Weak Measurements

Dan Elton
Stony Brook University
Graduate Physics AMO Seminar
11/10/10
 Overview

I. Historical background of the measurement problem

II. The Measurement Hamiltonian & “Two State Vector

Formalism”

III. Weak Measurement

IV. Experimental Realization

 The Measurement Problem - History

The problem started before the cat, with a powder keg.

August 8, 1935: Einstein to Schrödinger: Imagine an unstable powder keg.

“After a year… the psi-function then describes a sort of blend of not-yet and already-
exploded systems. Through no art of interpretation can this psi-function be turned into an
adequate description of a real state of affairs; in reality there is just no intermediary
between exploded and not-exploded.”
September 19, 1935: Schrödinger to Einstein:
“I have constructed an example very similar to your exploding powder keg..”
September, 1935: Einstein to Schrödinger:
“Your cat shows that we are in complete agreement concerning our assessment of the
character of the current theory.... A psi-function that contains the living as well as the
dead cat cannot be taken as a description of the real state of affairs.”

Indeed, both Einstein and Schrödinger were metaphysical realists

and could not accept this description as fundamental.

From Einstein: his life and universe, by Walter Isaacson

 The Measurement Problem - History

- 1926 – Compton-Simons experiment

- The measurement of a single observable can be made
arbitrarily precise.
- Two consecutive measurements will yield the same
result.

- Conclusion: A measurement causes a collapse of the

wavefunction.
 Unitary Evolution vs. State Reduction

Unitary Evolution: State Reduction: (the “Quantum Leap”)

Deterministic Non-deterministic
Continuous Discontinuous
Time-reversible Not time-reversible*
Thermodynamically reversible Not thermodynamically reversible, in general.

The “Measurement problem”

Can State Reduction be made consistent with Unitary Evolution?

If not, and they are independent phenomena,

What are the necessary conditions for State Reduction to occur?

 Von Neumann's Measurement Scheme

I II III

I II III
Microscopic system Macroscopic measuring device The observer

Von Neumann, in his famous work The Mathematical Foundations of Quantum

Mechanics (1932), struggled to formalize collapse mathematically but was forced to
conclude that consciousness causes collapse.

Today there are many competing interpretations of quantum mechanics.

However, Von Neumann came up with a description of the interaction between I and II.
 Ideal Measurement Hamiltonian
H M = q (t ) PA
q(t) = Coupling function (compactly supported, normalized to 1)
P = Conjugate momentum operator of pointer variable Q
A= operator for what is being measured

H = H I + H II + q(t ) PA
ϕ = ϕ I ⊗ ϕ II

In time window of measurement, t1 - t2, dynamics from HI & HII are ignored.

2
it
ϕ (t 2 ) = exp(− ∫ g (t ) PAdt ϕ (t1 )
ηt 1

For simplicity, assume the system is in a pure state with eigenvalue a

i
ϕ (t 2 ) = exp(− gPa) ϕ (t1 )
η
This is simply a translation operator – translation is proportional to
quantity measured. The system is not disturbed by the measurement –- ie.
It collapses perfectly without further disruption.
Ideal measurements are ideal!
 Two State Vector Formalism
Aharonov, Bergmann, Lebowitz (1964)
Measurements become time-symmetric

<Φ| is the backwards traveling state vector. It is not a bra vector!

TSV = 〈Φi || Ψi〉 |ψII> is the forwards traveling state vector.

Post
Measurement

(weak
measurement
will occur
here)

Pre
Measurement
 Two State Vector Formalism

- Yields the same results as conventional QM

- Can describe certain things better (Hardy’s paradox, three-box

paradox …)

- Is controversial because it often references counterfactuals. (if a

measurement had been performed, it would have yielded ___ )

- Is the formalism in which weak measurement is usually defined

and understood. According to Sandu Popescu, weak measurement
can be explained with conventional quantum mechanics, but “the
explanation is cumbersome and involves very intricate interference
effects in the measuring device.”
 Weak Measurement
H M = q (t ) PA
When q(t) becomes very small or P becomes very small, we
move into the weak measurement regime.
(note, Q becomes large)

Schematically:

eiqPA ≅ 1 + iqPA + O(2)

TSV φ eiqPA ψ ≅ φ ψ + φ iqPA ψ + O(2)
 φ Aψ 
= φ ψ 1 + iqp + O(2) 
 φψ 

Weak Value
 Weak Measurement Properties
〈Φ | A | Ψ〉
Aw ≡
〈Φ | Ψ〉
- The weak measurement of a purely pre-selected system becomes regular
expectation value. 〈 Ψ | A | Ψ〉

- The weak value is in general complex. real part = position of the pointer
and imaginary = momentum of pointer.

- In a weak measurement, the change in the position of the measuring

device can be less than it's own quantum uncertainty.

- Aw becomes very large when Φand ψare nearly orthogonal. This is called
“weak value amplification” and attracted a lot of attention. It is the subject
of current ongoing research.
- According to Hulet, et. Al (1997), all real measurements must “lie on a
spectrum between weak and ideal.” Thus, understanding weak
measurements is important to understanding measurements in general.
 Weak Measurement: First example
SGx Apparatus
Strong B-field

SGz Apparatus:
Weak B-field
Weak
Value

Post-selection:
Spins in X+ direction

Pre-selection:
Spins in ξ direction

From Aharonov, Albert & Vaidman: How the Result of a Measurement of

a Component of the Spin of a Spin-1/2 Particle Can Turn Out to be 100
(1987)
Weak Measurement : a simple thought
experiment

SGx
SGz

Post select a particle from the blue beam. What if we “went

back in time” and measured in between along an angle theta?

Sθ = S x cos(θ ) + S z sin(θ )
Sθ = (1 / 2) cos(θ ) + (1 / 2) sin(θ )
Sπ 4 = 2 / 2
One description of weak measurement is it is due to the intricate
interference effects leading to a large measurement error. The other,
argued by Aharonov, Albert and Vaidman, is that it is fully explained by
TSVF.
Outcomes with different measurement strength
Strong measurement

1
P=
∆

Weak measurement

1
σ∝
N

From Ahronov & Vaidman, TSVF: An Updated Review

 Weak Measurement - History
Theorized by Aharonov, Albert, & Vaidman in 1987.

Theory revised by M. Duck, P. M. Stevenson, and E. C. G. Sudarshan (1989)

(and other articles)

Hulet, Ritchie, Story, (1991) – First experimental realization.

Hosten & Kwiat (2008) - used weak measurements to measure the Spin Hall
Effect for photons. Splitting of light beam ~ 1 Angstrom.

Dixon et.al (2009) measured angular deflection of a light beam with the precision
of a hairs breadth at the distance of the moon.

However, although impressive, many remained skeptical as to whether weak-

measurements can actually be more precise than traditional measuring schemes.

Reducing SNR in beam-defection would benefit

- Spectroscopy (photothermal, etc)
- interferometry
- ultra-precise position measurements
- atomic force microscopy
Optimizing the signal-to-noise ration of a beam-deflection
measurement with interferometric weak values.
David J. Starling, P. Ben Dixon, Andrew N. Jordan, and John C. Howell (2009)

Normally, destructive
interference occurs Piezoelectric
here. actuator causes a
small beam
deflection here.

CCD is used to
analyze the mode
quality (an
element of
technical noise) in
laser beam

Where is the weak

measurement??
Quadrant-cell detector to measure beam position.
The weak measurement: qualitative
The thing being measured is the
deflection. It corresponds to a tiny
shift in the transverse momentum of
the beam.

There are clockwise (CW) and

counterclockwise (CCW) beams,
they receive opposite shifts.

The tiny shifts in momentum is

coupled to how much light emerges
on either side of the beam splitter.
The “postselection” is to only look at
light emerging on the dark side
(darkport) or bottom of the BS.

Incidentally, the same result obtained from the weak value theory also
can be derived from classical Fourier beam optics. The effect here really
isn’t quantum, but it’s quite amazing there is a correspondence. John C.
Howell, David J. Starling, PHYSICAL REVIEW A 81, 033813 (2010)
 The main results

Optimizing the signal-

signal-to-
to-noise ration of a beam-
beam-deflection measurement with interferometric weak values.
David J. Starling, P. Ben Dixon, Andrew N. Jordan, and John C. Howell
Howell (2009)
 Future prospects
Laboratory applications:
--SNR improvements (in particular case of large beam diameters)
--Possible large increase in precision (controversial)
--Quantum eavesdropping (?)

Implications to foundations of QM:

-- If weak measurements become better understood / realized, they could
help answer a lot of previously unanswerable questions.
-- Wiseman, et. al. argues that one can determine which path the electron
goes through in the double slit using weak measurement.
-- Work by Vaidman and others suggest that weak measurements could test
to see if Bohmian quantum mechanics is correct.
-- Aharonov says that when Feynman pronounced that we can never truly
comprehend quantum mechanics, he was "too hasty". "I think people will
remove the mystery that Feynman said could never be removed,… you should
never say never."
 Selected references
Y. Aharonov, P. G. Bergmann, and J. Lebowitz, Phys. Rev 134, B1410 (1964).

Aharonov, Albert & Vaidman: How the Result of a Measurement of a Component of the
Spin of a Spin-1/2 Particle Can Turn Out to be 100 (1987)

Aharonov, Vaidman. The Two-State Vector Formalism: an Updated Review.

M. Duck, P. M. Stevenson, and E. C. G. Sudarshan,. Phys. Rev. D. 40, 2112 (1989)

Popescu, Sandu. Weak measurements just got stronger APS Physics 2, 32 (2009)

G. Hulet, N. W M. Ritchie, and 1.G. Story. Measurement of a Weak Value (1997)

R. Mir, J. S. Lundeen, M. W. Mitchell, A. M. Steinberg, J. L. Garretson, H. M. Wiseman

A double-slit `which-way' experiment on the complementarity--uncertainty debate

Vaidman, L. The Reality in Bohmian Quantum Mechanics or Can You Kill with an Empty
Wave Bullet?
Shalm, L.K.; Kocsis, S.; Ravets, S.;Braverman, B.;Stevens, M. J.; Mirin, R. P.; Steinberg,
A. M.; Observation of Bohmian trajectories of a single photon using weak measurements.
IEEE Conference proceedings, May 2010.