Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Log inSign up
Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Blog
Job Board
Q3AS

© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

TermsPrivacyLegal Notice

Lecture notes in physics

Interpreting Probabilities: What’s Interference Got to Do with It?

Tim Maudlin

Published Jan 1, 2001• 1 citation
Publisher
DOI
10.1007/3-540-44966-3_22

Related papers

On the Interference of Probabilities

P. D. Finch

Springer eBooks•Jan 1, 1976•1 citation

On the notion of a macroscopic quantum system

Andrei Yu. Khrennikov

It is proposed to define "quantumness" of a system (micro or macroscopic, physical, biological, social, political) by starting with understanding that quantum mechanics is a statistical theory. It says us only about probability distributions. The only possible criteria of quantum behaviour are statistical ones. Therefore I propose to consider any system which produces quantum statistics as quantum ("quantumlike"). A possible test is based on the interference of probabilities. I was mainly interested in using such an approach to "quantumness" to extend the domain of applications of quantum mathematical formalism and especially to apply it to cognitive sciences. There were done experiments on interference of probabilities for ensembles of students and a nontrivial interference was really found. One could say that the quantum statistical behaviour might be expected. But the problem was not so trivial. Yes, we might expect nonclassical statistics, but there was no reason to get the quantum one, i.e., cos-interference. But we got it!

arXiv:quant-ph/0408164•Aug 26, 2004•0 citations

On the Interference of Probabilities

Peter D. Finch

Bulletin of the London Mathematical Society•Jul 1, 1973•2 citations

Randomness

Scott Aaronson

In the last two chapters, we talked about computational complexity up till the early 1970s. Here, we'll add a new ingredient to our already simmering stew – something that was thrown in around the mid-1970s, and that now pervades complexity to such an extent that it's hard to imagine doing anything without it. This new ingredient is randomness . Certainly, if you want to study quantum computing, then you first have to understand randomized computing. I mean, quantum amplitudes only become interesting when they exhibit some behavior that classical probabilities don't : contextuality, interference, entanglement (as opposed to correlation), etc. So we can't even begin to discuss quantum mechanics without first knowing what it is that we're comparing against. Alright, so what is randomness? Well, that’s a profound philosophical question, but I’m a simpleminded person. So, you’ve got some probability p , which is a real number in the unit interval [0, 1]. That’s randomness. But wasn’t it a big achievement when Kolmogorov put probability on an axiomatic basis in the 1930s? Yes, it was! But in this chapter, we’ll only care about probability distributions over finitely many events, so all the subtle questions of integrability, measurability, and so on won’t arise. In my view, probability theory is yet another example where mathematicians immediately go to infinite-dimensional spaces, in order to solve the problem of having a nontrivial problem to solve! And that’s fine – whatever floats your boat. I’m not criticizing that. But in theoretical computer science, we’ve already got our hands full with 2n choices. We need 2ℵ0 choices like we need a hole in the head.

Cambridge University Press eBooks•Mar 14, 2013•0 citations

Contextual Probability and Interference

Andrei Yu. Khrennikov

Springer eBooks•Jan 1, 2009•0 citations

The Study of Single-phonon Landau-Zener Tunneling Pobability

Cheng Shao-rong

A new complete basis set was adopted to solve single-phonon Landau-Zener tunneling probability by solving the Schrodinger differential equation,then the result was compared with the result got by solving Landau-Zener formula.The result show that:In the case of weak coupling,the tunneling probability by solving the Schrodinger differential equation is consistent with the result got by solving Landau-Zener formula.

Science Technology and Engineering•Jan 1, 2011•0 citations
It is proposed to define "quantumness" of a system (micro or macroscopic, physical, biological, social, political) by starting with understanding that quantum mechanics is a statistical theory. It says us only about probability distributions. The only possible criteria of quantum behaviour are statistical ones. Therefore I propose to consider any system which produces quantum statistics as quantum ("quantumlike"). A possible test is based on the interference of probabilities. I was mainly interested in using such an approach to "quantumness" to extend the domain of applications of quantum mathematical formalism and especially to apply it to cognitive sciences. There were done experiments on interference of probabilities for ensembles of students and a nontrivial interference was really found. One could say that the quantum statistical behaviour might be expected. But the problem was not so trivial. Yes, we might expect nonclassical statistics, but there was no reason to get the quantum one, i.e., cos-interference. But we got it!
In the last two chapters, we talked about computational complexity up till the early 1970s. Here, we'll add a new ingredient to our already simmering stew – something that was thrown in around the mid-1970s, and that now pervades complexity to such an extent that it's hard to imagine doing anything without it. This new ingredient is randomness . Certainly, if you want to study quantum computing, then you first have to understand randomized computing. I mean, quantum amplitudes only become interesting when they exhibit some behavior that classical probabilities don't : contextuality, interference, entanglement (as opposed to correlation), etc. So we can't even begin to discuss quantum mechanics without first knowing what it is that we're comparing against. Alright, so what is randomness? Well, that’s a profound philosophical question, but I’m a simpleminded person. So, you’ve got some probability p , which is a real number in the unit interval [0, 1]. That’s randomness. But wasn’t it a big achievement when Kolmogorov put probability on an axiomatic basis in the 1930s? Yes, it was! But in this chapter, we’ll only care about probability distributions over finitely many events, so all the subtle questions of integrability, measurability, and so on won’t arise. In my view, probability theory is yet another example where mathematicians immediately go to infinite-dimensional spaces, in order to solve the problem of having a nontrivial problem to solve! And that’s fine – whatever floats your boat. I’m not criticizing that. But in theoretical computer science, we’ve already got our hands full with 2n choices. We need 2ℵ0 choices like we need a hole in the head.