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.
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.
Along with an elementary description of the well-known density matrix formalism and of its application to the description of quantum-statistical ensembles, this chapter includes the proofs of a few propositions that are especially useful for understanding most of the developments. In the new formulation, ensembles are directly described by density matrices, observables are still described by Hermitean operators, and the rules giving the statistical distribution and the mean values of the predicted measurement results are, respectively, expressions. When stated in this manner, the rules of quantum mechanics apply directly not only to pure states but also to mixtures. This is a distinct advantage. In the case of mixtures defined by their density matrices, the new formulation also has another merit. If two proper mixtures are described by the same density matrix, any state vector representing a subensemble of one of these mixtures can be expressed as a linear combination of the state vectors representing the subensembles of the other mixture.
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.
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 chapter discusses some comments, and the rules of quantum mechanics. The quantum mechanics is universally valid for all the ensembles to which the more general formalism just alluded to is applicable. Any ensemble of systems the specification of which involves no reference to the results of future measurements that are to be performed on these systems obeys the quantum rules. One of the views most often expressed by the supporters of the "Copenhagen interpretation" is that quantum mechanics is a complete theory. The main motivation for the assumption is that the splitting of ensemble and subensembles cannot be made in any straightforward manner. However, this assumption implies the existence of particular, hitherto unknown forces, and it is therefore quite generally considered as unattractive. Thus the probabilities, or statistical distributions, that conventional quantum mechanics introduces into physics are inherently different from those found in classical mechanics, for example, in the kinetic theory of gases.
Historical remarks The quantum mechanical formalism discovered by Heisenberg [Heis 25] an Schrödinger [Schrö 26] in 1925 was first interpreted in a statistical sense by Born [Born 26]. The formal expressions p (φ, a i ) = |(φ,φ ai )| 2 , i ∈ N, were interpreted as the probabilities that a quantum system S with preparation φ possesses the value a i that belongs to the state φ ai . This original Born interpretation, which was formulated for scattering processes, was, however, not tenable in the general case. The probabilities must not be related to the system S in state φ, since in the preparation φ the value a i of an observable A is in general not subjectively unknown but objectively undecided. Instead, one has to interpret the formal expressions p ( a i , a i ) as the probabilities of finding the value a i after measurement of the observable A of the system S with preparation φ. In this improved version, the statistical or Born interpretation is used in the present-day literature. On the one hand, the statistical (Born) interpretation of quantum mechanics is usually taken for granted, and the formalism of quantum mechanics is considered as a theory that provides statistical predictions referring to a sufficiently large ensemble of identically prepared systems S (φ) after the measurement of the observable in question. On the other hand, the meaning of the same formal terms p (φ, a i ) for an individual system is highly problematic.
Most of the predictions of quantum mechanics are of a statistical nature and therefore make sense only for ensembles. The axiomatics based on the quantum calculus of propositions might open the way toward a general definition of the quantum state of an individual system. It was soon recognized that this leads to separability and thereby to violation of some of the quantum-mechanical predictions. In contemporary literature, the concept of state is not wholly unambiguous. Some authors associate it with the notion of an individual system and say, for instance that a given system is in a given state. Others associate it exclusively with ensembles. The situation is complicated by the fact that for some theorists the concept of state refers only to ensembles that can be described by some state vector. For other authors it refers just as well to ensembles that cannot be associated with any state vector and for which only a density matrix description is therefore acceptable.