3.4. General theory (Davies–Lewis–Ozawa)
Finally, we formulate the general notion of quantum instrument. A superoperator acting in is called positive if it maps the set of positive semi-definite operators into itself. We remark that, for each given by (13) can be considered as linear positive map.
Generally any map , where for each , the map is a positive superoperator is called Davies–Lewis (Davies and Lewis, 1970)[1] quantum instrument.
Here index denotes the observable coupled to this instrument. The probabilities of -outcomes are given by Born’s rule in form (15) and the state-update by transformation (14). However, Yuen (1987)[2] pointed out that the class of Davies–Lewis instruments is too general to exclude physically non-realizable instruments. Ozawa (1984)[3] introduced the important additional condition to ensure that every quantum instrument is physically realizable. This is the condition of complete positivity.
A superoperator is called completely positive if its natural extension to the tensor product is again a positive superoperator on . A map , where for each , the map is a completely positive superoperator is called Davies–Lewis–Ozawa (Davies and Lewis 1970,[4] Ozawa, 1984[3]) quantum instrument or simply quantum instrument. As we shall see in Section 4, complete positivity is a sufficient condition for an instrument to be physically realizable. On the other hand, necessity is derived as follows (Ozawa, 2004).[5]
Every observable of a system is identified with the observable of a system with any system external to .10
Then, every physically realizable instrument measuring should be identified with the instrument measuring such that . This implies that is agin a positive superoperator, so that is completely positive.
Similarly, any physically realizable instrument measuring system should have its extended instrument measuring system for any external system. This is fulfilled only if is completely positive. Thus, complete positivity is a necessary condition for to describe a physically realizable instrument.
- ↑ Davies E.B., Lewis J.T. An operational approach to quantum probability Comm. Math. Phys., 17 (1970), pp. 239-260 View Record in ScopusGoogle Scholar
- ↑ Yuen, H. P., 1987. Characterization and realization of general quantum measurements. M. Namiki and others (ed.) Proc. 2nd Int. Symp. Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, pp. 360–363. Google Scholar
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 Ozawa M. Quantum measuring processes for continuous observables J. Math. Phys., 25 (1984), pp. 79-87 View Record in ScopusGoogle Scholar
- ↑ Davies E.B., Lewis J.T. An operational approach to quantum probability Comm. Math. Phys., 17 (1970), pp. 239-260 View Record in ScopusGoogle Scholar
- ↑ Ozawa M. Uncertainty relations for noise and disturbance in generalized quantum measurements Ann. Phys., NY, 311 (2004), pp. 350-416 Google Scholar