= Solution
The deterministic law cannot be transplanted unchanged into <measurement-based quantum feedback>. Evaluating its state-dependent scalar requires knowledge of the current <quantum state>. In fact $C=\operatorname{Tr}(i[H_1,\rho_d]\rho)$ is the <expectation value> of a Hermitian observable, but that expectation cannot be obtained exactly from a single system without measurement backaction. Tomography uses many independently prepared copies, not a nondisturbing readout of one evolving state.
Continuous weak measurements can supply a noisy record and a conditional state estimate, but then the state follows stochastic measurement dynamics with additional disturbance and decoherence, rather than the closed unitary equation used in part (a). A new stochastic stability analysis is required. One may instead simulate the corrected <Lyapunov quantum control> from known initial data and apply its waveform as <open-loop control>, or learn a pulse across repeated experiments as in Question 3. Those procedures do not constitute real-time state feedback on a single quantum trajectory. The separate source error in part (a) remains: even ideal knowledge of the state would not make its printed overlap law monotone.
Back to article page
