The mathematics of classical probability theory was subsumed into classical measure theory by Kolmogorov in 1933.Quantum theory as nonclassical probability theory was incorporated into the beginnings of noncommutative measure theory by von Neumann in the early thirties, as well.To precisely this end, von Neumann initiated the study of what are now called von Neumann algebras and, with Murray, made a first classification of such algebras into three types.The nonrelativistic quantum theory of systems with finitely many degrees of freedom deals exclusively with type I algebras.However, for the description of further quantum systems, the other types of von Neumann algebras are indispensable.The paper reviews quantum probability theory in terms of general von Neumann algebras, stressing the similarity of the conceptual structure of classical and noncommutative probability theories and emphasizing the correspondence between the classical and quantum concepts, though also indicating the nonclassical nature of quantum probabilistic predictions.In addition, differences between the probability theories in the type I, II and III settings are explained.A brief description is given of quantum systems for which probability theory based on type I algebras is known to be insufficient.These illustrate the physical significance of the previously mentioned differences.
The mathematics of classical probability theory was subsumed into classical measure theory by Kolmogorov in 1933.Quantum theory as nonclassical probability theory was incorporated into the beginnings of noncommutative measure theory by von Neumann in the early thirties, as well.To precisely this end, von Neumann initiated the study of what are now called von Neumann algebras and, with Murray, made a first classification of such algebras into three types.The nonrelativistic quantum theory of systems with finitely many degrees of freedom deals exclusively with type I algebras.However, for the description of further quantum systems, the other types of von Neumann algebras are indispensable.The paper reviews quantum probability theory in terms of general von Neumann algebras, stressing the similarity of the conceptual structure of classical and noncommutative probability theories and emphasizing the correspondence between the classical and quantum concepts, though also indicating the nonclassical nature of quantum probabilistic predictions.In addition, differences between the probability theories in the type I, II and III settings are explained.A brief description is given of quantum systems for which probability theory based on type I algebras is known to be insufficient.These illustrate the physical significance of the previously mentioned differences.
Abstract By formulating the axioms of quantum mechanics, von Neumann also laid the foundations of a “quantum probability theory”. As such, it is regarded a generalization of the “classical probability theory” due to Kolmogorov. Outside of quantum physics, however, Kolmogorov’s axioms enjoy universal applicability. This raises the question of whether quantum physics indeed requires such a generalization of our conception of probability or if von Neumann’s axiomatization of quantum mechanics was contingent on the absence of a general theory of probability in the 1920s. This work argues in favor of the latter position. In particular, it shows how to construct a mathematically rigorous theory for non-relativistic N -body quantum systems subject to a time-independent scalar potential, which is based on Kolmogorov’s axioms and physically natural random variables. Though this theory is provably distinct from its quantum-mechanical analog, it nonetheless reproduces central predictions of the latter. Further work may make an empirical comparison possible. Moreover, the approach can in principle be adapted to other classes of quantum-mechanical models. Part II of this series discusses the empirical violation of Bell inequalities in the context of this approach. Part III addresses the projection postulate and the question of measurement.
Introduction Quantum probability is a generalization of both classical probability theory and quantum mechanics that allows to describe the probabilistic aspects of quantum mechanics. This generalization is formulated in two steps. First, the theory is reformulated in terms of algebras of functions on probability spaces. Therefore, the notion of a probability space (Ω, ℱ , P ) is replaced by the pair ( L ∞ (Ω), E (.) = ∫ Ω . d P ) consisting of the commutative von Neumann algebra of bounded random variables and the expectation functional. Then, the commutativity condition is dropped. In this way we arrive at the notion of a (von Neumann) algebraic probability space ( N ,Φ) consisting of a von Neumann algebra N and a normal (faithful tracial) state Φ. As we have seen this includes classical probability spaces in the form ( L ∞ (Ω), E ), it also includes quantum mechanical systems modeled by a Hilbert space H and a pure state ψ ∊ H (or a mixed state ρ ∊ S ( H )), if we take N = B ( H ) and Ф the state defined by Ф( X ) = 〈 ψ, X ψ 〉 (or Ф ( X ) = tr(ρ X )) for X ∊ B ( H ). Note that in this course we shall relax the conditions on N and Φ and work with involutive algebras and positive normalized functionals, that is, *-algebraic probability spaces. A striking feature of quantum probability (also called noncommutative probability) is the existence of several notions of independence. This is the starting point of this course, which intends to give an introduction to the theory of quantum stochastic processes with independent increments. However, before we come to these processes, we will give a general introduction to quantum probability. In Section 1.2, we recall the basic definitions of quantum probability and discuss some fundamental differences between classical probability and quantum probability. In Section 1.3 we address the question ‘Why do we need Quantum Probability?’ We discuss the EPR experiment and the Kochen–Specker Theorem, which show that we cannot model quantum physics with classical probability spaces because the values of observable quantities do not exist unless we specify which measurement we will carry out and which quantities we will determine. In this sense quantum physics requires a more radical description of chance.
Quantum mechanics and the theory of operator algebras have been intertwined since their origin.In the 1930s [20] von Neumann laid the foundations for the theory of (what are now known as) von Neumann algebras with the explicit goal of establishing Heisenberg's matrix mechanics on a rigorous footing (quoting from the preface, in the translation by Beyer: "The object of this book is to present the new quantum mechanics in a unified representation which, so far as it is possible and useful, is mathematically rigorous").Following the initial explorations of Murray and von Neumann, the new theory took on a life of its own, eventually leading to multiple applications unrelated to quantum mechanics, such as to free probability or noncommutative geometry.In his 1976 paper completing the classification of injective von Neumann algebras [6] Connes made a casual
In this paper we propose a unified conceptual framework in which quantum probability, quantum logic, and classical probability theory are understood as different structural levels of a single theoretical hierarchy. Starting from a statistical interpretation of quantum interference, previously developed by the authors, we argue that quantum probability is not an alternative to classical Kolmogorov probability, but a more general structure. Classical probability theory emerges as a limiting case corresponding to the disappearance of interference and the effective decomposition of the whole into independent elements. Within this framework, the Birkhoff–von Neumann quantum logic appears as a natural logical expression of quantum probability rather than as an abstract algebraic construction detached from physical meaning. The priority of the whole over its parts plays a central role in both quantum probability and quantum logic, while classical logic and probability arise when this priority becomes trivial. We emphasize that the proposed interpretation does not reject existing quantum formalism, but reinterprets its logical and probabilistic foundations. This approach may have implications for the conceptual understanding of quantum algorithms and quantum information processing.
This chapter contains a brief introduction to mathematical formalism and QM axiomatics. It is oriented to non-physicists. Since QM is a statistical theory it is natural to start with the classical probability model (Kolmogorov [ 191 ], 1933). Then we present the basics of the theory of Hilbert spaces and Hermitian operators and the representation of pure and mixed states by normalized vectors and density operators. This introduction is sufficient to formulate the axiomatics of QM in the form of five postulates. The projection postulate (the most questionable postulate of QM) is presented in a separate section. We sharply distinguish between the cases of quantum observables represented by Hermitian operators with nondegenerate and degenerate spectra, von Neumann’s and Ltiders’s forms of the projection postulate. The axiomatics is completed by a short section on the main interpretations of QM. The projection postulate (LUders’s form) plays a crucial role in the definition of quantum conditional (transition) probability. By operating with the latter we consider interference of probabilities for two incompatible observables as a modification of the formula of total probability by adding the interference term. This viewpoint to interference of probabilities was elaborated in a series of works by Khrennikov. Since classical probability theory is based on the 142 Boolean algebra of events, a violation of the law of total probability can be treated as the probabilistic sign of a violation of the laws of the Boolean logics. From this viewpoint, quantum theory can be considered as representing a new kind of logic, so-called quantum logic. The latter is also briefly presented in a separate section. We continue this review with a new portion of quantum mathematics, namely the notion of the tensor product of Hilbert spaces and the tensor product of operators. After the section on Dirac’s notation with ket and bra vector, we discuss briefly the notion of qubit and entanglement of a few qubits. This chapter concludes with a presentation of the detailed analysis of the probabilistic structure of the two-slit experiment in a bunch of different experimental contexts. This contextual structure leads to a violation of the law of total probability and non-Kolmogorovean probabilistic structure of this experiment.
In 1933, Kolmogorov synthesized the basic concepts of probability that were in general use at the time into concepts and deductions from a simple set of axioms that said probability was a σ-additive function from a boolean algebra of events into [0, 1]. In 1932, von Neumann realized that the use of probability in quantum mechanics required a different concept that he formulated as a σ-additive function from the closed subspaces of a Hilbert space onto [0,1]. In 1935, Birkhoff & von Neumann replaced Hilbert space with an algebraic generalization. Today, a slight modification of the Birkhoff-von Neumann generalization is called “quantum logic”. A central problem in the philosophy of probability is the justification of the definition of probability used in a given application. This is usually done by arguing for the rationality of that approach to the situation under consideration. A version of the Dutch book argument given by de Finetti in 1972 is often used to justify the Kolmogorov theory, especially in scientific applications. As von Neumann in 1955 noted, and his criticisms still hold, there is no acceptable foundation for quantum logic. While it is not argued here that a rational approach has been carried out for quantum physics, it is argued that (1) for many important situations found in behavioral science that quantum probability theory is a reasonable choice, and (2) that it has an arguably rational foundation to certain areas of behavioral science, for example, the behavioral paradigm of Between Subjects experiments.