In this paper we wish to illuminate the axiom that the quantal state describes a statistical ensemble of similar systems identically prepared, and is not to be identified with any single system. The mathematical representative of the general quantum state is the density matrix or statistical operator in Hilbert space. We demonstrate how this operator may be determined empirically by calculations involving only the measured mean values of a set of observables we call a ’’quorum.’’ As an example of this approach a state determination procedure is described for a spinless particle moving in one dimension; the corresponding quorum turns out to involve only position data associated with various instants subsequent to the act of preparation.
In this paper we wish to illuminate the axiom that the quantal state describes a statistical ensemble of similar systems identically prepared, and is not to be identified with any single system. The mathematical representative of the general quantum state is the density matrix or statistical operator in Hilbert space. We demonstrate how this operator may be determined empirically by calculations involving only the measured mean values of a set of observables we call a ’’quorum.’’ As an example of this approach a state determination procedure is described for a spinless particle moving in one dimension; the corresponding quorum turns out to involve only position data associated with various instants subsequent to the act of preparation.
The statistical operator of quantum theory may be determined empirically by computations based upon the measured mean values of a set of observables we have called a quorum. The requirement that a statistical operator be positive semidefinite is then used to generate a family of inequalities connecting these quorum means. Like the simpler uncertainty relations, these inequalities are universal, valid for all quantum states. In the special case of pure states, the method yields a family of equalities.
The concept of a quantum state represents one of the most fundamental pillars of the paradigm of quantum theory.'3 Contrary to its mathematical elegance and convenience in calculations, the physical interpretation of a quantum state is not so transparent. The problem is that the quantum state (described either by a state vector, or density operator or a phase-space probability density distribution) does not have a well defined objective status, i.e. a state vector is not an objective property of a particle. According to Peres (see,1 p. 374): "There is no physical evidence whatsoever that every physical system has at every instant a well defined state. .. In strict interpretation of quantum theory these mathematical symbols [i.e., state vectorsi represent statistical information enabling us to compute the probabilities of occurrence of specific events." Once this point of view is adopted then it becomes clear that any "measurement" or a reconstruction of a density operator (or its mathematical equivalent) can be understood exclusively as an expression of our knowledge about the quantum mechanical state based on a certain set of measured data. To be more specific, any quantum-mechanical reconstruction scheme is nothing more than an a posteriori estimation of the density operator of a quantum-mechanical (microscopic) system based on data obtained with the help of a macroscopic measurement apparatus.3 The quality of the reconstruction depends on the "quality" of the measured data and the efficiency of the reconstruction procedure with the help of which the data analysis is performed. In particular, we can specify three different situations. Firstly, when all system observables are precisely measured. In this case the complete reconstruction of an initially unknown state can be performed (we will call this the reconstruction on the complete observation level) . Secondly, when just part of the system observables is precisely measured then one cannot perform a complete reconstruction of the measured state. Nevertheless, the reconstructed density operator still uniquely determines mean values of the measured observables (we will denote this scheme as reconstruction on incomplete observation levels) . Finally, when measurement does not provide us with sufficient information to specify the exact mean values (or probability distributions) but only the frequencies of appearances of eigenstates of the measured observables, then one can perform an estimation (e.g. reconstruction based on quantum Bayesian inference) which is the "best" with respect to the given measured data and the a priori knowledge about the state of the measured system.
In the past few years experimenters have learned how to determine the complete quantum state of an ensemble of particles or fields which have been prepared according to some unknown procedure. Through these experiments they have answered a question posed by W. Pauli in the 1930s. The methods used involve measuring statistical distributions of a well chosen set of physical observables and using a tomographic inversion algorithm to reconstruct the Wigner function and its corresponding wave function or density matrix. Recontructions have been successfully carried out in atomic, molecular, and optical physics. The development of these procedures helps to firm up the interpretation of the Schrodinger wave function.
In the past few years experimenters have learned how to determine the complete quantum state of an ensemble of particles or fields which have been prepared according to some unknown procedure. Through these experiments they have answered a question posed by W. Pauli in the 1930s. The methods used involve measuring statistical distributions of a well chosen set of physical observables and using a tomographic inversion algorithm to reconstruct the Wigner function and its corresponding wave function or density matrix. Recontructions have been successfully carried out in atomic, molecular, and optical physics. The development of these procedures helps to firm up the interpretation of the Schrodinger wave function.
The quantities in physics that can be measured are conventionally denoted observables : entities that can be observed (directly or indirectly) and to which a value in appropriate units can be assigned. Examples include position, momentum, and energy. Unlike in classical physics, the concept of an observable in quantum theory possesses a significance beyond that of the measurable: to each observable there corresponds a unique operator in an abstract, linear vector space. These operators (and others) govern all aspects of quantum systems. Quantum operators act on abstract vectors in the linear space. Especially important are the eigenvectors and eigenvalues of these operators, in particular because some of the eigenvectors are the quantum states mentioned in the preceding chapters. Furthermore, for any operator that is the mathematical image of an observable, its eigenvalues constitute the entire set of values that measurement of the observable can yield . Finally, from the quantum states one can obtain the probabilities for the occurrence of events in the microscopic world, for example, the most likely value that measurement of an observable will yield. The concepts of operators and eigenvalue problems, as well as those of quantal probabilities, of Hermiticity, and of complete sets, were encountered and exemplified in the preceding chapter using the language of differential equations. While much of quantum mechanics could be presented in terms of this language alone, certain fundamental concepts (spin, for instance) cannot be, and it eventually becomes necessary to consider quantum mechanics as a theoretical framework embedded in that abstract linear vector space known as a Hilbert space.
The Hilbert-Space Description By the static description of a physical system we mean the rules that assign specified mathematical objects to the states and to the physical quantities of the system, and the prescriptions for calculating the probability distribution of the possible values of every physical quantity when the state of the system is given. In the usual Hilbert-space formulation of quantum mechanics, to each physical system is attached a separable Hilbert space (generally infinite-dimensional) over the complex field. To every physical quantity is associated a linear, self-adjoint, not necessarily bounded operator on. If one deals with a strictly quantum system, then the converse is also generally assumed: every self-adjoint operator on represents some physical quan- tity. The restriction “strictly quantum” is necessary: if the system retains some nonquantum (i.e. classical) feature, so that it requires the algorithm of so-called “superselection rules” (see Chapter 5), then there are self-adjoint operators on that do not represent physical quantities. It should also be stressed that even in the strictly quantum case, most of the self-adjoint operators actually do not represent “interesting” physical quantities: only a few of them represent physical quantities that are useful and meaningful for the description of the physical system (e.g., energy, momentum, position, angular momentum). Therefore, by asserting that every self-adjoint operator on corresponds to some physical quantity we mean there is no a priori impossibility of devising such a correspondence, but we do not claim that this correspondence is present in the real work of experimental physics.