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.
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.
In quantum physics, we often need to consider ensembles that are not pure cases, that is, that cannot be described by state vectors. This is so, for instance, when an ensemble is composed of several subensembles that are described by nonequivalent state vectors. It also happens in most cases in which we consider ensembles of definite subsystems of some larger systems. The density matrix—or "statistical operator"—formalism is one that makes it possible to deal with such situations swiftly and efficiently. The rules apply only to ensembles that can be described by state vectors. These rules entail as consequences new expressions for quantum probabilities and mean values, which can be called the—derived— "statistical operator rules." However, it is also possible to formulate the statistical operator rules directly instead. The Heisenberg "uncertainty" relations imply that in general f(x,p) cannot be interpreted as really being a joint probability distribution.
We now have all the basic tools we need to describe systems of one and two qubits. In this final chapter of Part I we look at some of the consequences of the peculiar properties of qubits when they are used to encode information. Many of these results can be traced to the properties of quantum measurement. Measuring a single qubit A key result in quantum information theory is that it is impossible to accurately characterize a single qubit. In other words, there is no experiment, or sequence of experiments, which allows us to find out the state of a single quantum bit. The reason for this problem is twofold. Firstly, we have to make some sort of decision about the basis we will use for the measurement. For example, when measuring a single qubit the most popular choice is to make a measurement in the computational basis. This is equivalent to asking the qubit whether it is in state |0⧽ or state |1⧽. If the qubit is indeed in one of the basis states the measurement process is simple, and we will get the obvious answer of 0 if it is in |0⧽ and 1 if it is in |1⧽. If, however, the qubit is in a superposition, such as α|0⧽+β|1⧽, then the situation is more difficult. Characterizing the state now means determining the values of the two complex numbers α and β, but the measurement can only return the answer 0 or 1, and for a superposition state one of these two answers will be returned at random, with probabilities |α| 2 and |β| 2 , respectively.
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.
The density matrix ρ is defined and its basic properties are derived in detail: ρ is a Hermitian non-negative operator with unit trace, its eigenvalues are non-negative and lie in the closed interval [0, 1]; if ρ is a projector, it projects onto a one-dimensional sub-space, the trace of ρ 2 is ≤ 1, the equality holding only if ρ is a projector. A necessary and sufficient condition for ρ to be a projector is that all vectors in its definition are identical up to a phase. Pure cases are sets that can be described by a state vector, unlike mixtures . The density matrix of a mixture is not a projection operator, and this may be viewed as its distinguishing feature with respect to pure cases. The mean value of an observable can be reexpressed with the help of the density matrix, and a Schrödinger equation for density matrices holds. Last, but not least, pure cases cannot unitarily evolve into mixtures . The applications of the formalism presented in this chapter deal with orientation of spin-½ particles, polarization of pairs of photons, thermal-equilibrium states. In the second part, quantum entanglement is presented, with emphasis on the existence of state vectors for entangled pairs of particles that belong to the tensor product of Hilbert spaces H 1 ⊗ H 2 , but are not of the simple product form ψ 1 ⊗ ψ 2 . The only correct interpretation of such states has a statistical nature, associated to series of repeated measurements performed by two observers on the constituents of the entangled pair. Hidden-variable theories, with the associated Bell inequalities, are introduced, and a way of using entangled quantum states is described which makes it possible to transfer the polarization state of a photon to another photon. This property provides the foundation of the modern investigations of quantum teleportation.
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.
Abstract This chapter develops the fundamental notions and concepts of the probabilistic and statistical interpretation of quantum mechanics. It begins with a brief review of the mathematical structure given by a Hilbert space of state vectors and an algebra of observables represented by selfadjoint operators. Special emphasis is laid on the connection between the spectral representation of a selfadjoint operator and a corresponding random variable that describes the possible measurement outcomes. The chapter further introduces the concepts of a composite quantum system, of the reduced density matrix, and of entangled quantum states. A section on quantum entropies is included, as well as the mathematical formulation of the generalized theory of quantum measurements in terms of completely positive quantum operations and effects.