Yes-No Experiments The first five sections of this chapter are intended to provide some intuitive physical content to the notions of state and proposition of a quantum system. We deliberately avoid any deductive attitude, and we also avoid formalizations: the ingredients we shall start with (yes-no experiments and preparations) are so primitive and unstructured that the construction of quantum mechanics out of them is certainly not at hand. What we are going to see is simply that there is natural physical motivation for the occurrence at the very basis of every statistical theory—quantum mechanics in particular—of an ordered structure of propositions, of a convex structure of states, and of a relationship between these structures that makes the states behave as probability measures on propositions. From Section 13.6 on, we shall sketch a more formalized model, based on Mackey's approach. By a yes-no experiment is meant an experiment that makes use of a measuring instrument having just two outcomes, which without loss of generality we can agree to label “yes” and “no”. Of course, when talking of a yes-no experiment we always imagine that we have specified the physical system to which it pertains. We also imagine that the interaction between
Yes-No Experiments The first five sections of this chapter are intended to provide some intuitive physical content to the notions of state and proposition of a quantum system. We deliberately avoid any deductive attitude, and we also avoid formalizations: the ingredients we shall start with (yes-no experiments and preparations) are so primitive and unstructured that the construction of quantum mechanics out of them is certainly not at hand. What we are going to see is simply that there is natural physical motivation for the occurrence at the very basis of every statistical theory—quantum mechanics in particular—of an ordered structure of propositions, of a convex structure of states, and of a relationship between these structures that makes the states behave as probability measures on propositions. From Section 13.6 on, we shall sketch a more formalized model, based on Mackey's approach. By a yes-no experiment is meant an experiment that makes use of a measuring instrument having just two outcomes, which without loss of generality we can agree to label “yes” and “no”. Of course, when talking of a yes-no experiment we always imagine that we have specified the physical system to which it pertains. We also imagine that the interaction between
The term proposition usually denotes in quantum mechanics (QM) an element of (standard) quantum logic (QL). Within the orthodox interpretation of QM the propositions of QL cannot be associated with sentences of a language stating properties of individual samples of a physical system, since properties are nonobjective in QM. This makes the interpretation of propositions problematical. The difficulty can be removed by adopting the objective interpretation of QM proposed by one of the authors (semantic realism, or SR, interpretation). In this case, a unified perspective can be adopted for QM and classical mechanics (CM), and a simple first order predicate calculus L(x) with Tarskian semantics can be constructed such that one can associate a physical proposition (i.e., a set of physical states) with every sentence of L(x). The set Pf of all physical propositions is partially ordered and contains a subset PTf of testable physical propositions whose order structure depends on the criteria of testability established by the physical theory. In particular, PTf turns out to be a Boolean lattice in CM, while it can be identified with QL in QM. Hence the propositions of QL can be associated with sentences of L(x), or also with the sentences of a suitable quantum language LTQ(x), and the structure of QL characterizes the notion of testability in QM. One can then show that the notion of quantum truth does not conflict with the classical notion of truth within this perspective. Furthermore, the interpretation of QL propounded here proves to be equivalent to a previous pragmatic interpretation worked out by one of the authors, and can be embodied within a more general perspective which considers states as first order predicates of a broader language with a Kripkean semantics.
One of the main purposes of a physical theory is to describe and predict events observed in physical experiments. In this chapter we introduce the key physical concepts used in the description of quantum experiments and present their mathematical formalization as Hilbert space operators. Duality of states and effects Fundamental in quantum theory is the concept of a state, which is usually understood as a description of an ensemble of similarly prepared systems. An effect , on the other hand, is a measurement apparatus that produces either ‘yes’ or ‘no’ as an outcome. The concept of an effect was coined by Ludwig [96] and made popular by Kraus [89]. The duality of states and effects means, essentially, that when a state and an effect are specified we can calculate a probability distribution. This can be compared with the outcomes of real experiments, and it gives a physical meaning to the mathematical Hilbert space machinery. Basic statistical framework A basic situation in physics is the following: we have an object system under investigation, and we are trying to learn something about it by doing an experiment. As a result, a measurement outcome is registered. A statistical theory, such as quantum theory, does not in general predict which individual outcomes will occur in any particular measurement; it merely predicts their probabilities of occurrence. Hence, we take the output of an experiment (which consists of many measurement runs) to be a probability distribution on a set Ω of the possible measurement outcomes.
MEASUREMENT INTERACTIONS In the present interpretation terms such as ‘measurement,’ ‘observation,’ ‘find,’ ‘classical,’ and ‘apparatus’ do not appear in the formulation of quantum mechanics. Yet it must of course be true that quantum mechanics can be used to predict features of the results of measurements – in particular their statistics. What is required, then, is an account in quantum mechanical terms of those physical interactions capable of being used to perform measurements of quantum dynamical variables, from which it follows that the predicted probabilities for specified behavior of certain quantum systems in these interactions coincide with what, on a more conventional interpretation, are simply postulated as the quantum mechanical probabilities for various measurement results on a system with a given quantum state. It is necessary to see how this consequence may be derived, not only in order to explicate the Born rules, but also to explain the role of quantum states within the present interpretation. The first step toward the required account is to analyze the nature of an interaction capable of being used to perform a measurement of the value of a quantum dynamical variable in a quantum system. Any such interaction will be called an M -type interaction, whether or not it is in fact used to perform a measurement. The basic characteristic of an M -type interaction is that it establishes a correlation between the initial dynamical state of one quantum system σ (the object system) and the final dynamical state of another quantum system α (the apparatus system).
Quantum mechanics is usually described in the terminology of probability theory even though the properties of the probability spaces associated with it are fundamentally different from the standard ones of probability theory. For example, Kolmogorov's axioms are not general enough to encompass the non-commutative situations that arise in quantum theory. There have been many attempts to generalise these axioms to meet the needs of quantum mechanics. The focus of these attempts has been the observation, first made by Birkhoff and von Neumann (1936), that the propositions associated with a quantum-mechanical system do not form a Boolean σ-algebra. There is almost universal agreement that the probability space associated with a quantum-mechanical system is given by the set of subspaces of a separable Hilbert space, but there is disagreement over the algebraic structure that this set represents. In the most popular model for the probability space of quantum mechanics the propositions are assumed to form an orthocomplemented lattice (Mackey (1963), Jauch (1968)). The fundamental concept here is that of a partial order, that is a binary relation that is reflexive and transitive but not symmetric. The partial order is interpreted as embodying the logical concept of implication in the set of propositions associated with the physical system. Although this model provides an acceptable mathematical expression of the probabilistic structure of quantum mechanics in that the subspaces of a separable Hilbert space give a representation of an ortho-complemented lattice, it has several deficiencies which will be discussed later.
Chapter 1: On the existence of quantum representations for two dichotomic measurements. Under which conditions do outcome probabilities of measurements possess a quantum-mechanical model? This kind of problem is solved here for the case of two dichotomic von Neumann measurements which can be applied repeatedly to a quantum system with trivial dynamics. The solution uses methods from the theory of operator algebras and the theory of moment problems. The ensuing conditions reveal surprisingly simple relations between certain quantum-mechanical probabilities. It also shown that generally, none of these relations holds in general probabilistic models. This result might facilitate further experimental discrimination between quantum mechanics and other general probabilistic theories. Chapter 2: Possibilistic Physics. I try to outline a framework for fundamental physics where the concept of probability gets replaced by the concept of possibility. Whereas a probabilistic theory assigns a state-dependent probability value to each outcome of each measurement, a possibilistic theory merely assigns one of the state-dependent labels "possible to occur" or "impossible to occur" to each outcome of each measurement. It is argued that Spekkens' combinatorial toy theory of quantum mechanics is inconsistent in a probabilistic framework, but can be regarded as possibilistic. Then, I introduce the concept of possibilistic local hidden variable models and derive a class of possibilistic Bell inequalities which are violated for the possibilistic Popescu-Rohrlich boxes. The chapter ends with a philosophical discussion on possibilistic vs. probabilistic. It can be argued that, due to better falsifiability properties, a possibilistic theory has higher predictive power than a probabilistic one. Chapter 3: The quantum region for von Neumann measurements with postselection. It is determined under which conditions a probability distribution on a finite set can occur as the outcome distribution of a quantum-mechanical von Neumann measurement with hyphenation given that the scalar product between the initial and the final state is known as well as the success probability of the postselection. An intermediate von Neumann measurement can enhance transition probabilities between states such that the error probability shrinks by a factor of up to 2. Chapter 4: A presentation of the category of stochastic matrices. This chapter gives generators and relations for the strict monoidal category of probabilistic maps on finite cardinals (i.e., stochastic matrices). Chapter 5: Convex Spaces: Definition and Examples. We try to promote convex spaces as an abstract concept of convexity which was introduced by Stone as "barycentric calculus''. A convex space is a set where one can take convex combinations in a consistent way. By identifying the corresponding Lawvere theory as the category from chapter 4 and using the results obtained there, we give a different proof of a result of Swirszcz which shows that convex spaces can be identified with algebras of a finitary version of the Giry monad. After giving an extensive list of examples of convex sets as they appear throughout mathematics and theoretical physics, we note that there also exist convex spaces that cannot be embedded into a vector space: semilattices are a class of examples of purely combinatorial type. In an information-theoretic interpretation, convex subsets of vector spaces are probabilistic, while semilattices are possibilistic. Convex spaces unify these two concepts.
This chapter explains the approach of ‘operationalism’, which in a physical theory admits only concepts associated with concrete experimental procedures, and lays out its consequences for propositions about measurements, their logical structure, and states. It illustrates these with toy examples where the ability to perform measurements is limited by design. For systems composed of several constituents this chapter introduces the notions of composite and reduced states, statistical independence, and correlations. It examines what it means for multiple systems to be prepared identically, and how this is represented mathematically. The operational requirement that there must be procedures to measure and prepare a state is examined, and the ensuing constraints derived. It is argued that these constraint leave only one alternative to classical probability theory that is consistent, universal, and fully operational, namely, quantum theory.