Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T03:11:38.219Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Is Measurement a Black Box? On the Importance of Understanding Measurement Even in Quantum Information and Computation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

Michael Dickson
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

It has been argued, partly from the lack of any widely accepted solution to the measurement problem, and partly from recent results from quantum information theory, that measurement in quantum theory is best treated as a black box. However, there is a crucial difference between ‘having no account of measurement’ and ‘having no solution to the measurement problem’. We know a lot about measurements. Taking into account this knowledge sheds light on quantum theory as a theory of information and computation. In particular, the scheme of ‘one-way quantnum computation’ takes on a new character in light of the role that reference frames play in actually carrying out any one-way quantum comptuation.

Type
Philosophy of Physics: Quantum Information and Computation
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 74 , Issue 5: Proceedings of the 2006 Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association. Part I: Contributed Papers. Edited by Cristina Bicchieri and Jason Alexander , December 2007 , pp. 1019 - 1032
Copyright
Copyright © The Philosophy of Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

‡

Thanks to audiences at the PSA and the Centre for Time, University of Sydney, for helpful comments and questions.

References

Aharonov, Y., and Kaufherr, M. (1988), “Quantum Frames of Reference”, Quantum Frames of Reference 30:111–112.Google Scholar
Barbour, J. B. (1989), The Discovery of Dynamics: A Study from a Machian Point of View of the Discovery and the Structure of Dynamical Theories. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bohm, D. (1951), Quantum Theory. Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Bohr, N. (1935), “Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Reality Be Considered Complete?”, Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Reality Be Considered Complete? 48:696–702.Google Scholar
Bub, J. (2004), “Why the Quantum?”, Why the Quantum? 35:241–266.Google Scholar
Busch, P., Grabowski, M., and Lahti, P. (1995), Operational Quantum Physics. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clifton, R., Bub, J., and Halvorson, H. (2003), “Characterizing Quantum Theory in Terms of Information-Theoretic Constraints”, Characterizing Quantum Theory in Terms of Information-Theoretic Constraints 33:1561–1591.Google Scholar
Dickson, M. (2004), “The View from Nowhere: Quantum Reference Frames and Quantum Uncertainty” Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 35:195–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dickson, M. (2007), “Non-relativistic Quantum Mechanics”, in Butterfield, J. and Earman, J. (eds.), Philosophy of Physics, Part A. Amsterdam: North-Holland, 275–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DiSalle, R. (1991), “Conventionalism and the Origins of the Inertial Frame Concept”, in Fine, A., Forbes, M., and Wessels, L. (eds.), PSA 1990. East Lansing, MI: Philosophy of Science Association, 139–147.Google Scholar
DiSalle, R. (2002), “Space and Time: Inertial Frames”, in E. N. Zalta (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2002/entries/spacetime-iframes.Google Scholar
Fuchs, C. A. (2003), “Quantum Mechanics as Quantum Information, Mostly”, Quantum Mechanics as Quantum Information, Mostly 50:987–1023.Google Scholar
Groover, H. (2008), “The Einsteinian Constructive–Principle Theory Distinction (and Reconstructing Quantum Mechanics within It)”, manuscript. University of South Carolina, Columbia.Google Scholar
Halvorson, H. (2004), “Complementarity of Representations in Quantum Mechanics”, Complementarity of Representations in Quantum Mechanics 35:45–56.Google Scholar
Heisenberg, W. (1969), Der Teil und das Ganze. Munich: Piper.Google Scholar
Joos, E., and Zeh, H. D. (1985), “The Emergence of Classical Properties through Interaction with the Environment”, The Emergence of Classical Properties through Interaction with the Environment 59:223–243.Google Scholar
Leggett, A. J. (1984), “Schrödinger’s Cat and Her Laboratory Cousins”, Schrödinger’s Cat and Her Laboratory Cousins 25:583–594.Google Scholar
Mackey, G.W. (1949), “Imprimitivity for Representations of Locally Compact Groups”, Imprimitivity for Representations of Locally Compact Groups 35:156–162.Google ScholarPubMed
Mackey, G.W. (1978), Unitary Group Representations in Physics, Probability, and Number Theory, Math Lecture Notes Series, vol. 55. Menlo Park, CA: Commings.Google Scholar
Nielsen, M. A., and Chuang, I. L. (2000), Quantum Computation and Quantum Information. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Raussendorf, R., and Briegel, H. J. (2001), “A One-Way Quantum Computer”, A One-Way Quantum Computer 86:5188–5191.Google ScholarPubMed
Raussendorf, R., Brown, D. E., and Briegel, H. J. (2003), “Measurement-Based Quantum Computation on Cluster States”, Measurement-Based Quantum Computation on Cluster States 68: 022312.Google Scholar
Varadarajan, V. S. (1985), Geometry of Quantum Theory. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Zurek, W. H. (1982), “Environment-Induced Superselection Rules”, Environment-Induced Superselection Rules 26:1862–1880.Google Scholar