arXiv:1009.3002 · AIP conference proceedings

Time Series, Stochastic Processes and Completeness of Quantum Theory

Marian Kupczyński

Published Jan 1, 2011• 17 citations

Abstract

Most of physical experiments are usually described as repeated measurements of some random variables. The experimental data registered by on-line computers form time series of outcomes. The frequencies of different outcomes are compared with the probabilities provided by the algorithms of quantum theory (QT). In spite of statistical predictions of QT a claim was made that the theory provided the most complete description of the data and of the underlying physical phenomena. This claim could be easily rejected if some fine structures, averaged out in standard statistical descriptive analysis, were found in the time series of experimental data. To search for these structures one has to use more subtle statistical tools which were developed to study time series produced by various stochastic processes. In this talk we review some of these tools. As an example we show how the standard descriptive statistical analysis of the data is unable to reveal a fine structure in a simulated sample of AR(2) stochastic process. We emphasize once again that the violation of Bell inequalities gives no information on the completeness or the non locality of QT. The appropriate way to test the completeness of quantum theory is to search for fine structures in time series of experimental data by means of the purity tests or by studying the autocorrelation and partial autocorrelation functions.

DOI: 10.1063/1.3567465

Related papers

Is quantum theory predictably complete?

Marian Kupczyński

Quantum theory (QT) provides statistical predictions for various physical phenomena. To verify these predictions a considerable amount of data has been accumulated in the 'measurements' performed on the ensembles of identically prepared physical systems or in the repeated 'measurements' on some trapped 'individual physical systems'. The outcomes of these measurements are, in general, some numerical time series registered by some macroscopic instruments. The various empirical probability distributions extracted from these time series were shown to be consistent with the probabilistic predictions of QT. More than 70 years ago the claim was made that QT provided the most complete description of 'individual' physical systems and outcomes of the measurements performed on 'individual' physical systems were obtained in an intrinsically random way. Spin polarization correlation experiments (SPCEs), performed to test the validity of Bell inequalities, clearly demonstrated the existence of strong long-range correlations and confirmed that the beams hitting far away detectors somehow preserve the memory of their common source which would be destroyed if the individual counts of far away detectors were purely random. Since the probabilities describe the random experiments and are not the attributes of the 'individual' physical systems, the claim that QT provides a complete description of 'individual' physical systems seems not only unjustified but also misleading and counter productive. In this paper, we point out that we even do not know whether QT is predictably complete because it has not been tested carefully enough. Namely, it was not proven that the time series of existing experimental data did not contain some stochastic fine structures that could have been averaged out by describing them in terms of the empirical probability distributions. In this paper, we advocate various statistical tests that could be used to search for such fine structures in the data and to answer the title question of this paper. In our opinion a proper understanding of the statistical character of QT and of its limitations is crucial in the domains such as quantum optics and quantum information.

arXiv:0810.1259Physica ScriptaJul 1, 200918 citations

EPR Paradox, Locality and Completeness of Quantum Theory

Marian Kupczyński, Guillaume Adenier, Andrei Yu. Khrennikov +3 more

The quantum theory (QT) and new stochastic approaches have no deterministic prediction for a single measurement or for a single time‐series of events observed for a trapped ion, electron or any other individual physical system. The predictions of QT being of probabilistic character apply to the statistical distribution of the results obtained in various experiments. The Copenhagen interpretation (CI) of QT acknowledged the abstract and statistical character of the predictions of QT but at the same time claimed that a state vector Ψ provided complete description of each individual physical system. The assigning the state vector to an individual physical system together with a postulate of its instantaneous reduction in the measurements was shown by Einstein Podolski and Rosen to lead to so called EPR paradox for the experiments with the entangled pairs of the particles. EPR concluded that a state vector could not provide a complete description of the individual systems and the question arose whether the probabilistic predictions of QT could be derived from some more fundamental spatio‐temporal deterministic description of the invisible sub‐phenomena by introduction of supplementary parameters. The experimental violation of the Bell inequalities in the spin polarization correlation experiments (SPCE) which were the implementations of Bohm and EPR gedanken experiments eliminated so called local and realistic models of the sub‐phenomena. Quite often the violation of these inequalities has been incorrectly interpreted as a proof of the completeness of QT or as the violation of the locality and causality in the micro‐world. The local and realistic models overlooked the fact that an experimental outcome is only the information about a particular system‐system or system‐instrument interaction. Namely the quantum phenomena are described in terms of the probabilities. It is well known that the probability distribution is not an attribute of a dice but it is a characteristic of a whole random experiment: “rolling a dice”. In this paper we will underline: that the quantum probabilities do not describe the lack of knowledge about the physical systems but the lack of knowledge about the experiments and therefore they are “contextual” and that the statistical long range correlations between two random variables X and Y are not a proof of any causal relation between these variables. Moreover any probabilistic model used to described a random experiment is consistent only with a specific protocol telling how the random experiment has to be performed. The probabilistic model used to prove Bell inequalities implied a protocol completely inappropriate and impossible to implement for SPCE . We conclude that the meaningful question about the predictable completeness of QT is still open and it should be answered by a careful and unconventional analysis of the experimental data. The correct understanding of statistical and contextual character of QT is essential for the research in the domain of quantum information and quantum computing.

arXiv:0710.3510AIP conference proceedingsJan 1, 200720 citations

Seventy Years of the EPR Paradox

Marian Kupczyński

In spite of the fact that statistical predictions of quantum theory (QT) can only be tested if large amount of data is available a claim has been made that QT provides the most complete description of an individual physical system. Einstein’s opposition to this claim and the paradox he presented in the article written together with Podolsky and Rosen in 1935 inspired generations of physicists in their quest for better understanding of QT. Seventy years after EPR article it is clear that without deep understanding of the character and limitations of QT one may not hope to find a meaningful unified theory of all physical interactions, manipulate qubits or construct a quantum computer.. In this paper we present shortly the EPR paper, the discussion, which followed it and Bell inequalities (BI). To avoid various paradoxes we advocate purely statistical contextual interpretation (PSC) of QT. According to PSC a state vector is not an attribute of a single electron, photon, trapped ion or quantum dot. A value of an observable assigned to a physical system has only a meaning in a context of a particular physical experiment PSC does not provide any mental space‐time picture of sub phenomena. The EPR paradox is avoided because the reduction of the state vector in the measurement process is a passage from a description of the whole ensemble of the experimental results to a particular sub‐ensemble of these results. We show that the violation of BI is neither a proof of the completeness of QT nor of its non‐locality. Therefore we rephrase the EPR question and ask whether QT is “predictably “complete or in other words does it provide the complete description of experimental data. To test the “predictable completeness” it is not necessary to perform additional experiments it is sufficient to analyze more in detail the existing experimental data by using various non‐parametric purity tests and other specific statistical tools invented to study the fine structure the time‐series.

arXiv:0710.3397AIP conference proceedingsJan 1, 200628 citations

How Quantum is the Classical World?

Gary Bruno Schmid, Rudolf M. Dünki

It has been experimentally confirmed that quantum physical phenomena can violate the Information Bell Inequalities. A violation of the one or the other of these Information Bell Inequalites is equivalent to a violation of local realism meaning that either objectivity or locality, or both, do not hold for the phenomena under investigation. We propose (1) an experimental design for carrying out classical measurements in the absence of ontological complementarity; (2) a rational way to extract epistemologically complementary (pseudocomplementary) data from it; (3) a statistical approach which can reject stochastic and/or suspected violations of local realism in measurements of such data.

arXiv:1101.1794International Journal of Probability and StatisticsJan 10, 20112 citations

Quantum Statistical Inference

James D. Malley, John S. Hornstein

The three main points of this article are: 1. Quantum mechanical data differ from conventional data: for example, joint distributions usually cannot be defined conventionally; 2. rigorous methods have been developed for analyzing such data; the methods often use quantum-consistent analogs of classical statistical procedures; 3. with these procedures, statisticians, both data-analytic and more theoretically oriented, can become active participants in many new and emerging areas of science and biotechnology. In the physical realm described by quantum mechanics, many conventional statistical and probabilistic assumptions no longer hold. Probabilistic ideas are central to quantum theory but the standard Kolmogorov axioms are not uniformly applicable. Studying such phenomena requires an altered model for sample spaces, for random variables and for inference and decision making. The appropriate decision theory has been in development since the mid-1960s. It is both mathematically and statistically rigorous and conforms to the requirements of the known physical results. This article provides a tour of the structure and current applications of quantum-consistent statistical inference and decision theory. It presents examples, outlines the theory and considers applications and open problems. Certain central concepts of quantum theory are more clearly apprehended in terms of the quantum-consistent statistical decision theory. For example, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle can be obtained as a consequence of the quantum version of the Cramer-Rao inequality. This places concepts of statistical estimation and decision theory, and thus the statistician, at the center of the quantum measurement process. Quantum statistical inference offers considerable scope for participation by the statistical community, in both applications and foundational questions.

Statistical ScienceNov 1, 199383 citations

Time Series, Stochastic Processes and Completeness of Quantum Theory

Marian Kupczyński, Andrei Yu. Khrennikov, Gregg S. Jaeger +2 more

Most of physical experiments are usually described as repeated measurements of some random variables. Experimental data registered by on‐line computers form time series of outcomes. The frequencies of different outcomes are compared with the probabilities provided by the algorithms of quantum theory (QT). In spite of statistical predictions of QT a claim was made that it provided the most complete description of the data and of the underlying physical phenomena. This claim could be easily rejected if some fine structures, averaged out in the standard descriptive statistical analysis, were found in time series of experimental data. To search for these structures one has to use more subtle statistical tools which were developed to study time series produced by various stochastic processes. In this talk we review some of these tools. As an example we show how the standard descriptive statistical analysis of the data is unable to reveal a fine structure in a simulated sample of AR (2) stochastic process. We emphasize once again that the violation of Bell inequalities gives no information on the completeness or the non locality of QT. The appropriate way to test the completeness of quantum theory is to search for fine structures in time series of the experimental data by means of the purity tests or by studying the autocorrelation and partial autocorrelation functions.

AIP conference proceedingsJan 1, 20115 citations