Spekkens has introduced an epistemically restricted classical theory of
discrete systems, based on discrete phase space. The theory manifests a number
of quantum-like properties but cannot fully imitate quantum theory because it
is noncontextual. In this paper we start with a theory resembling Spekkens's
model: we imagine a classical observer describing an experiment in terms of
discrete phase space, and for each aspect of the experiment -- the state
preparation, the transformations, and the measurement -- there is an epistemic
restriction limiting the form of the probability distribution the classical
observer may use. We show that for a certain class of systems, one can obtain
the correct quantum mechanical prediction for the experiment by combining the
(typically weaker) predictions of all the conceivable classical observers. The
rule for effecting this combination is highly nonclassical: the ``nonrandom
part of the quantum prediction is obtained by summing the ``nonrandom parts
of the classical predictions.
Spekkens has introduced an epistemically restricted classical theory of discrete systems, based on discrete phase space. The theory manifests a number of quantum-like properties but cannot fully imitate quantum theory because it is noncontextual. In this paper we show how, for a certain class of quantum systems, the quantum description of an experiment can be decomposed into classical descriptions that are epistemically restricted, though in a different sense than in Spekkens' work. For each aspect of the experiment—the preparation, the transformations, and the measurement—the epistemic restriction limits the form of the probability distribution an imagined classical observer may use. There are also global constraints that the whole collection of classical descriptions must satisfy. Each classical description generates its own prediction regarding the outcome of the experiment. One recovers the quantum prediction via a simple but highly nonclassical rule: the "nonrandom part" of the predicted quantum probabilities is obtained by summing the nonrandom parts of the classically predicted probabilities. By "nonrandom part" we mean the deviation from complete randomness, that is, from what one would expect upon measuring the fully mixed state.
Quantum probability and quantum mechanics The formalism of quantum probability theory Discussions of quantum mechanics are often confused by a lack of clarity about what exactly constitutes ‘quantum mechanics’. It is therefore useful to try at the start to isolate a consistent mathematical core of quantum mechanics, and consider anything that goes beyond this core to be ‘interpretation’. For us, this core is quantum probability theory. Quantum probability is a generalization of classical probability, and therefore I begin with a brief review of the latter. I assume that the reader has some familiarity with the ideas of probability theory. What follows is just to provide a quick review, and to establish some notation and terminology. In modern classical probability theory, probabilities are defined over algebras of events. The motivation is straightforward: we begin with a set of ‘primitive’, or ‘simple’, events (the ‘sample space’), and form an algebra of events by taking all logical combinations of the simple events. For example, let us take the simple events to be the possible results of rolling a six-sided die one time, so that the sample space is the set {1,2,3,4,5,6}. We then form an algebra of events from the sample space by taking all possible logical combinations of the simple events. Logical combinations include, for example, ‘either 3 or 5’ and ‘not 3 and not 2’.
A resolution of the quantum measurement problem(s) using the consistent histories interpretation yields in a rather natural way a restriction on what an observer can know about a quantum system, one that is also consistent with some results in quantum information theory. This analysis provides a quantum mechanical understanding of some recent work that shows that certain kinds of quantum behavior are exhibited by a fully classical model if by hypothesis an observer's knowledge of its state is appropriately limited.
We derive the Hilbert space formalism of quantum mechanics from epistemic principles. A key assumption is that a physical theory that relies on entities or distinctions that are unknowable in principle gives rise to wrong predictions. An epistemic formalism is developed, where concepts like individual and collective knowledge are used, and knowledge may be actual or potential. The physical state
S corresponds to the collective potential knowledge. The state
S is a subset of a state space
S={Z}, such that
S always contains several elements
Z, which correspond to unattainable states of complete potential knowledge of the world. The evolution of
S cannot be determined in terms of the individual evolution of the elements
Z, unlike the evolution of an ensemble in classical phase space. The evolution of
S is described in terms of sequential time
n∈N, which is updated according to
n→n+1 each time potential knowledge changes. In certain experimental contexts
C, there is initial knowledge at time
n that a given series of properties
P,P′,… will be observed within a given time frame, meaning that a series of values
p,p′,… of these properties will become known. At time
n, it is just known that these values belong to predefined, finite sets
{p},{p′},…. In such a context
C, it is possible to define a complex Hilbert space
HC on top of
S, in which the elements are contextual state vectors
SˉC. Born's rule to calculate the probabilities to find the values
p,p′,… is derived as the only generally applicable such rule. Also, we can associate a self-adjoint operator
Pˉ with eigenvalues
{p} to each property
P observed within
C. These operators obey
[Pˉ,Pˉ′]=0 if and only if the precise values of
P and
P′ are simultaneoulsy knowable.
In our previous papers we were interested in making a reconstruction of quantum mechanics according to classical mechanics. In this paper we suspend this program for a while and turn our attention to a theme in the frontier of quantum mechanics itself---that is, the formation of operators. We then investigate all the subtleties involved in forming operators from their classical counterparts. We show, using the formalism of quantum phase-space distributions, that our formation method, which is equivalent to Weyl's rule, gives the correct answer. Since this method implies that eigenstates are not dispersion-free we argue for modifications in the orthodox view. Many properties of the quantum phase-space distributions are also investigated and discussed in the realm of our classical approach. We then strengthen the conclusions of our previous papers that quantum mechanics is merely an extremely good approximation of classical statistical mechanics performed upon the configuration space.