The quantum realm exhibits phenomena that run counter to conventional logic. This chapter discusses the evidence from a particularly simple class of experiments: measurements or combinations of measurements which each have only two possible outcomes. It reviews the classical notions of logic and pins down where exactly they fail in the quantum realm. In particular, it highlights the importance of the order in which measurements are performed. The experimental evidence also calls for a critical review of the rules of probability theory. For these, too, this chapter identifies those which continue to hold in the quantum realm and those which need to be modi ed. Moreover, it introduces the pivotal concept of a ‘state’.
The quantum realm exhibits phenomena that run counter to conventional logic. This chapter discusses the evidence from a particularly simple class of experiments: measurements or combinations of measurements which each have only two possible outcomes. It reviews the classical notions of logic and pins down where exactly they fail in the quantum realm. In particular, it highlights the importance of the order in which measurements are performed. The experimental evidence also calls for a critical review of the rules of probability theory. For these, too, this chapter identifies those which continue to hold in the quantum realm and those which need to be modi ed. Moreover, it introduces the pivotal concept of a ‘state’.
This chapter introduces the mathematical framework, basic rules, and some key results of quantum theory. After a succinct overview of linear algebra and an introduction to complex Hilbert space, it investigates the correspondence between subspaces of Hilbert space and propositions, their logical structure, and how the pertinent probabilities are calculated. It discusses the mathematical representation of states, observables, and transformations, as well as the rules for calculating expectation values and uncertainties, and for updating states after a measurement. Particular attention is paid to two-level systems, or ‘qubits’, and the connection is made with experimental evidence about binary measurements. The properties of composite systems are discussed in detail, notably the phenomenon of entanglement. The chapter concludes with an investigation of conceptual issues regarding realism, non-contextuality, and locality, as well as the classical limit.
Abstract Measurement in the quantum realm is not deterministic as in the classical one, and many of the quantum principles delineated in Chapter 1 are expanded. The results of individual quantum measurements cannot be predicted; quantum mechanics gives us only the probabilities of observing each of the possible measurement outcomes. Anchored in the concrete example of light polarization, Chapter 5 takes on the Born rule or the probability principle of quantum mechanics involving the square of state amplitudes. What is known before a measurement and what is known after (measurement principle) explains the no-cloning theorem. The standard terminology of eigenvectors and eigenstates is also introduced.
Quantum theory is well known for having a nonclassical and somewhat peculiar logic. One approach to trying to make this logic comprehensible is by means of what is called a “manual of experiments.” This is the approach taken, for example, in the book An Introduction to Hilbert Space and Quantum Logic (Cohen, 1989), which we use as our main reference. A manual is thought of as describing a variety of different tests of a system, but where the making of one test may, for some reason, preclude the making of some other test of the same system at the same time. Still, it can happen that from performing one kind of experiment we may get information about what the outcome would have been had we performed another kind of experiment. Example 21.1. Here is an example taken from 17). Imagine a firefly trapped inside a box, and two kinds of experiments, front and side , one can perform when observing this box at a given instant. In a front experiment one looks in the box from the front, whereas in side one looks from the right-hand side. In front there are three possible outcomes: one may see the firefly light lit up on the right ( r ), lit up on the left ( l ), or not lit up at all ( n ). Similarly, in side there are three possible outcomes: one may see the firefly light at the front ( f ), at the back ( b ), or not at all ( n ).
Chapter 1: On the existence of quantum representations for two dichotomic measurements. Under which conditions do outcome probabilities of measurements possess a quantum-mechanical model? This kind of problem is solved here for the case of two dichotomic von Neumann measurements which can be applied repeatedly to a quantum system with trivial dynamics. The solution uses methods from the theory of operator algebras and the theory of moment problems. The ensuing conditions reveal surprisingly simple relations between certain quantum-mechanical probabilities. It also shown that generally, none of these relations holds in general probabilistic models. This result might facilitate further experimental discrimination between quantum mechanics and other general probabilistic theories. Chapter 2: Possibilistic Physics. I try to outline a framework for fundamental physics where the concept of probability gets replaced by the concept of possibility. Whereas a probabilistic theory assigns a state-dependent probability value to each outcome of each measurement, a possibilistic theory merely assigns one of the state-dependent labels "possible to occur" or "impossible to occur" to each outcome of each measurement. It is argued that Spekkens' combinatorial toy theory of quantum mechanics is inconsistent in a probabilistic framework, but can be regarded as possibilistic. Then, I introduce the concept of possibilistic local hidden variable models and derive a class of possibilistic Bell inequalities which are violated for the possibilistic Popescu-Rohrlich boxes. The chapter ends with a philosophical discussion on possibilistic vs. probabilistic. It can be argued that, due to better falsifiability properties, a possibilistic theory has higher predictive power than a probabilistic one. Chapter 3: The quantum region for von Neumann measurements with postselection. It is determined under which conditions a probability distribution on a finite set can occur as the outcome distribution of a quantum-mechanical von Neumann measurement with hyphenation given that the scalar product between the initial and the final state is known as well as the success probability of the postselection. An intermediate von Neumann measurement can enhance transition probabilities between states such that the error probability shrinks by a factor of up to 2. Chapter 4: A presentation of the category of stochastic matrices. This chapter gives generators and relations for the strict monoidal category of probabilistic maps on finite cardinals (i.e., stochastic matrices). Chapter 5: Convex Spaces: Definition and Examples. We try to promote convex spaces as an abstract concept of convexity which was introduced by Stone as "barycentric calculus''. A convex space is a set where one can take convex combinations in a consistent way. By identifying the corresponding Lawvere theory as the category from chapter 4 and using the results obtained there, we give a different proof of a result of Swirszcz which shows that convex spaces can be identified with algebras of a finitary version of the Giry monad. After giving an extensive list of examples of convex sets as they appear throughout mathematics and theoretical physics, we note that there also exist convex spaces that cannot be embedded into a vector space: semilattices are a class of examples of purely combinatorial type. In an information-theoretic interpretation, convex subsets of vector spaces are probabilistic, while semilattices are possibilistic. Convex spaces unify these two concepts.
Quantum probability and quantum mechanics The formalism of quantum probability theory Discussions of quantum mechanics are often confused by a lack of clarity about what exactly constitutes ‘quantum mechanics’. It is therefore useful to try at the start to isolate a consistent mathematical core of quantum mechanics, and consider anything that goes beyond this core to be ‘interpretation’. For us, this core is quantum probability theory. Quantum probability is a generalization of classical probability, and therefore I begin with a brief review of the latter. I assume that the reader has some familiarity with the ideas of probability theory. What follows is just to provide a quick review, and to establish some notation and terminology. In modern classical probability theory, probabilities are defined over algebras of events. The motivation is straightforward: we begin with a set of ‘primitive’, or ‘simple’, events (the ‘sample space’), and form an algebra of events by taking all logical combinations of the simple events. For example, let us take the simple events to be the possible results of rolling a six-sided die one time, so that the sample space is the set {1,2,3,4,5,6}. We then form an algebra of events from the sample space by taking all possible logical combinations of the simple events. Logical combinations include, for example, ‘either 3 or 5’ and ‘not 3 and not 2’.
A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it. – Max Planck, 1936 The only way quantum theory allows us to interact with quantum systems is via quantum processes. Thus, the only way we can extract information about the state of a quantum system is to apply some non-deterministic process and observe which of the branches happened. For that reason, many people refer to the act of applying certain quantum processes as measurement and sometimes even as observation . A consequence of this unfortunate terminology is that one of the most touted ‘strange’ features of quantum theory is often misleadingly described as follows: ‘The mere act of observing a quantum state changes it.’ ‘Misleading’, since the concept of measurement described in the previous paragraph is far from the passive concept of observation familiar from our macroscopic world, but is rather a non-trivial process that will almost always drastically affect the quantum state. So, the mysterious aspect of quantum theory is not that ‘observation’ alters the quantum state but, rather, that it is impossible, even in principle, to ‘observe’ a quantum system in the classical sense. Given this fundamental restriction on how we can extract information from a quantum system, what can we learn about that system by means of a quantum process? The answer is, in fact, very little! First, performing a particular measurement could, for the vast majority of quantum states, yield any outcome i with a non-zero probability. In that case, obtaining an outcome i doesn't tell us much about what the state of the system was. Second, we say ‘was’, because the measurement will moreover irreversibly change the state according to the outcome. So rather than revealing the state of a system, a quantum measurement typically erases that state from history! Nonetheless, these quantum measurements are crucial to quantum theory since they constitute the only interface between us, in our classical world, and the quantum world. The great insight of the quantum computing community is that the non-deterministic changes induced by these quantum measurements are not a nuisance, but rather an extremely useful resource.