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.

A finite family of quantum states is antidistinguishable if a quantum measurement has labelled outcomes such that each outcome has zero probability for its corresponding state, while the outcomes form a complete quantum measurement. It can exclude a state without identifying which state was prepared. The PBR exclusion measurement for zero and plus supplies a four-state projective measurement example.

Two positive rank-one effects summing to $I$ in dimension two must be complementary orthogonal projections. Write the first as $\alpha |\psi ⟩⟨\psi |$ with normalized $\psi$. The second has eigenvalues $1-\alpha$ and $1$, so its rank-one condition forces $\alpha =1$. The two unit Bloch vectors are antipodal, and this POVM is a projective measurement.

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].

The scattering interpretation connects an incoming preparation to the relative frequency of outgoing directions and final atomic states. Max Born's 1926 paper treats a distant incoming Electron and a chemical atom, expands the outgoing wavefunction into final atomic states, and imposes conservation of energy. Its translated correction footnote specifies the square of the coefficient; the modern complex modulus notation below is ours.^[ref]

In his 11 December 1954 lecture, Max Born recalled the difficulty of interpreting bound Electrons alone. He instead described an incident Electron wave generating an outgoing spherical wave, with direction-dependent squared amplitude determining relative scattering probabilities. Distinct final atomic states describe excitation with corresponding Electron energy loss. This is a retrospective account of an interpretation, rather than the report of a new apparatus.^[ref]

The distinction from the modern Born rule matters. The historical question was which collision outcome occurs: a direction of motion and a final atomic state. The general projective measurement formula applies to arbitrary observables, including degenerate outcomes and mixed states; a positive operator-valued measure describes still more general detector statistics. Those formulations should not be read back as the explicit contents of the short 1926 scattering paper. Nor does the scattering interpretation itself supply a rule for the conditional post-measurement state.

Actual experimental settings are described in the Davisson–Germer experiment and the Franck-Hertz experiment. The former scans collected electric current as an Electron beam scatters from prepared nickel; changing direction, accelerating voltage and surface preparation probes electron diffraction. The latter uses acceleration through mercury vapor and a retarding collector to infer discrete energy losses from current minima, with vapor density and retarding settings as controls. Angular resolution and surface backgrounds limit the first inference; initial energy spread and collision positions limit the second. These linked experiments supply the preparation, apparatus and readout; the examples below are original calculations, not Born's measured data.

Let self-adjoint orthogonal projections $P_i$ sum to the identity. For $v$ in the range of $P_j$,The $j$th term already equals $\Vert v{\Vert }^2$, so $P_{i}v=0$ for every $i\ne j$. Hence $P_i{P}_j=P_j{P}_i=0$ and the projective measurement operators commute.

// Target: quantum-theory.bigb

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.

A rank-one projective measurement whose Bob basis is computational when Alice is zero and rotated by $\theta$ when Alice is one can signal. Bob starts in zero. Alice zero leaves Bob zero; Alice one dephases Bob in the rotated basis, giving the displayed nonzero flip probability for $0<\theta \le \pi /4$. This violates quantum no-signalling. The conclusion applies to a measurement distinguishing the four product-basis states, rather than a degenerate observable that does not resolve them.

A finite-dimensional density operator $\rho$ represents a quantum state on a Hilbert space. It is Hermitian, positive semidefinite, and has trace one:The density matrix is its matrix in a chosen orthonormal basis. In dimension $N$ it has $N^2-1$ real parameters: a Hermitian matrix has $N^2$, and fixing its trace removes one; positivity restricts the allowed values.

A quantum state ensemble of normalized pure states $|{\psi }_i⟩$ with positive probabilities $p_i$ givesZero-weight terms can be omitted. Conversely, the spectral theorem gives such an ensemble for every density operator, using its orthonormal eigenvectors and nonnegative eigenvalues, with zero eigenvalues omitted. A pure state has $\rho =|\psi ⟩⟨\psi |$; a mixed state needs at least two nonzero eigenvalues. ^[ref]

For a projective measurement with orthogonal projections ${\Pi }_a$, the Born rule isThis is the average of the component pure state probabilities. Positivity makes each outcome probability nonnegative, and ${\sum }_a{\Pi }_a=I$ makes them sum to one. The same density operator therefore predicts every measurement on the system without requiring a unique preparation history. ^[ref]

For a closed system, Schrödinger picture evolution under a unitary operator iswhen ${\rho }_H={\rho }_S(0)$ denotes the time-independent Heisenberg picture state and $U(0)=I$. In the Schrödinger picture the density operator evolves; in the Heisenberg picture the observables evolve instead, with identical measurement predictions. This unitary operator preserves the eigenvalues and hence the purity of a density operator. ^[ref]

A historical source for the probabilistic formulation of quantum mechanics is von Neumann's 1927 paper Wahrscheinlichkeitstheoretischer Aufbau der Quantenmechanik. ^[ref]

A dephasing channel suppresses off-diagonal entries of a density matrix in a preferred basis while preserving quantum state populations. Complete dephasing is identical to a projective measurement in that basis with its outcome discarded.

For the Bell correlations versus a classical mixture example, completely dephasing Alice's qubit in the computational basis maps ${\rho }_{\mathrm{Bell}}$ to ${\rho }_{\mathrm{mix}}$. It preserves their perfect $Z$ agreement and each reduced density matrix, yet destroys the $X$ correlation. This is why testing only populations can miss damage to a quantum memory: the stored quantum coherence may have disappeared while every preferred-basis measurement still looks correct. The joint Von Neumann entropy rises from zero to one bit, although each local entropy stays fixed.

Suppose a constant Hamiltonian operator has a complete discrete orthonormal basis of energy eigenstates, $H|n⟩=E_n|n⟩$. Expanding an initial pure state and applying the time-evolution operator term by term givesA projective measurement resolving these basis vectors therefore assigns the same Born rule probability $|c_n{|}^2$ to each label $n$ at every time. An energy measurement groups labels sharing the same energy eigenvalue: $P(E)={\sum }_{n:E_n=E}|c_n{|}^2$ is also constant. If $c_m,c_n\ne 0$, their probability amplitude ratio instead evolves asOnly energy differences enter this relative quantum phase. Adding a constant $\epsilon I$ to the Hamiltonian operator multiplies the entire pure state by $e^{-i\epsilon t/\hslash }$, a global phase, and leaves the density operator unchanged.

For a fixed observable $A$, the expectation value can nevertheless vary:Terms joining distinct energy eigenvalues can oscillate; diagonal terms cannot. If $[A,H]=0$, these terms between different energies vanish, so the expectation value is constant. This distinguishes conservation of energy from the stronger claim that every observable is stationary.

An energy eigenstate has only a global phase evolution and is a stationary state. A quantum superposition entirely within one degenerate energy eigenspace is also an energy eigenstate and is stationary. For a general density operator in finite dimension, stationarity under a constant Hamiltonian operator means $[H,\rho ]=0$: differentiating $U\rho U^{†}$ proves necessity, and commuting $\rho$ through the exponential proves sufficiency. Merely fixing the diagonal energy populations does not fix the off-diagonal quantum coherence.

For $|v_s(\eta )⟩=(|0⟩+(-1{)}^s{e}^{i\eta }|1⟩)/\sqrt{2}$, adding $\pi$ exchanges the two outcomes of the same projective measurement. At an angle $\varphi =j\pi /2$, the choices $\varphi$ and $-\varphi$ therefore specify the same unordered pair of projectors: their labels differ by $j\mathrm{mod}2$. An adaptive choice between these signs can be replaced by a fixed measurement and a classical label exchange. Together with Pauli-frame propagation along a measurement wire, this permits simultaneous measurements when all adaptive sign changes occur at these Clifford gate angles.

The orthonormal quantum states $|{\alpha }_s⟩=(|0⟩+(-1{)}^s{e}^{-i\alpha }|1⟩)/\sqrt{2}$, $s=0,1$, define an equatorial projective measurement. The measured observable is $\cos \alpha X-\sin \alpha Y$, with eigenvalue $(-1{)}^s$. Thus $\alpha =0$ measures $X$, and $\alpha =\pi /2$ measures $-Y$ with these outcome labels. The sign convention matters when comparing different definitions of equatorial bases.

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 expectation value of a quantum observable is the expected value of its measurement outcome random variable in a specified quantum state. It predicts the mean of outcomes from many identical quantum state preparations. It need not equal any one possible outcome: for a spin one-half particle, equal probabilities of $+\hslash /2$ and $-\hslash /2$ give mean zero even though zero is never an outcome of that spin component. Here $\hslash$ is the reduced Planck constant.

Let $A=A^{†}$ be a Hermitian operator on a finite-dimensional Hilbert space, and let $|\psi ⟩$ be a normalized pure state, $⟨\psi |\psi ⟩=1$. The spectral theorem writesThe $a_r$ are distinct real eigenvalues, $P_r$ are orthogonal projections onto their eigenspaces, and $I$ is the identity operator. For an ideal projective measurement of $A$, the Born rule and the expectation value giveThus the expectation value is a probability-weighted average of eigenvalues, including all vectors in a degenerate eigenspace in its $P_r$. In an orthonormal eigenbasis, $|\psi ⟩={\sum }_j{c}_j|j⟩$, this is ${\sum }_j{a}_j|c_j{|}^2$, where repeated $a_j$ are allowed. The weighted average lies between the smallest and largest eigenvalues; it can lie in a gap between them. The statistical meaning and operator expression are connected in this way in the authored treatment of average energies.^[ref]

If a nonzero vector $|v⟩$ has not been normalized, use $⟨v|A|v⟩/⟨v|v⟩$; the denominator is essential. A global phase cancels between the bra and ket, so $|\psi ⟩$ and $e^{i\gamma }|\psi ⟩$ have the same expectation value and outcome probabilities.

The outcome variance measures the spread about this mean, whereas the quantum uncertainty is its standard deviation:For a pure state, zero variance means that $|\psi ⟩$ lies entirely in one eigenspace. That eigenspace need not be one-dimensional. Knowing only a mean generally does not determine the entire outcome probability distribution.

For a mixed state, the same formulas use its density matrix $\rho$, a positive operator with trace one:A pure state is the special case $\rho =|\psi ⟩⟨\psi |$. For a quantum state ensemble $\rho ={\sum }_k{w}_k{\rho }_k$, the expectation value is ${\sum }_k{w}_k⟨A{⟩}_{{\rho }_k}$. This linearity is useful when preparations vary between trials; different quantum state ensembles can have the same density matrix.

These formulas require no operator-domain qualifications in finite dimension. For an unbounded self-adjoint operator, the spectral theorem instead gives a spectral probability measure; a finite mean requires an integrable absolute first moment, and finite variance requires a finite second moment. Writing $⟨\psi |A|\psi ⟩$ as an operator inner product additionally requires $|\psi ⟩$ in the operator domain of $A$. The quadratic form of a positive quantum Hamiltonian explains the useful wider form-domain version.

Suppose one qubit is prepared in either of the known pure states $|0⟩$ and $|+⟩=(|0⟩+|1⟩)/\sqrt{2}$, with equal prior probabilities. Measuring in the computational basis seems natural, but a tilted projective measurement gives better quantum state discrimination. The two density operators and their difference areThe Pauli matrices give ${\Delta }^2=I/2$, and the eigenvalues of $\Delta$ are ${\lambda }_{\pm }=\pm 1/\sqrt{2}$. Their absolute sum gives trace distance $D=1/\sqrt{2}$, agreeing with trace distance between qubit states.

The positive spectral projector points along the unit Bloch vector $\mathbf{n}=(-1,0,1)/\sqrt{2}$:The outcome labels $+$ and $-$ here refer to the sign of the eigenvalue of $\Delta$; they do not denote a Hadamard basis measurement. Guess $|0⟩$ after $P_{+}$ and $|+⟩$ after $P_{-}$. This sign choice is the equal-prior Helstrom measurement for two pure states, a case of the Holevo–Helstrom theorem. ^[ref]

An explicit orthonormal basis for this projective measurement iswith $P_{\pm }=|h_{\pm }⟩⟨h_{\pm }|$. Thus the real coefficient rotation angle is $\beta =-\pi /8$ relative to the computational basis, while the Bloch vector of $P_{+}$ is tilted by $\pi /4$ from the positive $z$ axis toward negative $x$. State-vector and Bloch sphere angles differ by a factor of two.

Write $a=(1+1/\sqrt{2})/2$ and $b=(1-1/\sqrt{2})/2$, so $a+b=1$. The Born rule gives the conditional outcome probabilitiesThe event $P_{+}$ has probability gap $a-b=1/\sqrt{2}=D$, attaining the variational characterization of trace distance. Both preparations are identified correctly with conditional probability $a$, so

For comparison, a $Z$ projective measurement in the computational basis has conditional outcome probabilities $(1,0)$ on ${\rho }_0$ and $(1/2,1/2)$ on ${\rho }_{+}$. Guess zero on outcome zero and plus on outcome one. The average success isand the measured total variation distance is only $1/2$. The optimal tilted projective measurement gains about $0.103553$ in absolute success probability by balancing the two conditional error rates instead of identifying $|0⟩$ perfectly at the expense of $|+⟩$.

These are statistics for alternative measurements on independently prepared copies. Applying $Z$ first and then the tilted projective measurement is a different experiment, because the first measurement in quantum mechanics changes the density operator.