\alpha})$ of this operator will be the set of $ (\sqrt{P_{\lambda_i}}) $ with $P_{\lambda_i}$ a projector into the sub space corresponding to the e.v. $\lambda_i$? $\endgroup$
    – OffHakhol
    Feb 10 at 11:28
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ You are correct. We call that measuring an observable, but underlying mathematics is the same. Every hermitian operator is an observable. We can write the spectral decomposition of the $H$ as $$H = \lambda_k |k\rangle \langle k| \,,$$ where now, your possible outcomes are distinct eigenvalues $\{\lambda_k\}$ and measurement operators are the outer product of eigenvectors corresponding to that eigenvalue $\lambda_k$. $$M_k = P_k = |k\rangle \langle k|\,. $$ If there is degenercy in eigenvalues, then the corresponding projection measurement operator would be more than dimension 1. $\endgroup$
    – FDGod
    Feb 10 at 19:22
  • $\begingroup$ OK and so not all measurement are observable? How can it be? Physically speaking how can we have a measure of smthg that it is not observable? $\endgroup$
    – OffHakhol
    Feb 10 at 19:40
  • $\begingroup$ Yes, broadly speaking, there are two ways of measurement. One is measuring a state, and the other is measuring an observable. $\endgroup$
    – FDGod
    Feb 11 at 8:04
1
$\begingroup$

Forgetting for a second the way you formalise generalised measurements (that is, POVM), ask yourself how a "measurement" should be formalised in quantum mechanics. A measurement is effectively some rule sending any quantum state into a probability distribution describing the probability with which you should see each of the possible outcomes. In other words, for each outcome, call it $k$, you need a rule (that is, a function) sending each input state $\rho$ into a corresponding probability. Let us denote this function with $p_k$, so that $p_k(\rho)\in[0,1]$ for all states $\rho$.

As it happens, this function is linear. So for each outcome $k$, we need a linear function $p_k$ sending density matrices $\rho$ (which are linear operators) into numbers $p_k(\rho)$. As per usual considerations about duality, any such linear functional can be represented as $p_k(\rho)=\langle \mu_k,\rho\rangle\equiv \operatorname{tr}(\mu_k\rho)$ for some Hermitian $\mu_k$. Due to the bijection between $p_k$ and $\mu_k$, we can directly say that a "measurement" is the operator $\mu_k$. Or better said, a "measurement" is the set of such operators $\mu_k$. The other conditions on $\{ \mu_k\}$ follow from the properties of $p_k$: we want $\sum_k p_k(\rho)=1$, which corresponds to $\sum_k \mu_k=I$, and we want $p_k(\rho)\in[0,1]$, which corresponds to $0\le \mu_k \le I$.

The operators $\{\mu_k\}$ form a so-called POVM, which is the most general way to describe a measurement in quantum mechanics. But note that this is meant in the sense of: the most general way to describe the relation between quantum states and measurement probabilities. In particular, POVMs do not deal with/describe the potential states you might still have after the measurement. If you want to describe post-measurement states, the better approach is imo to think of it in terms of a measurement channel. The "generalised measurements" discussed in N&C are a (IMO) somewhat cryptic way to do this. They relate with the POVM as described above via the simple relation $\mu_k=M_k^\dagger M_k$. However, the operators $M_k$ also describe a way to get post-measurement states via the usual rule also mentioned in the other answer. More formally, you can think of $M_k$ as the Kraus operators of the measurement channel describing the situation.

$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ Thank a lot for your time and answer $\endgroup$
    – OffHakhol
    Feb 11 at 14:11

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.