How should we model an observer within quantum mechanics or quantum field theory? How can classical physics emerge from a quantum model, and why should classical probability be useful? How can we model a selective measurement entirely within a closed quantum system? This paper sketches a new physical theory of probability based on an attempt to model classical information within a purely quantum system. We model classical information using a version of Zurek's theory of Quantum Darwinism, with emphasis on quantum information encoded using projection operators localised in spacetime. This version of Quantum Darwinism is compatible with quantum field theory, and does not require any artificial division of a quantum system into subsystems. The main innovation is our attempt to provide a physical explanation of probability. Decoherence is the physical mechanism behind Quantum Darwinism or the `branching of quantum worlds'. Assuming a type of perfect decoherence we construct a conventional probabilistic model for classical information. This, however, is not our theory of natural probability, and does not quite demonstrate the validity of Bayesian reasoning. Instead, our theory of natural probability arises from careful consideration of errors in decoherence: roughly speaking, we don't observe low probability events because they are swamped by quantum noise.
How should we model an observer within quantum mechanics or quantum field theory? How can classical physics emerge from a quantum model, and why should classical probability be useful? How can we model a selective measurement entirely within a closed quantum system? This paper sketches a new physical theory of probability based on an attempt to model classical information within a purely quantum system. We model classical information using a version of Zurek's theory of Quantum Darwinism, with emphasis on quantum information encoded using projection operators localised in spacetime. This version of Quantum Darwinism is compatible with quantum field theory, and does not require any artificial division of a quantum system into subsystems. The main innovation is our attempt to provide a physical explanation of probability. Decoherence is the physical mechanism behind Quantum Darwinism or the `branching of quantum worlds'. Assuming a type of perfect decoherence we construct a conventional probabilistic model for classical information. This, however, is not our theory of natural probability, and does not quite demonstrate the validity of Bayesian reasoning. Instead, our theory of natural probability arises from careful consideration of errors in decoherence: roughly speaking, we don't observe low probability events because they are swamped by quantum noise.
We attempt to contribute some novel points of view to the "foundations of quantum mechanics", using mathematical tools from "quantum probability theory" (such as the theory of operator algebras). We first introduce an abstract algebraic framework for the formulation of mathematical models of physical systems that is general enough to encompass classical and quantum mechanical models. After a short discussion on the properties of classical systems (realism and determinism), we move on to the study of a general class of quantum-mechanical models of physical systems and explain what some of the key problems in a quantum theory of observations and measurements are. In the last part of our essay, we attempt to elucidate the roles played by entanglement between a system and its environment and of information loss in understanding "decoherence" and "dephasing", which are key mechanisms in a quantum theory of measurements and experiments. We also discuss the problem of "time in quantum mechanics" and sketch an answer to the question when an experiment can be considered to have been completed successfully.
Quantum Darwinism posits that the emergence of a classical reality relies on the spreading of classical information from a quantum system to many parts of its environment. But what are the essential physical principles of quantum theory that make this mechanism possible? We address this question by formulating the simplest instance of Darwinism – CNOT-like fan - out interactions – in a class of probabilistic theories that contain classical and quantum theory as special cases. We determine necessary and sufficient conditions for any theory to admit such interactions. We find that every theory with non-classical features that admits this idealized spreading of classical information must have both entangled states and entangled measurements. Furthermore, we show that Spekkens' toy theory admits this form of Darwinism, and so do all probabilistic theories that satisfy principles like strong symmetry, or contain a certain type of decoherence processes. Our result suggests the counter-intuitive general principle that in the presence of local non-classicality, a classical world can only emerge if this non-classicality can be "amplified" to a form of entanglement.
The measurement problem has been a central puzzle of quantum theory since its inception, and understanding how the classical world emerges from our fundamentally quantum universe is key to its resolution. While the 'Copenhagen' and 'Many Worlds' interpretations have dominated discussion of this philosophically charged question, Zurek builds on the physics of decoherence and introduces the theory of 'Quantum Darwinism' to provide a novel account of the emergence of classical reality. Opening with a modern view of quantum theory, the book reconsiders the customary textbook account of quantum foundations, showing how the controversial axioms (including Born's rule) follow from the consistent core postulates. Part II discusses decoherence and explores its role in the quantum-to-classical transition. Part III introduces Quantum Darwinism, explaining how an information-theoretic perspective complements, elucidates, and reconciles the 'Copenhagen' and 'Many Worlds' interpretations. This insightful book is essential reading for any student or researcher interested in quantum physics.
In the Bayesian approach to probability theory, probability quantifies a degree of belief for a single trial, without any a priori connection to limiting frequencies. Despite being prescribed by a fundamental law, probabilities for individual quantum systems can be understood within the Bayesian approach. We argue that the distinction between classical and quantum probabilities lies not in their definition, but in the nature of the information they encode. In the classical world, maximal information about a physical system is complete in the sense of providing definite predictions for all possible questions that can be asked of the system. In the quantum world, maximal information is not complete and cannot be completed. Using this distinction, we show that any Bayesian probability assignment in quantum mechanics must have the form of the quantum probability rule, that maximal information about a quantum system leads to a unique quantum-state assignment, and that quantum theory provides a stronger connection between probability and measured frequency than can be justified classically. Finally we give a Bayesian formulation of quantum-state tomography. There are excellent reasons for interpreting quantum states as states of knowledge. A classic
Abstract: A suitable unified statistical formulation of quantum and classical mechanics in a ∗-algebraic setting leads us to conclude that information itself is noncommutative in quantum mechanics. Specifically we refer here to an observer’s information regarding a physical system. This is seen as the main difference from classical mechanics, where an observer’s information regarding a physical system obeys classical probability theory. Quantum mechanics is then viewed purely as a mathematical framework for the probabilistic description of noncommutative information, with the projection postulate being a noncommutative generalization of conditional probability. This view clarifies many problems surrounding the interpretation of quantum mechanics, particularly problems relating to the measuring process. 1.
Core quantum postulates including the superposition principle and the unitarity of evolutions are natural and strikingly simple. I show that—when supplemented with a limited version of predictability (captured in the textbook accounts by the repeatability postulate)—these core postulates can account for all the symptoms of classicality. In particular, both objective classical reality and elusive information about reality arise, via quantum Darwinism, from the quantum substrate. This approach shares with the Relative State Interpretation of Everett the view that collapse of the wavepacket reflects perception of the state of the rest of the Universe relative to the state of observer’s records. However, our “let quantum be quantum” approach poses questions absent in Bohr’s Copenhagen Interpretation that relied on the preexisting classical domain. Thus, one is now forced to seek preferred, predictable, hence effectively classical but ultimately quantum states that allow observers keep reliable records. Without such (i) preferred basis relative states are simply “too relative”, and the ensuing basis ambiguity makes it difficult to identify events (e.g., measurement outcomes). Moreover, universal validity of quantum theory raises the issue of (ii) the origin of Born’s rule, pk=|ψk|2, relating probabilities and amplitudes (that is simply postulated in textbooks). Last not least, even preferred pointer states (defined by einselection—environment—induced superselection)—are still quantum. Therefore, unlike classical states that exist objectively, quantum states of an individual system cannot be found out by an initially ignorant observer through direct measurement without being disrupted. So, to complete the ‘quantum theory of the classical’ one must identify (iii) quantum origin of objective existence and explain how the information about objectively existing states can appear to be essentially inconsequential for them (as it does for states in Newtonian physics) and yet matter in other settings (e.g., thermodynamics). I show how the mathematical structure of quantum theory supplemented by the only uncontroversial measurement postulate (that demands immediate repeatability—hence, predictability) leads to preferred states. These (i) pointer states correspond to measurement outcomes. Their stability is a prerequisite for objective existence of effectively classical states and for events such as quantum jumps. Events at hand, one can now enquire about their probability—the probability of a pointer state (or of a measurement record). I show that the symmetry of entangled states—(ii) entanglement—assisted invariance or envariance—implies Born’s rule. Envariance also accounts for the loss of phase coherence between pointer states. Thus, decoherence can be traced to symmetries of entanglement and understood without its usual tool—reduced density matrices. A simple and manifestly noncircular derivation of pk=|ψk|2 follows. Monitoring of the system by its environment in course of decoherence typically leaves behind multiple copies of its pointer states in the environment. Only pointer states can survive decoherence and can spawn such plentiful information-theoretic progeny. This (iii) quantum Darwinism allows observers to use environment as a witness—to find out pointer states indirectly, leaving systems of interest untouched. Quantum Darwinism shows how epistemic and ontic (coexisting in epiontic quantum state) separate into robust objective existence of pointer states and detached information about them, giving rise to extantons—composite objects with system of interest in the core and multiple records of its pointer states in the halo comprising of environment subsystems (e.g., photons) which disseminates that information throughout the Universe.