Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Log inSign up
Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Blog
Job Board
Q3AS

© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

TermsPrivacyLegal Notice

arXiv:1305.1262

Weakening the Born Rule - Towards a Stateless Formulation of Quantum Mechanics

Olivier Brunet

Published May 6, 2013• 0 citations
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

The notion of state vector is, in quantum mechanics, as central as it is problematic, as illustrates the wealth of publications about the sub- jects, including in particular the many attempts to obtain an acceptable interpretation of quantum mechanics. In this article, we propose a different approach, and initiate the study of a formulation of quantum mechanics, where the notion of state is entirely replaced by assertions about measurement outcomes. We define a notion of "verification" which represents the knowledge that one may have about the possible outcomes of the measurements performed on a quantum system, and express a set of logical rules which allow to reason about quantum systems using verification assertions only, and thus making no reference to the problematic notion of state.

DOI
10.48550/arxiv.1305.1262

Related papers

A Logic of Quantum Measurement

Olivier Brunet

We present a formulation of quantum mechanics based on a logic representing some aspects of the behaviour of the measurement process. With such an approach, we make no direct mention of quantum states, and thus avoid the problems associated to this rather evasive notion. We then study some properties of the models of this logic, and deduce some characteristics that any model (and hence any formulation of quantum mechanics compatible with its prediction and relying on a notion of measurement) should verify. The main results we obtain are that in the case of a Hilbert space of dimension at least 3, no model can lead to the prediction with certainty of more than one atomic outcome. Moreover, if the Hilbert space is finite dimensional, then we are able to precisely describe the structure of the predictions of any model of our logic. As a consequence, we finally show that all the models of our logic make exactly the same predictions regarding whether a given sequence of outcomes is possible or not.

•Feb 17, 2015•0 citations

Quantum-Bayesian Coherence

Christopher A. Fuchs, Ruediger Schack

In a quantum-Bayesian take on quantum mechanics, the Born Rule cannot be interpreted as a rule for setting measurement-outcome probabilities from an objective quantum state. But if not, what is the role of the rule? In this paper, we argue that it should be seen as an empirical addition to Bayesian reasoning itself. Particularly, we show how to view the Born Rule as a normative rule in addition to usual Dutch-book coherence. It is a rule that takes into account how one should assign probabilities to the consequences of various intended measurements on a physical system, but explicitly in terms of prior probabilities for and conditional probabilities consequent upon the imagined outcomes of a special counterfactual reference measurement. This interpretation is seen particularly clearly by representing quantum states in terms of probabilities for the outcomes of a fixed, fiducial symmetric informationally complete (SIC) measurement. We further explore the extent to which the general form of the new normative rule implies the full state-space structure of quantum mechanics. It seems to get quite far.

arXiv:0906.2187•Jun 11, 2009•28 citations

Quantum-Bayesian Coherence

Christopher A. Fuchs

In a quantum-Bayesian take on quantum mechanics, the Born Rule cannot be interpreted as a rule for setting measurement-outcome probabilities from an objective quantum state. But if not, what is the role of the rule? In this paper, we argue that it should be seen as an empirical addition to Bayesian reasoning itself. Particularly, we show how to view the Born Rule as a normative rule in addition to usual Dutch-book coherence. It is a rule that takes into account how one should assign probabilities to the consequences of various intended measurements on a physical system, but explicitly in terms of prior probabilities for and conditional probabilities consequent upon the imagined outcomes of a special counterfactual reference measurement. This interpretation is seen particularly clearly by representing quantum states in terms of probabilities for the outcomes of a fixed, fiducial symmetric informationally complete (SIC) measurement. We further explore the extent to which the general form of the new normative rule implies the

Bulletin of the American Physical Society•Mar 18, 2010•0 citations

Quantum Mechanics without Probability Amplitudes

William K. Wootters

First steps are taken toward a formulation of quantum mechanics which avoids the use of probability amplitudes and is expressed entirely in terms of observable probabilities. Quantum states are represented not by state vectors or density matrices but by “probability tables,” which contain only the probabilities of the outcomes of certain special measurements. The rule for computing transition probabilities, normally given by the squared modulus of the inner product of two state vectors, is re-expressed in terms of probability tables. The new version of the rule is surprisingly simple, especially when one considers that the notion of complex phases, so crucial in the evaluation of inner products, is entirely absent from the representation of states used here.

Princeton University Press eBooks•Jul 5, 2017•0 citations

A non-probabilistic substitute for the Born rule

Daniela Frauchiger, Renato Renner

The Born rule assigns a probability to any possible outcome of a quantum measurement, but leaves open the question how these probabilities are to be interpreted and, in particular, how they relate to the outcome observed in an actual experiment. We propose to avoid this question by replacing the Born rule with two non-probabilistic postulates: (i) the projector associated to the observed outcome must have a positive overlap with the state of the measured system; (ii) statements about observed outcomes are robust, that is, remain valid under small perturbations of the state. We show that the two postulates suffice to retrieve the interpretations of the Born rule that are commonly used for analysing experimental data.

arXiv:1710.05033•Oct 13, 2017•2 citations

The Born rule and logical inference in quantum mechanics

Tsubasa Ichikawa

Abstract Logical inference leads to one of the major interpretations of probability theory called logical interpretation, in which the probability is seen as a measure of the plausibility of a logical statement under incomplete information. Assuming that our usual inference procedure is working rationally for every set of logical propositions represented in terms of commuting projectors on a given Hilbert space, we extend the logical interpretation to quantum mechanics and derive the Born rule. Our result implies that, from epistemological viewpoints, we can regard quantum mechanics as a natural extension of classical probability theory.

arXiv:1804.10067•Progress of Theoretical and Experimental Physics•Oct 19, 2021•3 citations
The notion of state vector is, in quantum mechanics, as central as it is problematic, as illustrates the wealth of publications about the sub- jects, including in particular the many attempts to obtain an acceptable interpretation of quantum mechanics. In this article, we propose a different approach, and initiate the study of a formulation of quantum mechanics, where the notion of state is entirely replaced by assertions about measurement outcomes. We define a notion of "verification" which represents the knowledge that one may have about the possible outcomes of the measurements performed on a quantum system, and express a set of logical rules which allow to reason about quantum systems using verification assertions only, and thus making no reference to the problematic notion of state.
We present a formulation of quantum mechanics based on a logic representing some aspects of the behaviour of the measurement process. With such an approach, we make no direct mention of quantum states, and thus avoid the problems associated to this rather evasive notion. We then study some properties of the models of this logic, and deduce some characteristics that any model (and hence any formulation of quantum mechanics compatible with its prediction and relying on a notion of measurement) should verify. The main results we obtain are that in the case of a Hilbert space of dimension at least 3, no model can lead to the prediction with certainty of more than one atomic outcome. Moreover, if the Hilbert space is finite dimensional, then we are able to precisely describe the structure of the predictions of any model of our logic. As a consequence, we finally show that all the models of our logic make exactly the same predictions regarding whether a given sequence of outcomes is possible or not.
In a quantum-Bayesian take on quantum mechanics, the Born Rule cannot be interpreted as a rule for setting measurement-outcome probabilities from an objective quantum state. But if not, what is the role of the rule? In this paper, we argue that it should be seen as an empirical addition to Bayesian reasoning itself. Particularly, we show how to view the Born Rule as a normative rule in addition to usual Dutch-book coherence. It is a rule that takes into account how one should assign probabilities to the consequences of various intended measurements on a physical system, but explicitly in terms of prior probabilities for and conditional probabilities consequent upon the imagined outcomes of a special counterfactual reference measurement. This interpretation is seen particularly clearly by representing quantum states in terms of probabilities for the outcomes of a fixed, fiducial symmetric informationally complete (SIC) measurement. We further explore the extent to which the general form of the new normative rule implies the full state-space structure of quantum mechanics. It seems to get quite far.
In a quantum-Bayesian take on quantum mechanics, the Born Rule cannot be interpreted as a rule for setting measurement-outcome probabilities from an objective quantum state. But if not, what is the role of the rule? In this paper, we argue that it should be seen as an empirical addition to Bayesian reasoning itself. Particularly, we show how to view the Born Rule as a normative rule in addition to usual Dutch-book coherence. It is a rule that takes into account how one should assign probabilities to the consequences of various intended measurements on a physical system, but explicitly in terms of prior probabilities for and conditional probabilities consequent upon the imagined outcomes of a special counterfactual reference measurement. This interpretation is seen particularly clearly by representing quantum states in terms of probabilities for the outcomes of a fixed, fiducial symmetric informationally complete (SIC) measurement. We further explore the extent to which the general form of the new normative rule implies the
First steps are taken toward a formulation of quantum mechanics which avoids the use of probability amplitudes and is expressed entirely in terms of observable probabilities. Quantum states are represented not by state vectors or density matrices but by “probability tables,” which contain only the probabilities of the outcomes of certain special measurements. The rule for computing transition probabilities, normally given by the squared modulus of the inner product of two state vectors, is re-expressed in terms of probability tables. The new version of the rule is surprisingly simple, especially when one considers that the notion of complex phases, so crucial in the evaluation of inner products, is entirely absent from the representation of states used here.
The Born rule assigns a probability to any possible outcome of a quantum measurement, but leaves open the question how these probabilities are to be interpreted and, in particular, how they relate to the outcome observed in an actual experiment. We propose to avoid this question by replacing the Born rule with two non-probabilistic postulates: (i) the projector associated to the observed outcome must have a positive overlap with the state of the measured system; (ii) statements about observed outcomes are robust, that is, remain valid under small perturbations of the state. We show that the two postulates suffice to retrieve the interpretations of the Born rule that are commonly used for analysing experimental data.
Abstract Logical inference leads to one of the major interpretations of probability theory called logical interpretation, in which the probability is seen as a measure of the plausibility of a logical statement under incomplete information. Assuming that our usual inference procedure is working rationally for every set of logical propositions represented in terms of commuting projectors on a given Hilbert space, we extend the logical interpretation to quantum mechanics and derive the Born rule. Our result implies that, from epistemological viewpoints, we can regard quantum mechanics as a natural extension of classical probability theory.