We introduce the idea that the knowable quantum reality depends not only on the state but also on measurements. Mathematically, we map the states from the ordinary Hilbert space into new states in what we call the measurement space. The state vectors in the measurement space contain only the information accessible with a particular set of measurements. The space can be used to find the operational equivalent of any information theoretic quantity. We use the formalism to define the operationally meaningful entanglement, explore its properties and apply it to mode entanglement. There we find that a mode-entangled state of a single particle has no operationally useful entanglement unless additional degrees of freedom are introduced to the system.
We introduce the idea that the knowable quantum reality depends not only on the state but also on measurements. Mathematically, we map the states from the ordinary Hilbert space into new states in what we call the measurement space. The state vectors in the measurement space contain only the information accessible with a particular set of measurements. The space can be used to find the operational equivalent of any information theoretic quantity. We use the formalism to define the operationally meaningful entanglement, explore its properties and apply it to mode entanglement. There we find that a mode-entangled state of a single particle has no operationally useful entanglement unless additional degrees of freedom are introduced to the system.
Up to now we have limited ourselves to states of a single particle. In the present chapter we shall introduce the description of two-particle states. Once this case is understood, it will be easy to generalize to any number of particles. States of two (or more) particles lead to very rich configurations called entangled states. A remarkable feature is that two entangled quantum particles, even at arbitrarily large spatial separations, continue to form a single entity and no classical probabilistic model is able to reproduce the correlation between particles. In the first section we shall present the essential mathematical formalism, that of the tensor product. This will permit us in Section 6.2 to describe quantum mixtures using the state operator formalism. Section 6.3 is devoted to the study of important physical consequences like the Bell inequalities and interference experiments involving entangled states, which will lead us to a deeper understanding of quantum physics. Finally, in the last section we shall briefly review applications to measurement theory and quantum information theory. The latter is undergoing rapid development at present and has applications to quantum computing, cryptography, and teleportation. The tensor product of two vector spaces Definition and properties of the tensor product We wish to construct the space of states of two physical systems which we assume initially to be completely independent. Let ℌ N 1 and ℌ M 2 be the spaces of states of the two systems, of dimension N and M , respectively.
The question of whether entanglement between photons is equivalent to entanglement between their characteristic field modes, specifically, the single-particle wavefunctions that are composed and superposed to describe particles in such modes, is a key, open problem concerning multi-partite optical degrees of freedom, and has profound implications for topics ranging from quantum foundations to quantum computation. Here, I offer a fresh, deeper, physical insight into this subtle, albeit enduring, issue by describing a situation in which the entangling interactions between optical modes, namely, the wavefunctions, can be distilled into genuine entanglement between the physical, observable properties of the photons, which are the wavefunctional degrees of freedom. This theoretical observation also highlights the salience of the measurement context, especially, of clearly disambiguating between the choice of the quantum subsystem and the decision to measure an observable along a particular axis of measurement, while quantifying and transforming quantum optical entanglement. This theoretical observation might be applied to formulate a new class of protocols for performing quantum information tasks, using entangled photons within inseparable field modes.
Hilbert spaces provide the fundamental mathematical framework for describing quantum mechanical systems. Their structure, characterized by an inner product and completeness, allows for the representation of quantum states as vectors and physical observables as self-adjoint operators. Key quantum phenomena such as superposition and entanglement find natural expression within this formalism. Superposition, where a quantum system can exist in multiple states simultaneously, is represented by linear combinations of basis vectors in the Hilbert space. Entanglement, a non-classical correlation between quantum systems, is described by non-separable state vectors in a tensor product of Hilbert spaces. These concepts are pivotal in quantum computing, where the unit of information, the qubit, is a two-level quantum system whose state is a vector in a two-dimensional complex Hilbert space (ℂ²). Quantum gates, which perform operations on qubits, are represented by unitary operators acting on these state vectors. The power of quantum computation, particularly in algorithms like Shor's or Grover's, stems from the ability to exploit superposition and entanglement, processes intrinsically described within the Hilbert space framework. Thus, a thorough understanding of Hilbert spaces is indispensable for grasping the principles of quantum mechanics and for advancing the field of quantum information and computation [1, 7]. The transition from classical bits to quantum qubits, and from classical logic gates to quantum unitary operations, is entirely predicated on the mathematical properties endowed by Hilbert spaces.
Hilbert spaces provide the fundamental mathematical framework for describing quantum mechanical systems. Their structure, characterized by an inner product and completeness, allows for the representation of quantum states as vectors and physical observables as self-adjoint operators. Key quantum phenomena such as superposition and entanglement find natural expression within this formalism. Superposition, where a quantum system can exist in multiple states simultaneously, is represented by linear combinations of basis vectors in the Hilbert space. Entanglement, a non-classical correlation between quantum systems, is described by non-separable state vectors in a tensor product of Hilbert spaces. These concepts are pivotal in quantum computing, where the unit of information, the qubit, is a two-level quantum system whose state is a vector in a two-dimensional complex Hilbert space (ℂ²). Quantum gates, which perform operations on qubits, are represented by unitary operators acting on these state vectors. The power of quantum computation, particularly in algorithms like Shor's or Grover's, stems from the ability to exploit superposition and entanglement, processes intrinsically described within the Hilbert space framework. Thus, a thorough understanding of Hilbert spaces is indispensable for grasping the principles of quantum mechanics and for advancing the field of quantum information and computation [1, 7]. The transition from classical bits to quantum qubits, and from classical logic gates to quantum unitary operations, is entirely predicated on the mathematical properties endowed by Hilbert spaces.
Most philosophical work on quantum physics has concerned simple systems. And for good reason. Even one or two particle systems can exhibit the striking features we have come to associate with quantum physics—features such as entanglement, interference, and nonlocality. But as far as physics goes, such systems barely scrape the surface. In particular, they have only a finite number of degrees of freedom, which means their states are characterized by a finite number of independent parameters. The systems studied in fields such as high-energy particle physics and many-body physics, meanwhile, have uncountably many degrees of freedom. They are far more complicated than the usual philosophical fare.This is not troubling as long as the conceptual heart of quantum physics can be effectively condensed down. But what if philosophers' toy systems are fundamentally different from realistic ones? That would be a problem. And indeed, as Laura Ruetsche convincingly argues in Interpreting Quantum Theories, systems with uncountable degrees of freedom—what Ruetsche collectively calls QM∞—are fundamentally different from the systems that have become the stock and trade of philosophy of physics, in ways that change the interpretational project.Ruetsche's book does two things exceedingly well. The first is to provide a (comparatively) accessible and philosophically oriented introduction to the algebraic approach to quantum physics, which is essential for understanding QM∞. This is a valuable contribution. The algebraic approach is the setting for much recent philosophical work. And yet learning it is notoriously difficult, as even pedagogical texts are aimed at research-level mathematicians. Ruetsche's book is technically demanding, but it works to bring nonmathematicians along. It is, without a doubt, the best place to enter this literature.Second, the book sets the agenda for future work on QM∞, by effectively and judiciously drawing important foundational questions out of a sprawling and difficult physics literature. In this regard, it is a close cousin to John Earman's (1995) excellent Bangs, Crunches, Whimpers, and Shrieks, which has had a significant influence on subsequent philosophy of spacetime physics. Philosophers of physics will be addressing the questions Ruetsche has raised, in many cases for the first time, for years to come.Interpreting Quantum Theories centers on what might be called the problem of inequivalent representations. The quantum theories that philosophers are accustomed to are set in a mathematical structure known as a (separable) Hilbert space, which is an at-most countably infinite dimensional complex vector space. Rays in a Hilbert space represent possible states of a physical system, and self-adjoint operators on that Hilbert space correspond to properties of the system.To treat QM∞, meanwhile, physicists pass to a generalization of this formalism. Now one begins with an abstract algebra of operators corresponding to the various properties associated with the system. States in this more general framework are linear functionals on the algebra whose value at each operator is interpreted as the expectation value of a measurement of that property in that state.The trouble with this more general framework is that the interpretational tools of Hilbert space quantum theories do not directly apply. Some solace comes from recognizing that any (appropriate) algebra of operators admits a representation in terms of the operators on a Hilbert space. This suggests that one can always move back to the more familiar Hilbert space formalism. But this is a pyrrhic victory. In general these Hilbert space representations are neither unique nor empirically equivalent. In particular, these inequivalent representations, interpreted in the familiar way, yield disagreements about which algebraic states are physically realizable.Faced with this situation, Ruetsche presents several principled options—what she calls “pristine” interpretations of QM∞. The two most significant are what she calls “Hilbert Space Conservatism” and “Algebraic Imperialism.” The Conservative claims that, for a given system, there is one true Hilbert space representation, which should be interpreted in the familiar ways. The Imperialist, meanwhile, insists that only the abstract algebra matters: the physical states are the algebraic states, properties correspond to the operators in the algebra, and if our old methods do not apply, so much the worse for our methods.At this level of description, Imperialists may appear to have the advantage, since they need not fret over which representation to choose. But there's a catch. As we have seen, there is a sense in which Imperialists generally recognize a broader range of possible physical states. But Conservatives allow for more properties. This is because when one represents the abstract algebra as operators on a Hilbert space, the operators in the representation naturally approximate additional operators on that Hilbert space, in a way that is unavailable in the abstract setting. Thus each interpretation suffers from limitations that the other does not.To adjudicate between the interpretations, Ruetsche takes them to the trenches, to see which provides the resources to support the actual explanatory and representational practices of physics. After a masterful survey, she concludes that neither interpretation has all of the requisite resources. In particular, she argues, physicists regularly make essential use of operators that are only available to Conservatives, while making equally essential use of multiple inequivalent representations—which only Imperialists can support. More, the particular mix of Conservatism and Imperialism varies between applications, apparently ruling out a stable interpretation of the formalism that can be articulated independently of the messy details. We are left with what Ruetsche calls “adulterated” interpretations.Philosophers' practice notwithstanding, it might seem unsurprising that we cannot separate our interpretation of physical theories from the pragmatics of their application to the world. After all, we are interested in these theories only insofar as they are successfully applied. But Ruetsche believes the problem is more acute. It is not merely that pragmatic considerations enter the debate between Conservatives and Imperialists. Ruetsche argues that there may not be any consistent, general interpretation of QM∞ compatible with practice. And this, she claims, makes realism about QM∞ untenable.The idea that the applications of a broad class of our best physical theories undermine their consistent interpretation in a way that renders realism incoherent is striking. Insofar as Ruetsche's case is convincing, it should have serious repercussions for general philosophy of science—both because it bears on important debates and because it shows how generalist questions depend on the details of particular scientific theories and their applications. Indeed, Ruetsche's skepticism about the terms of the realism debate and her radical particularism should influence general philosophy of science. But that said, her argument ultimately leaves room for disagreement.Ruetsche's basic claim is that Conservatism and Imperialism each support practices that the other cannot and that both kinds of practice are essential. But there is an important asymmetry here. Conservatives suffer because they fail to represent putative physical possibilities appealed to in practice. Imperialists, meanwhile, need to justify that in certain applications, they may limit attention to a subset of the physical possibilities their interpretation admits, and then use resources that only make sense in those limited regimes.The trouble is that the Imperialists' opportunism is neither unusual in physics nor difficult to motivate. In spacetime physics, for instance, properties such as the total mass of the universe or global time can be defined only in very special cases. And yet such properties are used in practice, because often the salient spacetimes are precisely the ones in which these quantities make (approximate) sense. To make her case that adulteration in QM∞ undermines realism, Ruetsche would need to establish that the representation-dependent quantities used in applications of QM∞ are different in kind from analogous quantities that appear throughout physics. And here it is not clear that she succeeds.None of this undercuts the importance of the book, however. Indeed, Ruetsche acknowledges that her argument may depend on how one understands idealization in physics. And even if one takes the view just described, there is a great deal of work to do on how Imperialism can support the practices Ruetsche identifies—work that will surely proceed within the framework Ruetsche has laid out, by addressing questions Ruetsche has raised. And so, wherever our study of QM∞ takes us, Ruetsche's book is sure to play a central role.
We now have all the basic tools we need to describe systems of one and two qubits. In this final chapter of Part I we look at some of the consequences of the peculiar properties of qubits when they are used to encode information. Many of these results can be traced to the properties of quantum measurement. Measuring a single qubit A key result in quantum information theory is that it is impossible to accurately characterize a single qubit. In other words, there is no experiment, or sequence of experiments, which allows us to find out the state of a single quantum bit. The reason for this problem is twofold. Firstly, we have to make some sort of decision about the basis we will use for the measurement. For example, when measuring a single qubit the most popular choice is to make a measurement in the computational basis. This is equivalent to asking the qubit whether it is in state |0⧽ or state |1⧽. If the qubit is indeed in one of the basis states the measurement process is simple, and we will get the obvious answer of 0 if it is in |0⧽ and 1 if it is in |1⧽. If, however, the qubit is in a superposition, such as α|0⧽+β|1⧽, then the situation is more difficult. Characterizing the state now means determining the values of the two complex numbers α and β, but the measurement can only return the answer 0 or 1, and for a superposition state one of these two answers will be returned at random, with probabilities |α| 2 and |β| 2 , respectively.