The paper first scrutinizes thoroughly the variety of compositions which lead to the same quantum-mechanical mixture (as opposed to state or pure state ). With respect to a given mixture every state has a definite probability (or mixing fraction) between 0 and 1 (including the limits), which is calculated from the mixtures Statistical Operator and the wave function of the state in question. A well-known example of mixtures occurs when a system consists of two separated parts. If the wave function of the whole system is known, either part is in the situation of a mixture, which is decomposed into definite constituents by a definite measuring programme to be carried out on the other part. All the conceivable decompositions (into linearly independent constituents) of the first system are just realized by all the possible measuring programmes that can be carried out on the second one. In general every state of the first system can be given a finite chance by a suitable choice of the programme. It is suggested that these conclusions, unavoidable within the present theory but repugnant to some physicists including the author, are caused by applying non-relativistic quantum mechanics beyond its legitimate range. An alternative possibility is indicated.
The paper first scrutinizes thoroughly the variety of compositions which lead to the same quantum-mechanical mixture (as opposed to state or pure state ). With respect to a given mixture every state has a definite probability (or mixing fraction) between 0 and 1 (including the limits), which is calculated from the mixtures Statistical Operator and the wave function of the state in question. A well-known example of mixtures occurs when a system consists of two separated parts. If the wave function of the whole system is known, either part is in the situation of a mixture, which is decomposed into definite constituents by a definite measuring programme to be carried out on the other part. All the conceivable decompositions (into linearly independent constituents) of the first system are just realized by all the possible measuring programmes that can be carried out on the second one. In general every state of the first system can be given a finite chance by a suitable choice of the programme. It is suggested that these conclusions, unavoidable within the present theory but repugnant to some physicists including the author, are caused by applying non-relativistic quantum mechanics beyond its legitimate range. An alternative possibility is indicated.
This is the second, mathematically more detailed part of a paper consisting of two articles, the first having appeared in the immediately preceding issue of this Journal∗. It shows that a measurement converts a pure case into a mixture with reducible probabilities. The measurement as such permits no inference whatever as to the state of the physical system subjected to measurement after the measurement has been performed. But because the probabilities after the act are classical and therefore reducible, it is often possible to adjust them so that Von Neumann's projection postulate is true. Among the more specific features dealt with in Part II is the occurrence of negative joint probabilities for the measurement of non-commuting operators in certain (not all!) quantum states. The general conclusions reached are stated at the end of the article.
Beyond state vectors We cannot always assign a definite state vector |ψ〉 to a quantum system Q. It may be that Q is part of a composite system RQ that is in an entangled state |Ψ (RQ) 〉. Or it may be that our knowledge of the preparation of Q is insufficient to determine a particular state |ψ〉. Consider, for instance, a qubit sent from Alice to Bob during the BB84 key distribution protocol from Section 4.4. The state of this qubit could be |0〉, |1〉, |+〉 or |−〉, each with equal likelihood. In either case – whether Q is a subsystem of an entangled system, or the state of Q is determined by a probabilistic process – we cannot specify a quantum state vector |ψ〉 for Q. Nevertheless, in either case we are in a position to make statistical predictions about the outcomes of measurements on Q. In this chapter we describe the mathematical machinery for doing this. Mixtures of states Suppose the state of Q arises by a random process, so that the state |ψ α 〉 is prepared with probability p α . The possible states |ψ α 〉 need not be orthogonal (as you can see in the BB84 example above). We call this situation a mixture of the states |ψ α 〉, or a mixed state for short. One way to interpret a mixed state is to return to the idea of an ensemble of systems, which we introduced in Section 3.3.
This book examines in detail two of the fundamental questions raised by quantum mechanics. Is the world indeterministic? Are there connections between spatially separated objects? In the first part of the book after outlining the formalism of quantum mechanics and introducing the measurement problem, the author examines several interpretations, focusing on how each proposes to solve the measurement problem and on how each treats probability. In the second part, the author argues that there can be non-trivial relationships between probability (specifically, determinism and indeterminism) and non-locality in an interpretation of quantum mechanics. The author then re-examines some of the interpretations of part one of the book in the light of this argument, and considers how they are with regard to locality and Lorentz invariance. One of the important lessons that comes out of this discussion is that any examination of locality, and of the relationship between quantum mechanics and the theory of relativity, should be undertaken in the context of a detailed interpretation of quantum mechanics. The book will appeal to anyone with an interest in the interpretation of quantum mechanics, including researchers in the philosophy of physics and theoretical physics, as well as graduate students in those fields.
Abstract The fundamentals of the theory of density matrices are reviewed. The density matrix is introduced first in terms of state vectors for pure states over which a probability distribution is given. It is then shown that the applications of the density matrix do not require knowledge of the particular probability distribution over pure states that may have been used for its original determination. It is stressed that density matrices, like state vectors, describe ensembles rather than single systems, as determinism in quantum theory (except for some conservation laws) is of a statistical character only. The entropy of a quantum‐mechanical system is defined as the average per system of the entropy of an ensemble of systems described by the quantum‐mechanical (pure or mixed) state. For pure states this entropy is zero, in agreement with the fact that state vectors constitute the maximal information that can be given about a quantum‐mechanical system. As the entropy should be independent of the particular probability distribution over pure states that may have been used to form the mixed state, it is calculated from statistical considerations about an imaginary ensemble in which the eigenvalues of the density matrix are probabilities over pure states given by the eigenfunctions of the density matrix. The entropy is calculated for a mixture of two nonorthogonal states. The time evolution of the density matrix, in general, is not a unitary transformation, as observable systems are not closed and therefore in the Hamiltonian contain unknown external parameters that are not the same for the entire mixture. Therefore transitions between pure states and mixed states take place. Those from pure to mixed states take place spontaneously and irreversibly under increase of entropy. Transitions from mixed states to pure states can be fabricated; an example is given. As Wigner's thought experiment of mixing coherently the two beams from a Stern‐Gerlach apparatus according to estimates of Bohm should be impossible by loss of coherence in the gradient magnetic field, it is indicated how Wigner's ideas may be realized by using, instead, polarized light beams from birefringent crystals. After a brief review of the quantum theory of measurements and the various arguments usually given for the reducibility of state after the measurement, Wigner's argument against blind use of these arguments is interpreted as a limit of validity of the familiar probability rule of quantum theory, which should not be applied after an unsuccessful measurement. By splitting light beams coherently by glass plates, one can by the same apparatus have measurements both of the relative intensities of two coherent beams, and of interference effects between the two beams. This shows that complementarity applies to the individual systems in the beam, as they reach the glass plate where a choice must be made between two complementary possibilities of future measurement. Finally, by describing Schrödinger's cat by a density matrix and asking about its time dependence, it is shown that, if it were possible to measure the interference effects between living and dead cats used by some people as a justification for writing down a state vector for the cat, then this measurement could be used to revive some dead cats.
The theory of probability and the quantum theory, the one mathematical and the other physical, are related in that each admits a number of very different interpretations. It has been proposed that the conceptual problems of the quantum theory could be, if not resolved, at least mitigated by a proper interpretation of probability. We rather show, through a historical and analytical overview of probability and quantum theory, that if some interpretations of the one and the other go along particularly well, none follows in a unique way.