Go to top

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.

  1. 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
  2. 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. 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
  4. 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
  5. Ozawa M. Uncertainty relations for noise and disturbance in generalized quantum measurementsAnn. Phys., NY, 311 (2004), pp. 350-416. Google Scholar