The inner product of two states in Hilbert space is interpreted in terms of a relationship between two or more distinct physical systems. This point of view suggests a generalized notion of measurement, within which the familiar types of measurement occur as special cases. A variety of novel measuring procedures are described, which relate overcomplete sets of states for a given system to complete sets for some larger system (of which the smaller system forms a part).
The inner product of two states in Hilbert space is interpreted in terms of a relationship between two or more distinct physical systems. This point of view suggests a generalized notion of measurement, within which the familiar types of measurement occur as special cases. A variety of novel measuring procedures are described, which relate overcomplete sets of states for a given system to complete sets for some larger system (of which the smaller system forms a part).
Starting from two Hilbert spaces H1 and H2 of dimension N1 and N2, respectively, one can construct a larger Hilbert space H = H1 ⊗H2, (32.1) a sort of union of the two. The space H is called the tensor product of H1 and H2. State vectors and operators of these spaces will be denoted by an index, (1) or (2). Associated with a pair of state vectors |φ(1)〉 and |χ(2)〉 belongs a state vector |φ(1)〉 ⊗ |χ(2)〉 ≡ |φ(1)〉|χ(2)〉 ≡ |φ(1)χ(2)〉 (32.2) in the combined Hilbert space. Let us choose basis sets {|un(1)〉} and {|uk(2)〉} for H1 and H2. In terms of these one can express the arbitrary vectors |φ(1)〉 and |χ(2)〉 as follows: |φ(1)〉 = ∑ n an|un(1)〉, (32.3) |χ(2)〉 = ∑ k bk|vk(2)〉. (32.4) In the Hilbert space H one may use a basis {|un(1)⊗ |vk(2)〉〉} for expansion of the tensor product in Eq. (32.2). Thus, |φ(1)〉 ⊗ |χ(2)〉 = ∑ n,k anbk|un(1)〉 ⊗ |vk(2)〉. (32.5) The components of a tensor product state vector in H hence are products, anbk, of components of the two state vectors in the Hilbert spaces H1 and H2. The most general state vector in H, |ψ〉, can in the basis {|un(1)〉 ⊗ |vk(2)〉} be expanded as follows: |ψ〉 = ∑ n,k cnk|un(1)〉 ⊗ |vk(2)〉, (32.6) where the double index nk on the expansion coefficient cnk specifies the vector axes in H. Although an arbitrary vector |ψ〉 in H cannot be written as a single vector product of two vectors in H1 and H2 [Eq. (32.5)], |ψ〉 can always be decomposed into a linear combination of tensor product vectors [Eq. (32.6)]. This result relates to the fact that the elements of an arbitrary matrix {cnk} cannot in general be given as the elements {anbk} of a dyadic product of two vectors with components {an} and {bk}. The scalar product in H of two arbitrary basis vectors, |un(1)〉 ⊗ |vk(2)〉 and |un′(1)〉 ⊗ |vk′(2)〉, is given by 〈un′(1)vk′(2)|un(1)vk(2)〉 = 〈un′(1)|un(1)〉〈vk′ (2)|vk(2)〉 = δnn′δkk′ . (32.7) of The last member of Eq. (32.7) is obtained provided each of the bases {|un(1)〉} and |vk(2)〉 is orthonormal in its respective Hilbert space. If this is the case, the basis in H, i.e., {|un〉⊗ |vk(2)〉}, is orthonormal, too.
From here, we take up the task of reformulating quantum mechanics in the language of inner product space. We start by introducing vector space through the familiar example of a set of finite dimensional, complex, column matrices under addition and multiplication by scalars. The inner product is then introduced as a dot product generalized to complex vectors leading to the idea of an inner product space . This is adequate to show how the concept of a quantum state can be described by a normalized vector in an inner product space so that the state space can be identified with the inner product space. Amplitudes are associated with inner products , and observables with orthonormal bases in this space. Hence the laws of quantum mechanics are reformulated. We then point out that the now reformulated laws are independent of the space of description and the reader is urged to contemplate an universality which would reflect the independence with respect to the representation space . This creates the stage for the introduction of the abstract inner product space and the formulation of quantum mechanics in this setting. The chapter concludes with this description. The transformed laws are now called postulatesof quantum mechanics .
The newly revised edition of this well-known book categorizes prevalent views on measurement as described by quantum mechanics, discusses basics agreed to by many who on other issues disagree, and describes some of the problems. Although many paragraphs rest unchanged from the first (1991) edition, results found since 1991 are used to reorganize and sharpen the focus of the book, so that even the old paragraphs are now understood differently and more clearly. One advance in the second edition is a new and more general no-go theorem; another is separation of formal derivations from interpretation. The dozen or so definitions essential to following the book even casually are stated clearly. By this means the authors succeed pretty well in achieving their stated desire to make the book comprehensible to those who do not share their philosophic predispositions. While I differ in philosophy from the authors, attending to their discussion uncovered weaknesses in my own thinking and improved it. The mathematical language of quantum mechanics expresses a system under measurement by states (as rays in a Hilbert space) and a hamiltonian operator, distinct from the apparatus that produces outcomes, which is expressed by a positive operator-valued (POV) measure. In this way quantum language separates state preparation from state measurement. Often the Hilbert space is viewed as a tensor product of subspaces, allowing further conceptual separations. The authors take the stance that quantum mechanics calls for splitting the empirical world into parts, the most essential being (1) objective systems S (to be observed) and (2) apparatus A (preparation and registration devices that produces outcomes (or, as the authors write, definite pointer values) of the observed system). In some interpretations, one or both of an observer and an environment appear as additional parts. What is to be included in the system S versus the apparatus A is not specified by the language, but is open to the theoretician; a probe, for example, can be analysed as either part of the apparatus or as part of the system, as was discussed by von Neumann in work cited by the authors. With what should a theory of measurement be concerned? A broad division of approaches is defined by how one answers the question: should one try to do away with the cut between measuring apparatus and system? The authors phrase this as a choice of REFERENT, a term which in my mind puts them on shaky semantic ground; anyway The Quantum Theory of Measurement is concerned with implications of the `yes'. The book unfolds with the power of a tragedy, in which the logical consequences lead, step-by-step, to the statement and proof of theorem 6.2.1, which, roughly speaking, asserts the non-existence of a solution to the problem of getting definite pointer values from measuring apparatus that exhibits the superposition demanded by its description as a quantum system. Possible responses to this theorem are discussed, among them the many-worlds interpretation and a modification of quantum mechanics that elevates decoherence to a principle. Citations of the literature are thorough, and many points of view are crisply summarized. The book is indispensable to both those who work in the broad direction chosen by the authors and to those who wish to set any other direction in context.
In quantum mechanics, physical states are represented by rays in Hilbert space H, which is a vector space imbued by an inner product $\ensuremath{\langle}\phantom{\rule{0.16em}{0ex}}|\phantom{\rule{0.16em}{0ex}}\ensuremath{\rangle}$, whose physical meaning arises as the overlap $\ensuremath{\langle}\ensuremath{\phi}|\ensuremath{\psi}\ensuremath{\rangle}$ for $|\ensuremath{\psi}\ensuremath{\rangle}$ a pure state (description of preparation) and $\ensuremath{\langle}\ensuremath{\phi}|$ a projective measurement. However, current quantum theory does not formally address the consequences of a changing inner product during the interval between preparation and measurement. We establish a theoretical framework for such a changing inner product, which we show is consistent with standard quantum mechanics. Furthermore, we show that this change is described by a quantum operation, which is tomographically observable, and we elucidate how our result is strongly related to the exploding topic of PT-symmetric quantum mechanics. We explain how to realize experimentally a changing inner product for a qubit in terms of a qutrit protocol with a unitary channel.
I start by briefly overviewing quantum mechanics as it is standardly formulated and by discussing the question of whether this standard formulation needs to be supplemented by an interpretation. The overview is based mainly on Von Neumann (1932, 1955) and its aim is not to give the reader a crash course in quantum mechanics, but to present those parts of the standard formalism which I use in this book. For a more complete treatment, the reader may consult the standard textbooks on quantum mechanics or, for instance, Sudbery (1986) or Redhead (1987). The standard formulation The standard formulation of quantum mechanics can be introduced in four steps. The first step is that in quantum mechanics one describesthe physics of a system by means of a Hilbert space ℋ. This Hilbert space is a complex linear vector space on which an inner product is defined. Let's adopt the convention (please consult the Glossary at the end of the book for notational conventions) that α refers to a system and that is the Hilbert space that is associated with this system. Let ∣ℋ α 〉 denote a vector in ℋ α and let 〈ψ α ∣φ α 〉 be the inner product between the vectors ∣ψ α 〉 and ∣φ α 〉.