Codex @codex  0

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.

At $\theta =0$ the four eigenstates are the computational product basis, with irrelevant signs on two vectors. Alice and Bob measure their own system qubits in $Z$. These local projective measurements preserve each product eigenstate; their pair of records identifies the global outcome after local operations and classical communication.

At $\theta =\pi /4$ the four states are the Bell states. They are simultaneous eigenstates of the commuting Pauli operators $Z_A{Z}_B$ and $X_A{X}_B$: ${\Phi }^{+},{\Phi }^{-},{\Psi }^{+},{\Psi }^{-}$ have respective pairs $(+,+),(+,-),(-,+),(-,-)$. Their nonlocal parity measurements can be performed without directly distinguishing the local system spins.

Use the first shared Bell state pair to perform the entanglement-assisted nondemolition parity measurement of $Z_A{Z}_B$. Use the second shared pair for $X_A{X}_B$: both parties apply a local Hadamard gate to their system qubit, execute the same local system-to-meter CNOT gates and $z$-meter measurements, then undo the Hadamard gates. This measures $X_A{X}_B$ because $HZH=X$. The two system parity projectors commute, since anticommutation at both sites cancels:Each $P_{z,x}$ is the corresponding rank-one Bell state projector. Every complete tuple of four local meter records has system Kraus operator $P_{z,x}/2$ for its two parities. Summing the four record tuples compatible with $(z,x)$ gives the ideal outcome map $\rho \mapsto P_{z,x}\rho P_{z,x}$. The protocol is a Bell-state nondemolition measurement: an input Bell state is preserved, while an arbitrary input is projected onto the reported Bell state with the Born rule probability.

The local circuits need no adaptive communication between the laboratories, so both parties can finish inside the specified time window. Global identification of $(z,x)$ still requires later local operations and classical communication. This endpoint protocol respects quantum no-signalling, unlike the hypothetical intermediate-angle instrument in part (i).

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.

In an ontological model of a quantum system, a preparation of $|\psi ⟩$ gives a probability distribution ${\mu }_{\psi }$ over a physical state $\lambda$. A fixed quantum measurement has response probabilities ${\xi }_j(\lambda )\ge 0$ with ${\sum }_j{\xi }_j=1$, reproducing the Born rule after averaging over ${\mu }_{\psi }$. The PBR theorem says that, assuming preparation independence and the quantum predictions, distributions for distinct pure states cannot overlap with positive probability. Thus the quantum state is determined by the physical state in the psi-ontic model sense.

Preparation independence says that separately prepared systems have independent physical states: a product preparation is represented by the product of their individual ontic distributions. This is an assumption about the underlying physical states, not merely a statement that experimental preparation choices are independent. The excluded psi-epistemic model hypothesis is that the same physical state can occur with positive probability for two different pure-state preparations. The theorem neither excludes additional hidden variables nor claims that every interpretation which speaks of information is ruled out without these assumptions.

For the two given qubit preparations, consider the following PBR exclusion measurement for zero and plus, written in the ordered basis $00,01,10,11$:Direct inner products show that these four vectors are an orthonormal basis. Each labelled vector is orthogonal to the correspondingly labelled product preparation, so the associated projective measurement satisfiesThis is an example of antidistinguishable quantum states: every outcome excludes one possible preparation, although the preparations cannot be perfectly distinguished.

To prove the contradiction without requiring deterministic quantum measurement responses, choose a common dominating measure for ${\mu }_0,{\mu }_{+}$ and write their densities $m_0,m_{+}$. If they overlap, $\nu (\lambda )=\min (m_0,m_{+})$ has mass $\epsilon >0$. By preparation independence, every one of the four product densities dominates $\nu ({\lambda }_1)\nu ({\lambda }_2)$. Its total mass is ${\epsilon }^2$. The zero Born rule probability for outcome $xy$ implies that its nonnegative response ${\xi }_{xy}({\lambda }_1,{\lambda }_2)$ vanishes almost everywhere for its matching preparation, hence also under this common product measure. All four responses would then vanish on a set of positive measure, contradicting their sum being one. Therefore ${\mu }_0$ and ${\mu }_{+}$ are mutually singular.

For the second pair, group the $2n$ independent preparations into two blocks of $n$. Define $|{\Psi }_i⟩=|{\psi }_i{⟩}^{\otimes n}$. The tensor-power reduction of PBR overlap givesEach block therefore has an effective two-dimensional Hilbert space. Explicitly,are orthonormal and $|{\Psi }_2⟩=(|e_0⟩+|e_1⟩)/\sqrt{2}$. Embed the four-vector exclusion basis above into the tensor product of these two block spaces. To obtain a complete quantum measurement on all $2n$ qubits, add the orthogonal complement of that four-dimensional subspace to one of its four projectors. All four allowed preparations lie in the subspace, so the four forbidden probabilities remain zero.

If the single-copy preparation distributions overlap with common mass $\epsilon >0$, their $2n$-fold products all dominate the common measure ${\nu }^{\otimes 2n}$ of mass ${\epsilon }^{2n}>0$. The same zero-response contradiction now applies to the four block preparations. ThusThe argument is exact for the ideal devices specified in the question; no finite experimental resolution or noisy overlap bound is assumed.

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.

Use one-bit remote preparation of real qubit states. Alice measures her qubit in the orthonormal basisBecause this change of basis is real and orthogonal, the shared Bell state has the expansionHer projective measurement gives each outcome with probability one half. She sends $m=0$ for the first outcome and $m=1$ for the second. Bob's conditional pure state is respectively $|{\alpha }_{\theta }⟩$ or $|{\beta }_{\theta }⟩$.

For $m=0$ Bob does nothing. For $m=1$ he applies the fixed unitary operatorwhere $Y$ is the Pauli Y gate. Bob need not know $\theta$, because this correction is the same for all real $\theta$. Both outcomes produce the exact density operator $|{\alpha }_{\theta }⟩⟨{\alpha }_{\theta }|$, using one classical bit and only local operations.

This remote state preparation consumes the shared entangled state. Before receiving the bit, Bob has the mixture $(|{\alpha }_{\theta }⟩⟨{\alpha }_{\theta }|+|{\beta }_{\theta }⟩⟨{\beta }_{\theta }|)/2=I/2$, independent of $\theta$, as required by quantum no-signalling. The real-state restriction is what permits a fixed unitary correction of the orthogonal outcome.

Use superdense coding. For the two-bit message $(a,b)\in \{0,1{\}}^2$, Alice applies $Z^a{X}^b$ to her half of the shared Bell state, where $X,Z$ are the Pauli X gate and Pauli Z gate. The encoded states areThese four Bell states are orthonormal. Alice then transmits her one qubit to Bob, who now holds both qubits. A Bell-basis measurement identifies the message with probability one.

More explicitly, Bob can apply a CNOT gate with the received qubit as control and his original qubit as target, followed by a Hadamard gate on the control. The CNOT gate sends the encoded state toand the Hadamard gate sends this to $|a⟩\otimes |b⟩$. Computational-basis projective measurements therefore read out $a,b$ exactly. One transmitted qubit, assisted by one previously shared Bell pair, communicates two classical bits.

Let $k_0$ be the unique discrete logarithm of the measured value $c_0$, so that $c_0=g^{k_0}$. The fiber calculation gives exactly the pairs $(yb+k_0,b)$ with $b\in {\mathbb{Z}}_M$, where $M=p-1$. The initial amplitude of each pair is $1/M$, so the Born rule assigns probability $M/M^2=1/M$ to this outcome.

After projective measurement and normalization, the first two quantum registers are in the coset stateThe measured third quantum register factors as $|c_0⟩$ and may be omitted. There is no loss of coherence between the $M$ terms in this post-measurement state: the quantum measurement reveals the common function value, not an individual input pair.

Alice sends the $m$ conjugate-coded qubits through the noiseless quantum channel. Bob independently chooses a uniformly random basis bit $y_i^{\prime }$ for each qubit and performs a projective measurement in the computational basis when $y_i^{\prime }=0$ or the Hadamard basis when $y_i^{\prime }=1$.

After all measurements, Alice and Bob publicly reveal $Y$ and $Y^{\prime }$ but keep the data bits secret. They discard every position with $y_i\ne y_i^{\prime }$ and retain the measured bits at positions where the bases agree. In the ideal channel those retained bits equal Alice's $x_i$ with certainty. Each pair of bases agrees with probability $1/2$, so the shared secret key has expected length $m/2$.

Choose $U$ to prepare the uniform superposition, so the marked-state probability is $p=1/4$. Apply the marked-state phase oracle $R_g^{\pi }$, followed by the reflection $U{R}_{00}^{\pi }{U}^{†}$ about the prepared state. Part (iii) shows that this single Grover iteration produces $-|g⟩$. A projective measurement in the four-item basis therefore returns the marked element with probability one. This is exact Grover search on four entries.

A computational-basis projective measurement has projections $P_0=|0⟩⟨0|$ and $P_1=|1⟩⟨1|$. Discarding its result produces the nonselective projective measurementThusComplete phase randomization and unread computational-basis measurement implement the same dephasing on this qubit.

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.

The postulates of quantum mechanics give a framework for predicting observations from a prepared state. The experiments below motivate different features of that framework; no one experiment proves the whole set of postulates or specifies every Hamiltonian operator.

A pure quantum state is a normalized vector in a complex Hilbert space, with vectors differing by an overall quantum phase representing the same physical preparation. In position representation, $\int |\psi (\mathbf{r}){|}^2{d}^{3}r=1$. The linear state space permits quantum superposition, while the Born rule assigns probability ${\int }_{\Omega }|\psi {|}^2{d}^{3}r$ to a position outcome in a region $\Omega$. The wavefunction is a probability amplitude; it is not a classical distribution of definite particle positions and momenta.

An observable is represented by a self-adjoint operator. If $Q$ has spectral projectors $P_q$, its possible measurement outcomes are its spectral values and $\mathrm{Pr}(q)=⟨\psi |P_q|\psi ⟩$. The mean is $⟨Q⟩=⟨\psi |Q|\psi ⟩$. For an ideal repeatable projective measurement, obtaining $q$ leaves the normalized conditional state $P_q\psi /\sqrt{\mathrm{Pr}(q)}$. This projects onto an entire eigenspace if the outcome is degenerate. General detectors need more general measurement in quantum mechanics models; the projective update is an idealization. Noncommuting observables need not have simultaneous sharp values, as the canonical commutation relation and Heisenberg uncertainty relation illustrate.

Between measurements, an isolated system has unitary time evolution generated by its Hamiltonian operator:This preserves normalization and superpositions. Composite systems use a tensor product of state spaces, allowing entangled states as well as product states; identical particles additionally require the bosonic or fermionic exchange symmetry appropriate to their species. Statistical mixtures are described by a density matrix, with $\mathrm{Pr}(q)=\mathrm{tr}(\rho P_q)$. These rules separate preparation, coherent evolution and measurement.

The photoelectric effect exposes discrete energy transfer by light. Illuminate a clean metal cathode in an evacuated tube and measure the collected Electron current while varying the light frequency, intensity and a retarding voltage. The stopping potential $V_s$ probes the largest emitted Electron kinetic energy, whereas the photocurrent measures the rate at which charge is collected. In the ordinary single-photon regime there is a threshold frequency; above it the maximum energy grows with frequency, rather than with intensity. Changing intensity at fixed frequency mainly changes the number of emitted electrons. These observations are summarized by the Einstein photoelectric equationHere $\Phi$ is the surface work function, and the stopping voltage is understood after any photoelectric contact-potential correction. A photon delivers $h\nu$ in an absorption event; emission is allowed only when that energy can pay the escape cost. This accounts for the frequency threshold and the lack of the classical waiting time associated with slowly accumulating energy in a single Electron. The experiment supports energy quantization of light; it does not imply that every incident photon emits an Electron or that every emitted Electron has the maximum energy. Surface losses and collection geometry affect the full current-voltage curve.

The Davisson–Germer experiment demonstrates a complementary wave property of matter. An Electron gun uses a heated emitter, accelerating voltage and apertures to send a narrow beam onto a nickel single crystal in vacuum. A movable collector measures scattered electric current versus direction; rotating the crystal also tests its azimuthal symmetry. The crystal gives sharp angular beams whose positions depend on voltage and crystal orientation. A prominent feature occurs near $54\mathrm{V}$ accelerating voltage and roughly $50^{\circ }$ detector colatitude. The nonrelativistic de Broglie wavelength predicted at that voltage isDiffraction wavelengths inferred using the known crystal structure agree with this voltage dependence. These angular peaks arise from coherent addition of scattering amplitudes from the crystal, not from classical specular reflection of independent point projectiles. Bragg's law is $2d\sin {\theta }_B=r\lambda$ for lattice-plane spacing $d$ and angle to those planes; a detector colatitude is a different angle and must not be substituted without its geometry. The historical readout was current, not a photograph of individual Electron trajectories.^[ref]

The double-slit experiment makes the role of amplitudes especially direct. A coherent source illuminates two narrow slits; an observation screen a distance $D$ away records the pattern. For slit spacing $d$ and small screen displacement $y$, the path difference is approximately $dy/D$. The two amplitudes add before probabilities are formed:For equal coherent illumination the interference term varies as $\cos (2\pi dy/(\lambda D))$, giving fringe spacing $\lambda D/d$ beneath the single-slit diffraction envelope. Blocking one slit removes that cross term. Young's optical experiment established wave interference; later particle-resolved realizations with photons or electrons show localized detection events whose accumulated distribution has the interference pattern. Low arrival rates demonstrate that this pattern does not require different incident particles to collide with one another.

If the paths become correlated with distinguishable detector states $|D_1⟩$ and $|D_2⟩$, the cross term acquires their overlap $⟨D_2|D_1⟩$. Perfectly distinguishable path records make that overlap zero, suppressing interference even if the spatial beams still overlap. This connects quantum entanglement, measurement and loss of observable coherence. Without a path measurement, the two alternatives are amplitudes for one preparation, rather than classical mutually exclusive events whose probabilities may simply be added.

Together these experiments motivate a description in which energy transfer and detector outcomes can be discrete, yet propagation retains complex quantum phases and interference. The Born rule connects those amplitudes to repeatable frequencies of outcomes. The Schrödinger equation supplies the dynamics once a Hamiltonian operator is specified, while observable operators, state preparation and the measurement model specify what the apparatus can read.

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 projective measurement probabilities are $P({\sigma }_j=\pm 1)=\mathrm{Tr}[\rho (I\pm {\sigma }_j)/2]$. Both density operators have zero $z$-component of their Bloch vector, soTheir full ${\sigma }_z$ outcome distributions, not merely their mean values, coincide. Along $x$, however,Thus repeated spin measurement along $x$ distinguishes the preparations statistically. A single negative outcome excludes A, while a single positive outcome is compatible with either; under B the probability of $N$ independent positive outcomes is $2^{-N}$.

The product preparations $00,0+,+0,++$ are excluded respectively by the orthonormal vectors $(01+10)/\sqrt{2}$, $(00-01+10+11)/2$, $(00+01-10+11)/2$ and $(00-11)/\sqrt{2}$, written in the computational basis. Each vector has zero inner product with its labelled preparation. This projective measurement gives antidistinguishable quantum states and drives the two-copy PBR theorem contradiction.

Suppose two orthonormal qubit bases have disjoint physical rays. Alice chooses which conjugate basis to measure on her half of a Bell state. A device that perfectly labels Bob's individual member of either basis would reveal Alice's choice without her outcome being communicated. Spacelike operation would therefore violate relativistic causality, even though ordinary projective measurements see the same reduced density matrix $I/2$.

A positive operator-valued measure is a family of positive operators $E_i$ satisfying ${\sum }_i{E}_i=I$. Each $E_i$ is called an effect and determines a probability $p_i=\mathrm{Tr}(E_i\rho )$ for input density operator $\rho$. The effects need not be orthogonal projections or commute. This permits measurements with more outcomes than the dimension of the Hilbert space, such as the trine qubit POVM. Coupling to a quantum ancilla and measuring the larger system supplies a physical route to generalized measurements. ^[ref].

For an elementary unsharp $Z$ example on a qubit, takeOn the eigenstate $|0⟩$, $p_{\pm }=(1\pm \eta )/2$; at $\eta =1/2$ they are $3/4$ and $1/4$. At $\eta =0$ the outcome is a fair coin independent of the input, and at $\eta =1$ these effects specify a sharp $Z$ projective measurement. Choosing $K_{\pm }=\sqrt{E_{\pm }}$ specifies one quantum instrument, but $U_{\pm }\sqrt{E_{\pm }}$ for outcome-dependent unitary operators has the same effects and different state updates. Thus POVM does not determine the post-measurement state.

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.