The notion of probability plays a crucial role in quantum mechanics. It appears in quantum mechanics as the Born rule. In modern mathematics which describes quantum mechanics, however, probability theory means nothing other than measure theory, and therefore any operational characterization of the notion of probability is still missing in quantum mechanics. In our former works [K. Tadaki, arXiv:1804.10174], based on the toolkit of algorithmic randomness, we presented a refinement of the Born rule, called the principle of typicality, for specifying the property of results of measurements in an operational way. In this paper, we make an application of our framework to the argument of local realism versus quantum mechanics for refining it, in order to demonstrate how properly our framework works in practical problems in quantum mechanics.
The notion of probability plays a crucial role in quantum mechanics. It appears in quantum mechanics as the Born rule. In modern mathematics which describes quantum mechanics, however, probability theory means nothing other than measure theory, and therefore any operational characterization of the notion of probability is still missing in quantum mechanics. In our former works [K. Tadaki, arXiv:1804.10174], based on the toolkit of algorithmic randomness, we presented a refinement of the Born rule, called the principle of typicality, for specifying the property of results of measurements in an operational way. In this paper, we make an application of our framework to the argument of local realism versus quantum mechanics for refining it, in order to demonstrate how properly our framework works in practical problems in quantum mechanics.
The notion of probability plays a crucial role in quantum mechanics. It appears in quantum mechanics as the Born rule. In modern mathematics which describes quantum mechanics, however, probability theory means nothing other than measure theory, and therefore any operational characterization of the notion of probability is still missing in quantum mechanics. In our former works [K. Tadaki, arXiv:1804.10174], based on the toolkit of algorithmic randomness, we presented a refinement of the Born rule, called the principle of typicality, for specifying the property of results of measurements in an operational way. In this paper, we make an application of our framework to the argument of Bell's inequality versus quantum mechanics for refining it, in order to demonstrate how properly our framework works in practical problems in quantum mechanics.
The notion of probability plays a crucial role in quantum mechanics. It appears in quantum mechanics as the Born rule. In modern mathematics which describes quantum mechanics, however, probability theory means nothing other than measure theory, and therefore any operational characterization of the notion of probability is still missing in quantum mechanics. In this paper, based on the toolkit of algorithmic randomness, we present a refinement of the Born rule, as an alternative rule to it, for specifying the property of the results of quantum measurements in an operational way. Algorithmic randomness is a field of mathematics which enables us to consider the randomness of an individual infinite sequence. We then present an operational refinement of the Born rule for mixed states, as an alternative rule to it, based on algorithmic randomness. In particular, we give a precise definition for the notion of mixed state. We then show that all of the refined rules of the Born rule for both pure states and mixed states can be derived from a single postulate, called the principle of typicality, in a unified manner. We do this from the point of view of the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics. Finally, we make an application of our framework to the BB84 quantum key distribution protocol in order to demonstrate how properly our framework works in practical problems in quantum mechanics, based on the principle of typicality.
The notion of probability plays a crucial role in quantum mechanics. It appears in quantum mechanics as the Born rule. In modern mathematics which describes quantum mechanics, however, probability theory means nothing other than measure theory, and therefore any operational characterization of the notion of probability is still missing in quantum mechanics. In our former works [K. Tadaki, arXiv:1804.10174], based on the toolkit of algorithmic randomness, we presented a refinement of the Born rule, called the principle of typicality, for specifying the property of results of measurements in an operational way. The Wigner's friend paradox is a Gedankenexperiment regarding when and where the reduction of the state vector occurs in a chain of the measurements by several observers where the state of the consciousness of each observer is measured by the subsequent observer. In this paper, we extend the framework of the principle of typicality so that it can be applicable to situations where apparatuses perform measurements over other apparatuses. We then make an analysis of the Wigner's friend paradox within this extended framework of quantum mechanics based on the principle of typicality. We draw common sense conclusions about it. Deutsch's thought experiment is a variant of the Wigner's friend paradox, which can, in principle, verify the effect of the consciousness of observer on the reduction of the state vector. We make an analysis of it comprehensively within the extended framework. We then make a prediction which is testable in principle. In our extended framework, we can analyze still more complicated situations. As such an example, we introduce a combination of the above two, named the Wigner-Deutsch collaboration, and perform a thorough analysis of it.
In order to make the right empirical predictions Bohmian mechanics requires a special statistical boundary condition -- the distribution postulate -- but it is unclear how best to understand this condition. We show how one might use the theory of algorithmic randomness to formulate the distribution postulate as an objective constraining law. The framework requires us to say something about admissible quantum-mechanical states and measurements. In return, algorithmic Bohmian mechanics (aBM) guarantees the standard Born statistics for a collection of canonical quantum experiments in the limit, not just with high probability. The algorithmic distribution postulate provides a sharp typicality condition, clarifies the status of quantum probabilities in the deterministic theory, and provides a concrete example of how notions provided by the theory of algorithmic randomness can aid in specifying the content of a physical law.
The Everett (or relative-state, or many-worlds) interpretation of quantum mechanics has come under fire for inadequately dealing with the Born rule (the formula for calculating quantum probabilities). Numerous attempts have been made to derive this rule from the perspective of observers within the quantum wavefunction. These are not really analytic proofs, but are rather attempts to derive the Born rule as a synthetic a priori necessity, given the nature of human observers (a fact not fully appreciated even by all of those who have attempted such proofs). I show why existing attempts are unsuccessful or only partly successful, and postulate that Solomonoff's algorithmic approach to the interpretation of probability theory could clarify the problems with these approaches. The Sleeping Beauty probability puzzle is used as a springboard from which to deduce an objectivist, yet synthetic a priori framework for quantum probabilities, that properly frames the role of self-location and self-selection (anthropic) principles in probability theory. I call this framework "algorithmic synthetic unity" (or ASU). I offer no new formal proof of the Born rule, largely because I feel that existing proofs (particularly that of Gleason) are already adequate, and as close to being a formal proof as one should expect or want. Gleason's one unjustified assumption--known as noncontextuality--is, I will argue, completely benign when considered within the algorithmic framework that I propose. I will also argue that, to the extent the Born rule can be derived within ASU, there is no reason to suppose that we could not also derive all the other fundamental postulates of quantum theory, as well. There is nothing special here about the Born rule, and I suggest that a completely successful Born rule proof might only be possible once all the other postulates become part of the derivation. As a start towards this end, I show how we can already derive the essential content of the fundamental postulates of quantum mechanics, at least in outline, and especially if we allow some educated and well-motivated guesswork along the way. The result is some steps towards a coherent and consistent algorithmic interpretation of quantum mechanics.
Abstract This is a review of the issue of randomness in quantum mechanics, with special emphasis on its ambiguity; for example, randomness has different antipodal relationships to determinism, computability, and compressibility. Following a (Wittgensteinian) philosophical discussion of randomness in general, I argue that deterministic interpretations of quantum mechanics (like Bohmian mechanics or ’t Hooft’s Cellular Automaton interpretation) are strictly speaking incompatible with the Born rule. I also stress the role of outliers, i.e. measurement outcomes that are not 1-random. Although these occur with low (or even zero) probability, their very existence implies that the no-signaling principle used in proofs of randomness of outcomes of quantum-mechanical measurements (and of the safety of quantum cryptography) should be reinterpreted statistically, like the second law of thermodynamics. In three appendices I discuss the Born rule and its status in both single and repeated experiments, review the notion of 1-randomness (or algorithmic randomness) that in various guises was investigated by Kolmogorov and others and treat Bell’s (Physics 1:195–200, 1964) Theorem and the Free Will Theorem with their implications for randomness.