According to quantum theory, pure physical states correspond to equivalence classes of state vectors, where any two members of one class differ by a complex factor. The point is that such a factor does not change the probability for the occurrence of any measurement result as computed within the formalism of quantum mechanics. In the formalism to be presented here, the state vector does not only determine the probabilities for the occurrence of measurement results, rather it determines the result itself. The information which guides the selection process is obtained from the state vector in a way that is not invariant against multiplication by a complex factor. It can be seen as a kind of global phase of the state vectors. This global phase then is a perfectly hidden variable. For this presentation of quantum mechanics we have a remarkable parallelism to classical statistical mechanics: If we would know exactly the initial state of a system, we could compute the outcomes for all experiments to be done later on this system. In the quantum case the initial state is to be represented by its state vector with specified phase, e.g. as a concrete complex-valued wave function.
According to quantum theory, pure physical states correspond to equivalence classes of state vectors, where any two members of one class differ by a complex factor. The point is that such a factor does not change the probability for the occurrence of any measurement result as computed within the formalism of quantum mechanics. In the formalism to be presented here, the state vector does not only determine the probabilities for the occurrence of measurement results, rather it determines the result itself. The information which guides the selection process is obtained from the state vector in a way that is not invariant against multiplication by a complex factor. It can be seen as a kind of global phase of the state vectors. This global phase then is a perfectly hidden variable. For this presentation of quantum mechanics we have a remarkable parallelism to classical statistical mechanics: If we would know exactly the initial state of a system, we could compute the outcomes for all experiments to be done later on this system. In the quantum case the initial state is to be represented by its state vector with specified phase, e.g. as a concrete complex-valued wave function.
The Question of the Completeness of Quantum Mechanics When a classical system is in a pure state, that is, when its preparation represents maximal information, the value of every physical quantity is uniquely predicted. In other words, classical pure states are dispersion-free, and classical mechanics is deterministic. Only in case the state is nonpure, thus representing nonmaximal information about the system, does probability enter into the theory. Things are different with quantum systems. Even in case the state of the system is pure, it is impossible to predict a definite value of every physical quantity: only the probability distributions of the physical quantities are given. Pure quantum states have dispersion (though, of course, they can be dispersion-free for particular physical quantities), and probability enters into quantum theory at a much more fundamental level. The basic idea of so-called hidden-variable theories is to reject the fundamental role of probability in quantum theory and to argue that probability arises because quantum states, even the pure ones, do not represent the ultimate information about the system. Accordingly, it is conjectured that there are certain hidden variables, not yet subject to experimental detection, which would complete the information carried by the quantum states, thus giving rise to so precise a knowledge of the system that probabilities would disappear and precise values of all physical quantities would be uniquely determined.
The concept of a quantum state represents one of the most fundamental pillars of the paradigm of quantum theory.'3 Contrary to its mathematical elegance and convenience in calculations, the physical interpretation of a quantum state is not so transparent. The problem is that the quantum state (described either by a state vector, or density operator or a phase-space probability density distribution) does not have a well defined objective status, i.e. a state vector is not an objective property of a particle. According to Peres (see,1 p. 374): "There is no physical evidence whatsoever that every physical system has at every instant a well defined state. .. In strict interpretation of quantum theory these mathematical symbols [i.e., state vectorsi represent statistical information enabling us to compute the probabilities of occurrence of specific events." Once this point of view is adopted then it becomes clear that any "measurement" or a reconstruction of a density operator (or its mathematical equivalent) can be understood exclusively as an expression of our knowledge about the quantum mechanical state based on a certain set of measured data. To be more specific, any quantum-mechanical reconstruction scheme is nothing more than an a posteriori estimation of the density operator of a quantum-mechanical (microscopic) system based on data obtained with the help of a macroscopic measurement apparatus.3 The quality of the reconstruction depends on the "quality" of the measured data and the efficiency of the reconstruction procedure with the help of which the data analysis is performed. In particular, we can specify three different situations. Firstly, when all system observables are precisely measured. In this case the complete reconstruction of an initially unknown state can be performed (we will call this the reconstruction on the complete observation level) . Secondly, when just part of the system observables is precisely measured then one cannot perform a complete reconstruction of the measured state. Nevertheless, the reconstructed density operator still uniquely determines mean values of the measured observables (we will denote this scheme as reconstruction on incomplete observation levels) . Finally, when measurement does not provide us with sufficient information to specify the exact mean values (or probability distributions) but only the frequencies of appearances of eigenstates of the measured observables, then one can perform an estimation (e.g. reconstruction based on quantum Bayesian inference) which is the "best" with respect to the given measured data and the a priori knowledge about the state of the measured system.
Quantum mechanics has been enormously successful in explaining the behavior of microsystems such as molecules, atoms, and nuclei. We have seen that quantum mechanics describes a quantum system by the wave function ψ, which is the solution of the Schro¨dinger equation. The wave function determines the probability amplitudes (whose modulus squared gives the probability) for all possible outcomes of a measurement corresponding to an observable on the system. In general, the wave function does not uniquely predict the result of a measurement; it only provides a probability distribution for all possible results of the measurement on a quantum system. Only if the system happens to be in an eigenstate corresponding to the observable being measured, is the result of a measurement of this observable completely predictable. On the other hand, the results of measurements corresponding to a conjugate or non-commuting observable, on the same system in the same state, are indeterminate. Quantum mechanical description of physical systems raises profound questions: How are the wave function and the probabilities for different outcomes of a measurement to be interpreted? Does the wave function represent a single system or an ensemble of systems? Does the physical system actually have the attribute corresponding to the measurement in question or does the measurement itself create the attribute? These questions led to different interpretations of quantum mechanics, which were vigorously debated during the years of its discovery as also in the following decades. The new idea of indeterminacy was especially difficult to reconcile with the long-held view that a physical theory should aim at predicting accurately, and without ambiguity, the result of any measurement on any system, big or small. These debates not only gave us a deeper understanding of quantum mechanics but also changed profoundly the way we view the micro-world.
Every quantum physical system can be considered the ''shadow'' of a special kind of classical system. The system proposed here is classical mainly because each observable function has a well precise value on each state of the system: an hypothetical observer able to prepare the system exactly in an assigned state and able to build a measuring apparatus perfectly corresponding to a required observable gets always the same real value. The same system considered instead by an unexpert observer, affected by the ignorance of a hidden variable, is described by a statistical theory giving exactly and without exception the states, the observables, the dynamics and the probabilities prescribed for the usual quantum system.
Shall I refuse my dinner because I do not fully understand the process of digestion? No, not if I am satisfied with the result. O. Heaviside, Electromagnetic Theory , vol. 2, 1899 Basic notions of quantum mechanics Quantum axioms Let us start with a brief recapitulation of quantum mechanics on the “how to” level. According to the standard lore, the instantaneous state of any quantum system (that is, everything that can be known about it at a given moment of time) is given by its wave function (state vector) – a complex-valued vector in some abstract Hilbert space; the nature of this space is determined by the system. All the observables (i.e., physical quantities defined for the system and determined by its state – e.g., the position or momentum of a free particle, the energy of an oscillator) are described by Hermitian operators defined in the same Hilbert space. All three elements – the Hilbert space, the state vector, and the set of observables – are necessary to describe the outcome of any experiment one could perform with the system. Since humans cannot directly observe the behaviour of quantum objects, these outcomes are also called measurements , being the result of using some classical apparatus in order to translate the state of a quantum system into the state of the apparatus, which can then be read out by the experimentalist. The classical (i.e., non-quantum) nature of the apparatus is essential, as we shall see in a moment.
Quantum mechanics is like a pot: it is almost indestructible and extremely rigid, but also very flexible because you can use any ingredients for your soup. Göran Lindblad Quantum mechanics Although our first four chapters have been very mathematical, quantum mechanics has never been very far away. Let us recall how the mathematical structure of quantum mechanics is usually summarized at the end of a first course in the subject. First of all the pure states are given by vectors in a Hilbert space. If that Hilbert space is finite dimensional it is simply the vector space equipped with a scalar product of the particular kind that we called a Hermitian form in Eq. (3.82). Actually a pure state corresponds to an entire equivalence class of vectors; this is usually treated in such a way that the vectors are normalized to have length one and afterwards vectors differing by an overall phase e iø are regarded as physically equivalent. In effect then the space of pure states is the complex projective space; as always in this book n = N – 1. The notation used in quantum mechanics differs from what we have used so far. We have denoted vectors in by Z α , while in quantum mechanics they are usually denoted by a ket vector. We can think of the index α as just a label telling us that Z α is a vector, and then these two notations are in fact exactly equivalent.