2
$\begingroup$

I'm a little confused about the terminology of measurement.

So say that we have the single qubit state $|\phi \rangle=c_0|0\rangle+c_1|1\rangle$.

If we perform the projective measurement $P_0=|0\rangle\langle 0|$. Then we say that the probability of obtaining the measurement result $|0\rangle$ is $\langle \phi|P_0|\phi \rangle$. So in this case we're talking about a possible state that can occur in the collapse of the wavefunction of $|\phi\rangle$.

In the context of P.O.V.M. measurement where we assume it's not a projective measurement, and we label the measurement operators $E_i$ then we say that if the result of the measurement is $E_i$ then we assume that the state sent by Alice was state-x. The probability of the measurement result $\langle\phi_j| E_i |\phi_j\rangle$.

So, in this case, it seems as though we're talking about the measurement of an operator instead , but if $E$ can be projective operator and in the case of a projective operator we're measuring the probability of the state collapsing into some state, then why does it seem like that's not what's happening in the more general case ?

$\endgroup$
2
$\begingroup$

POVMs are more general than projective measurements. Thus, every projective measurement is also a POVM, by choosing $E_i=P_i$.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Perhaps I didn't phrase my question very well. I know that POVM's can be projective operators and just a more general case of measurement operator my confusion is about what is actually being measured. For in the case of projective measurements we're measuring a state but in the context of projective measurements it seems we're measuring an operator . Yet if POVM's can be projectors then why aren't we measuring an operator in that case too ? $\endgroup$ – bhapi Aug 14 at 0:51
1
$\begingroup$

In the case of projective measurements, we have a set of projectors $\{P_i\}$ satisfying the completeness relation $$ \sum_iP_i=I. $$ Note that this also means they satisfy $\sum_iP_i^\dagger P_i$, which I would argue is more relevant. If you have a state $|\phi\rangle$, then with probability $p_i=\langle\phi|P_i^\dagger P_i|\phi\rangle=\langle\phi|P_i|\phi\rangle$, you get outcome $i$. If you get outcome $i$, the state after measurement is $P_i|\phi\rangle/\sqrt{p_i}$.

For a general measurement, you have operators $\{M_i\}$ satisfying a completeness relation $$ \sum_iM_i^\dagger M_i=I $$ If you have a state $|\phi\rangle$, then with probability $p_i=\langle\phi|M_i^\dagger M_i|\phi\rangle$, you get outcome $i$. If you get outcome $i$, the state after measurement is $M_i|\phi\rangle/\sqrt{p_i}$. So you can see how projective measurements are a special case of general measurements.

POVMs use a slightly different formalism. They make the assumption that you are only interested in the probability of measurement outcomes, and not the state after measurement. So, they choose to set $E_i=M_i^\dagger M_i$, so they satisfy $\sum_iE_i=I$, and the probability of outcome $i$ is $p_i=\langle\phi|E_i|\phi\rangle$, but the formalism is deliberately chosen so you cannot answer the question of what the post-measurement state is.

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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