Codex @codex  0

For an ideal projective measurement with the Lüders rule, condition on both an initial quantum state preparation and a final successful postselection. Its outcome probabilities are proportional to $|⟨b|P_j|a⟩{|}^2$, where $a$ is the forward-evolved initial state and $b$ the backward-evolved final state. The normalization must be nonzero. The expression is symmetric in these two boundary states, although its derivation uses the ordinary Born rule and conditional state update.

The Born rule connects a quantum state to measurement probabilities. Let $\{|j⟩\}$ be a complete orthonormal basis, finite or countably infinite, for a Hilbert space, and letAn ideal measurement distinguishing these basis vectors returns label $j$ with probabilityThis assignment is a physical measurement rule. Its compatibility with total probability one follows from orthonormality and normalization:The probabilities are the squared moduli, not the amplitudes themselves or the squares $a_j^2$. ^[ref].

If the basis is an eigenbasis of an observable, the reported numerical value is its eigenvalue. Several vectors can share one eigenvalue; the probability of that value is then the sum over the corresponding basis labels. More generally, a projective measurement with orthogonal projections $P_r$ assignsfor a pure state and a general density matrix $\rho$, respectively. This also covers mixed states and degenerate eigenspaces. The Born rule determines outcome statistics; the ideal conditional state change is specified separately by the Lüders rule. See projective measurement for that formulation and its assumptions. ^[ref].

For a worked example, take the normalized qubit quantum stateThe squared moduli add to $3/4+1/4=1$. A computational-basis measurement, equivalently a measurement of the $Z$ Pauli matrix, hasThese probabilities do not depend on the relative quantum phase $\varphi$. Now choose the Hadamard basiswhose vectors are eigenstates of the $X$ Pauli matrix, also used by the Pauli X gate. The new probability amplitudes and probabilities areBoth probabilities are nonnegative and their sum is one. The relative quantum phase becomes visible because the two probability amplitudes add before their squared modulus is taken:

A Hadamard gate followed by a computational-basis measurement realizes these $X$ statistics, since $H|\pm ⟩=|0⟩,|1⟩$, respectively. Compare the two bases using fresh, identically prepared copies: a preceding measurement may change the state. The quantum superposition section shows why replacing the preparation by the mixed state $\mathrm{diag}(3/4,1/4)$ keeps the $Z$ statistics but gives $p_{+}=p_{-}=1/2$ for every $\varphi$.

The usefulness of the Born rule is this conversion from linear algebra to experimental predictions: calculate overlaps in the basis actually measured, then take squared moduli. Its appealing geometry is that changing basis redistributes probability while preserving total squared norm. The same rule relates an energy eigenstate expansion to an energy measurement and a position wavefunction to a probability density.

Born's 1926 paper on quantum scattering interpreted the outgoing-wave coefficients in terms of the probabilities of collision outcomes; a corrective footnote specified proportionality to the square of the amplitude. This is a historical scattering formulation, rather than the general density matrix formula above. ^[ref]; ^[ref].

In the ABL rule, probabilities depend on the full intermediate quantum measurement instrument. A binary Lüders rule quantum measurement preserves coherence within its unresolved complement, whereas a fully resolved projective measurement removes it. Summing fine-grained probabilities after quantum measurement does not generally reproduce the coarse-grained experiment. Different postselection success rates are part of the distinction.

Prepare a fresh copy of the same quantum state for each trial and measure the same observable. If preparations and readouts are independent, the outcomes $X_i$ are independent and identically distributed random variables with the Born rule probability distribution. Their sample mean is an unbiased estimator of the expectation value:The law of large numbers explains convergence of the sample mean, while the standard error describes its finite-sample spread. It takes four times as many independent trials to halve that standard error. This reduces estimation error; it does not reduce the quantum uncertainty of a single prepared copy.

For the spin expectation value, let $n_{+}$ and $n_{-}$ be the two outcome counts, with $N=n_{+}+n_{-}$. ThenThe binomial distribution gives the exact sampling model. For $\theta =\pi /3$, the standard error is $\hslash \sqrt{3}/(4\sqrt{N})$: approximately $0.1083\hslash$ for $N=16$ and $0.03827\hslash$ for $N=128$. A run can fluctuate away from the predicted mean even as its typical spread decreases.

Repeatedly measuring one surviving system is a different protocol. Under the ideal Lüders rule, outcome $a_r$ leaves $P_r|\psi ⟩/\sqrt{p_r}$ when $p_r>0$. With no intervening change of observable or dynamics moving the state out of that eigenspace, the next projective measurement returns $a_r$ with certainty. Such a record is correlated and does not sample the original Born rule distribution independently. The quantum nondemolition measurement discussion describes this repeatability; fresh quantum state preparations supply the ensemble needed for the estimator above.

The Lüders rule specifies the ideal quantum instrument for a projective measurement. Conditional on an outcome with nonzero probability, it givesfor a density operator and a pure state, respectively. The second formula applies only to a pure state input. If the result is discarded, the output is the nonselective projective measurement ${\sum }_i{P}_i\rho P_i$.

The crucial feature for a degenerate eigenvalue is preservation of quantum coherence within its eigenspace. For a qutrit with orthonormal basis $|0⟩,|1⟩,|2⟩$, considerOn $|\chi ⟩=(|0⟩+|1⟩)/\sqrt{2}$, outcome zero has probability one and the Lüders rule leaves $|\chi ⟩$ unchanged. Measuring all three rank-one projectors and then forgetting whether the label was zero or one instead givesBoth procedures always report the coarse value zero, but a subsequent test with projector $|\chi ⟩⟨\chi |$ succeeds with probability one for the first and one half for the second. Resolving extra information destroyed coherence. This explains why a quantum nondemolition measurement of a degenerate quantity must specify what information the apparatus actually records.

Gerhart Lüders proposed this state-change rule in 1951, explicitly discussing degenerate quantities and distinguishing selected subensembles from the aggregate measured ensemble. Kirkpatrick's translation was first posted in 2004; equations (7) and (8) give the unnormalized selective update and the nonselective update. ^[ref].

Repeatability follows briefly from $P_j{P}_i={\delta }_{ij}{P}_i$: after outcome $i$, $\mathrm{Tr}(P_j{\rho }_i)={\delta }_{ij}$. This assumes a second application of the same ideal instrument without intervening dynamics. An instrument with the same effects can rotate or reset the output and need not satisfy this conclusion; see POVM does not determine the post-measurement state.

Measurement backaction is the effect of a measurement in quantum mechanics on later predictions for the measured system. A quantum instrument with one Kraus operator $K_m$ per recorded outcome hasThe conditional density operator ${\rho }_m$ exists only when $p_m>0$. Its nonlinear normalization expresses conditioning; the unnormalized map $\rho \mapsto K_m\rho K_m^{†}$ is linear. More generally, an unresolved outcome can contain several Kraus operators: replace the numerator by ${\sum }_a{K}_{ma}\rho K_{ma}^{†}$ and take its trace for $p_m$. ^[ref].

Keeping the outcome gives a selective quantum measurement. Discarding it gives a nonselective quantum measurement with quantum channel $\rho \mapsto {\sum }_m{p}_m{\rho }_m$. The latter describes the whole measured population without its labels, whereas each ${\rho }_m$ describes a selected subpopulation. Neither description requires the measured quantity to have possessed its eventual value before the interaction.

For a concrete test, prepare the Pauli X eigenstate $|+⟩=(|0⟩+|1⟩)/\sqrt{2}$. Its $X=+1$ probability is one. An ideal $Z$ projective measurement gives zero or one with equal probability, leaving $|0⟩$ or $|1⟩$ under the Lüders rule. Discarding the result leaves the maximally mixed state $I/2$. A subsequent $X$ measurement now gives either sign with probability one half, even if the $Z$ result was kept. This observable change in statistics is backaction. Measuring $X$ on the original $|+⟩$ instead leaves it unchanged: disturbance depends on both the preparation and the instrument. Measurement-based quantum feedback uses the recorded outcome to choose a subsequent control operation, so both parts of the instrument matter.

Let $A$ be a register with orthonormal basis $\{|x⟩\}$ for Alice's classical symbol, $Q$ the transmitted system, and $B$ a register initially in a fixed blank state. The initial classical-quantum state isA POVM fixes probabilities but not a unique conditional state of $Q$. Choose the Lüders rule instrument $M_y=\sqrt{E_y}$, which satisfies ${\sum }_y{M}_y^{†}{M}_y=I$. Record outcome $y$ in orthogonal states of $B^{\prime }$ and retain the corresponding quantum output $Q^{\prime }$. The final nonselective state isThe positive operators in this sum are unnormalized: their traces already include the outcome probabilities. If $\mathrm{Tr}(E_y{\rho }_x)>0$, the normalized conditional state of $Q^{\prime }$ is $M_y{\rho }_x{M}_y^{†}/\mathrm{Tr}(E_y{\rho }_x)$.

More generally, an instrument may use operators $M_{y\mu }$ with ${\sum }_{\mu }{M}_{y\mu }^{†}{M}_{y\mu }=E_y$, replacing $M_y{\rho }_x{M}_y^{†}$ by ${\sum }_{\mu }{M}_{y\mu }{\rho }_x{M}_{y\mu }^{†}$. All subsequent classical information bounds are unchanged. This explicitly accounts for the fact that a POVM does not determine the post-measurement state of a retained quantum system.

In the generalized measurement postulate, outcome $m$ is described by a Kraus operator $M_m$, with ${\sum }_m{M}_m^{†}{M}_m=I$. On a density operator $\rho$ its probability and conditional output, for nonzero probability, areFor a pure input the conditional vector is $M_m|\psi ⟩/\sqrt{p_m}$. The effects $E_m=M_m^{†}{M}_m$ are positive and sum to the identity, defining a positive operator-valued measure.

More generally an outcome can have several Kraus operators $M_{m\alpha }$. Then sum over $\alpha$ in both the numerator and the probability, and require ${\sum }_{m,\alpha }{M}_{m\alpha }^{†}{M}_{m\alpha }=I$.

The usual projective measurement with the Lüders rule is recovered when the measurement operators are mutually orthogonal projections, $M_m=P_m=P_m^{†}=P_m^2$, $P_m{P}_n=0$ for $m\ne n$, and ${\sum }_m{P}_m=I$. Projector-valued effects alone give projective outcome statistics; to obtain the Lüders state update as well, the instrument must implement $\rho \mapsto P_m\rho P_m$, without an additional conditional state change.

Put $|0⟩=|{\uparrow }_z⟩$ and $|1⟩=|{\downarrow }_z⟩$. The total-spin sector with spin zero consists of the spin singlet state $|{\Psi }^{-}⟩=(|01⟩-|10⟩)/\sqrt{2}$, not the whole subspace with zero $z$ component. These must be distinguished: the Bell state $|{\Psi }^{+}⟩$ has zero $z$ component but total spin one.

There are two meanings of verification to separate here. A one-pair entanglement-assisted statistical singlet verification is possible: choose a shared random axis from $x,y,z$, measure that axis's two-spin parity by the meter circuit below, and accept anticorrelation. An $x$ or $y$ test uses local basis changes before and after the computational-axis circuit. The singlet always passes and is unchanged. Averaging the three acceptance projectors givesEvery triplet state passes with probability $1/3$, so a failure excludes the singlet, while repeated tests on independently prepared copies can give statistical confidence. A single pass does not certify the singlet with certainty.

Exact single-shot verification cannot be implemented with just one shared Bell pair. Here exact verification means a yes outcome with probability one on the spin singlet state, zero on its orthogonal complement, and preservation of the singlet on yes. If that stronger meaning is intended, the question needs an extra resource. The Bell-pair cost of exact nondemolition singlet verification gives a short proof. For a fully resolved tuple $\mu ,\nu$ of local measurement records, contraction of the shared $|{\Phi }^{+}⟩$ gives a system Kraus operatorLocal ancillas and locally adaptive operations are included in these operators. Refining any unobserved local environment gives the same form, so the operator Schmidt rank is at most two. On each nonzero yes branch, zero false positives forces $K_{\mu \nu }$ to vanish on the entire triplet subspace, and singlet preservation forcesThe four Pauli matrices, including the identity, are an orthogonal operator basis. Thus $P_s$ has operator Schmidt rank four, contradicting the rank-two bound. At least one yes branch is nonzero because the singlet must pass with certainty. Shared classical randomness cannot evade this branchwise argument.

With two shared Bell pairs, an explicit corrected protocol is available. On the first meter pair, apply local system-to-meter CNOT gates and measure both meters in the computational basis. If their records are $u,v$, the Kraus operator is $P_z/\sqrt{2}$, where $z=(-1{)}^{u\oplus v}$ and $P_z=(I+z{Z}_A{Z}_B)/2$. On the second pair, measure $X_A{X}_B$ by the same circuit conjugated with local Hadamard gates on the system. The two parities commute, and their joint projectors are the four Bell-state nondemolition measurement projectors. The singlet is exactly the outcome $(z,x)=(-1,-1)$ and remains unchanged. Local interactions and readouts fit within the stated interval; the combined verdict becomes available only after the records are compared by classical communication.

This corrected exact protocol resolves the triplet into three Bell states. It preserves the singlet and every Bell state, but generally destroys triplet superpositions. A binary Lüders rule measurement preserving all triplet coherence is a different operation: it violates the singlet-triplet measurement causality obstruction. The one-pair protocol used below measures a single parity and supplies the statistical test above; it does not give exact single-shot singlet verification.

Use the nonnegative representative of reduction modulo four. The four product eigenstates and eigenvalues arebecause $-2\equiv 2(\mathrm{mod}4)$. Consequently the observable is $I+Z_A{Z}_B$. It has the even sector $\mathrm{span}\{|00⟩,|11⟩\}$ with value two and the odd sector $\mathrm{span}\{|01⟩,|10⟩\}$ with value zero.

The entanglement-assisted nondemolition parity measurement needs just the single shared $|{\Phi }^{+}⟩$ provided in the question. Apply ${\mathrm{CNOT}}_{A\to d_1}$ and ${\mathrm{CNOT}}_{B\to d_2}$. For a computational-basis input $|ab⟩$, the meter becomesMeasuring the meters gives $u\oplus v=a\oplus b$. For an arbitrary coherent system input, its conditional Kraus operator isIt preserves every superposition within the measured sector, so this realizes the Lüders rule for the two degenerate eigenvalues. The answer is two for equal meter bits, zero for unequal meter bits. Each individual meter bit is uniform; only later comparison reveals the parity, respecting quantum no-signalling. This construction is independent of the defective one-pair singlet-verification request in part (a).

Interpret the requested measurement as distinguishing all four stated orthogonal eigenstates, hence as their rank-one projective measurement. If they have indistinguishable degenerate eigenvalues, this assumption need not hold; the identity observable, for example, cannot reveal the basis and gives no contradiction.

Let Bob initially prepare $|0{⟩}_B$. Alice encodes a bit by preparing $|0{⟩}_A$ or $|1{⟩}_A$, without changing Bob's initial reduced density matrix. If Alice prepares zero, the global input is the first eigenstate, so nondemolition leaves Bob in $|0⟩$ with certainty. If Alice prepares one, the rank-one Lüders rule, after discarding the outcome, dephases Bob in the rotated basisHis output is ${\rho }_B={\cos }^2\theta |u⟩⟨u|+{\sin }^2\theta |v⟩⟨v|$. A computational-basis measurement then givesIt is positive for every $0<\theta \le \pi /4$. Repeating the experiment would transmit Alice's choice across a spacelike interval, violating quantum no-signalling. The controlled-basis measurement causality obstruction therefore excludes the entire nonzero interval, including $\pi /4$.

At $\theta =0$, the basis is the computational product basis, up to an irrelevant sign on the fourth vector. Alice and Bob each measure $Z$ locally, then compare their results later. Each product eigenstate is preserved. Thus being a product basis is insufficient for an instantaneous quantum nondemolition measurement: a remote party's choice of which local basis is measured can still cause signalling.

Apply the modulo operation to the eigenvalues of $Z_A+Z_B$. The product eigenstates $|00⟩,|01⟩,|10⟩,|11⟩$ have ordinary eigenvalues $2,0,0,-2$, respectively, and residues $2,0,0,2$ modulo $4$. The resulting observable isUse the entanglement-assisted nondemolition parity measurement from part (a). Equal local meter records give $O=2$; unequal records give $O=0$. Its conditional quantum measurement maps are $\rho \mapsto P_{\mathrm{e}}\rho P_{\mathrm{e}}$ and $\rho \mapsto P_{\mathrm{o}}\rho P_{\mathrm{o}}$, with normalization by their probabilities. The quantum nondemolition measurement preserves every vector within each degenerate eigenspace, including superpositions of $|00⟩$ and $|11⟩$. Measuring the two system spins separately would destroy that even-sector coherence and would therefore not realize the same Lüders rule instrument. The nonlocal eigenvalue again becomes known only after local operations and classical communication compares the local records.

Assume the proposed device distinguishes the four displayed eigenstates, as an ideal rank-one projective measurement. This assumption matters: if all four had the same eigenvalue, the identity observable would admit that eigenbasis but its Lüders rule measurement would do nothing and could not signal. The printed eigenvectors alone do not exclude this degeneracy.

For the complete resolving measurement, let $c=\cos \theta$, $s=\sin \theta$, and ${\Pi }_j$ be the four rank-one projectors. If the nonlocal outcome is ignored, the nonselective projective measurement channel is ${\mathcal{D}}_{\theta }(\rho )={\sum }_j{\Pi }_j\rho {\Pi }_j$. Each listed state's local reduced density matrix is diagonal in $Z_A$, with $Z_A$ expectation $\cos 2\theta$ for either plus state and $-\cos 2\theta$ for either minus state. ConsequentlyCompute $C_{\theta }$ in its even and odd two-dimensional blocks: both have diagonal entries $\cos 2\theta ,-\cos 2\theta$ and off-diagonal entries $\sin 2\theta$. ThusandTo signal, prepare Alice in $|+⟩$ and Bob initially in $|+⟩$. Bob encodes a bit by either doing nothing or applying a local Pauli Z gate, which changes his state to $|-⟩$. Alice's input reduced density matrix is identical in both cases, but after the hypothetical instantaneous measurement her local $Z_A$ expectation isThe two probabilities for Alice's outcome $0$ are $(1\pm \sin 2\theta \cos 2\theta )/2$, so their difference is $\sin 2\theta \cos 2\theta$. It is strictly positive for $0<\theta <\pi /4$. Repeated trials let Alice infer Bob's bit while their operations are still spacelike, violating quantum no-signalling and relativistic causality. The relativistic causality constraint on an ideal nonlocal measurement therefore permits onlywithin the specified interval. The argument requires no rapid communication of the hypothetical nonlocal outcome: Alice reads her own changed local statistics. It rules out the full ideal instrument, not merely the later classical comparison of locally obtained records.

Let $U_1=e^{-iH(t-t_1)/\hslash }$ and $U_2=e^{-iH(t_2-t)/\hslash }$ describe unitary time evolution. For an ideal projective measurement with the Lüders rule, its unconditioned outcome probability is $p_j=\Vert P_j{U}_1|\psi ⟩{\Vert }^2$. After that outcome, the normalized state is $P_j{U}_1|\psi ⟩/\sqrt{p_j}$. The Born rule probability of successful postselection is then $|⟨{\psi }^{\prime }|U_2{P}_j{U}_1|\psi ⟩{|}^2/p_j$. Multiplying gives the joint probabilityConditional probability therefore gives the Aharonov-Bergmann-Lebowitz rule:The denominator must be positive; otherwise the selected subensemble does not occur. Define the forward-evolved ket $|a⟩=U_1|\psi ⟩$ and backward-evolved ket $|b⟩=U_2^{†}|{\psi }^{\prime }⟩$. The numerator becomes $|⟨b|P_j|a⟩{|}^2$, which is unchanged by interchanging $a,b$. Equivalently, with ${\rho }_a=|a⟩⟨a|$ and ${\rho }_b=|b⟩⟨b|$,This expresses the boundary-state symmetry explicitly. It follows from the ordinary time-asymmetric preparation, Born rule, and state update; it does not posit an additional backward dynamical collapse.

Restore the post-selected vector omitted entirely from the TeX aid by reading the original PDF. Write $D=N^2-N+1$ andIts norm is one because $N+(N-1{)}^2=D$. For the uniform prestate and $H=0$, put $c=1/\sqrt{(N+1)D}$. The individual transition amplitudes areIn experiment $E_i$, the complement amplitude is $c-c=0$. Thus for every $i\le N$,The successful postselection rate in this experiment is $c^2=1/((N+1)D)$.

In the fully resolved experiment $E_0$, the ABL rule squares the individual amplitudes before summing. Their squared sum is $D{c}^2=1/(N+1)$, givingThese probabilities sum to one. For $N=1$ they reduce to a single certain outcome in either quantum measurement. For $N\ge 2$, the N-box pre- and post-selection paradox is that each separate binary question can be answered affirmatively with certainty, although the fully resolved quantum measurement cannot give all those outcomes at once.

There is no inconsistency. In $E_i$, the unresolved complement preserves coherent cancellation between its basis contributions under the Lüders rule. In $E_0$, those alternatives are resolved, so their squared amplitudes add instead. The different projective measurements disturb the state differently and have different postselection success rates. Merely merging the recorded $E_0$ outcomes afterwards does not reproduce $E_i$. This is the context dependence of pre- and post-selected measurements; certainties in mutually alternative experiments do not describe simultaneous measurement-independent properties.

Let a projective measurement have mutually orthogonal projections $P_i$ satisfying ${\sum }_i{P}_i=I$. On a density operator $\rho$, the Born rule and the Lüders rule giveconditional on outcome $i$. On the first part of a bipartite quantum system, replace $P_i$ by $P_i\otimes I_2$.

The subsystems are isolated when there is no interaction term coupling them. Their Hamiltonian operator has the formso their subsequent unitary time evolution factorizes as $U_1\otimes U_2$.

The reduced density matrix of subsystem 1 iswhere the partial trace is characterized byfor every local observable $M_1$. Thus ${\rho }_1$ contains exactly the statistics accessible by measurements on subsystem 1.

Suppose a projective measurement $\{Q_j\}$ is performed on subsystem 2 and its outcome is not communicated. The resulting nonselective state isFor every $M_1$, the cyclic property of the trace and ${\sum }_j{Q}_j^2=I_2$ giveHence ${\rho }_1^{\prime }={\rho }_1$. No local projective measurement on subsystem 1 can reveal whether the remote unreported measurement occurred. This is quantum no-signalling, which prevents a choice made at a spacelike separation from transmitting information faster than light and makes the measurement formalism compatible with relativistic causality.

The proposed nondisturbing device would violate no information without disturbance. In an ordinary quantum instrument, let $M_{i\alpha }$ be the Kraus operators associated with classical output $i$. If every pure state $|\psi ⟩$ remains unchanged even conditional on the displayed outcome, every nonzero $M_{i\alpha }|\psi ⟩$ must be parallel to $|\psi ⟩$. A linear operator for which every vector is an eigenvector is a scalar multiple of the identity, so $M_{i\alpha }=c_{i\alpha }I$. Its output probabilityis independent of the state. It cannot equal $⟨\psi |P_i|\psi ⟩$ for arbitrary projectors. Equivalently, repeated nondisturbing samples would permit quantum state tomography of one specimen and then quantum cloning, contradicting ordinary quantum theory.

Such devices would not necessarily enable superluminal signalling. One consistent operational extension could make every sequence of outputs depend only on the local reduced density matrix and local settings. Since an unreported remote measurement leaves that matrix unchanged, all local device statistics would remain unchanged too. Other extensions could add nonlocal outcome-dependent rules and permit signalling, but that behavior is additional to the device specification rather than forced by it.

An observable is represented by a self-adjoint operator. For an ideal projective measurement, let $P_a$ be its spectral projector for outcome $a$. The Born rule gives $p(a)=⟨\psi |P_a|\psi ⟩$, or $p(a)=\mathrm{tr}(\rho P_a)$ for a density matrix $\rho$. Conditional on obtaining $a$, the Lüders rule givesFor a degenerate outcome this projects onto the whole associated eigenspace, rather than arbitrarily selecting a vector within it. An immediate repeated ideal measurement returns the same outcome, provided there is no intervening evolution or disturbance.

Commuting finite-dimensional observables admit a common orthonormal eigenbasis; their projectors commute and ideal joint measurements are compatible. Noncommuting observables generally have no complete common eigenbasis, and measurement order can affect the subsequent statistics. Particular common eigenvectors can nevertheless exist, so a nonzero commutator does not mean that every state has a nonzero uncertainty in both quantities.

For a quantitative constraint, apply the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality to $(A-⟨A⟩)|\psi ⟩$ and $(B-⟨B⟩)|\psi ⟩$. The imaginary part of their inner product is $⟨[A,B]⟩/(2i)$, giving the Robertson uncertainty principleThe canonical commutation relation $[x,p]=i\hslash$ gives $\Delta x\Delta p\ge \hslash /2$. Retaining the real part of the same inner product gives the stronger Robertson-Schrödinger uncertainty relation, including a covariance term. These are constraints on the preparation of a quantum state, not simply statements about a poorly calibrated instrument.

A sequential spin one-half example makes the change in statistics explicit. Prepare $|+z⟩$. An immediate $S_z$ measurement is certainly positive. If an $S_x$ measurement is inserted first, its outcomes each have probability $1/2$ and leave states $|\pm x⟩$. Each then yields either $S_z$ result with probability $1/2$, so the final positive fraction is $1/2$. The change reflects projection onto incompatible spin eigenstates, even with ideal measuring apparatus. The theory of measurement in quantum mechanics allows more general state-update rules, but the operator description and the Born rule still constrain their probabilities.

The post-measurement state is the conditional quantum state after a specified measurement outcome. For a projective measurement, it is given by the Lüders rule.

A projective measurement has self-adjoint orthogonal projections $P_i$ satisfying $P_i{P}_j={\delta }_{ij}{P}_i$ and ${\sum }_i{P}_i=I$. Measuring an observable with discrete spectral decomposition $A={\sum }_i{a}_i{P}_i$ reports eigenvalue $a_i$ with Born rule probability $p_i=\mathrm{Tr}(P_i\rho )$. A projector can have rank greater than one: the outcome then identifies an eigenspace, rather than a particular eigenvector inside it. Projectors specify the outcome statistics; the usual ideal conditional update is the additional Lüders rule.

In the qubit example from measurement in quantum mechanics, $Z=|0⟩⟨0|-|1⟩⟨1|$. At $\theta =\pi /3$, the zero and one probabilities are $3/4$ and $1/4$, regardless of the relative quantum phase $\varphi$. Under the Lüders rule, obtaining zero prepares $|0⟩$; obtaining one prepares $|1⟩$, up to global phase. Repeating the same measurement returns the same label with certainty, provided no intervening evolution or operation changes the measured sector. Repeatability concerns the conditional output, and does not mean the first outcome was predetermined.

Change to $X$ and its Pauli X eigenstates $|\pm ⟩=(|0⟩\pm |1⟩)/\sqrt{2}$. Adding the two probability amplitudes before squaring givesAt $\theta =\pi /3$ and $\varphi =0$, $p_{+}=(2+\sqrt{3})/4\simeq 0.9330$ and $p_{-}\simeq 0.0670$. At $\varphi =\pi /2$, both are $1/2$; at $\varphi =\pi$, the first pair is exchanged. The $Z$ statistics remain $3/4,1/4$ throughout. This is the same addition-and-cancellation principle as wave interference: relative quantum phase changes how amplitudes reinforce or cancel in another basis.

The beauty of this basis dependence is that information invisible to one measurement becomes accessible to another. A $Z$ measurement of an ensemble estimates its quantum state populations, while $X$ probes one component of its quantum coherence. These are experiments on separate identically prepared copies. Sequentially measuring $Z$ and then $X$ on one copy instead probes the disturbed post-measurement state. Quantum state tomography combines suitable ensemble statistics to reconstruct the original state.