The discovery that any classical random variable with all moments gives rise to a full quantum theory (that in the Gaussian and Poisson cases coincides with the usual one) implies that a quantum-type formalism will enter into practically all applications of classical probability and statistics. The new challenge consists in finding the classical interpretation, for different types of classical contexts, of typical quantum notions such as entanglement, normal order, equilibrium states, etc. As an example, every classical symmetric random variable has a canonically associated conjugate momentum. In usual quantum mechanics (associated with Gaussian or Poisson classical random variables), the interpretation of the momentum operator was already clear to Heisenberg. How should we interpret the conjugate momentum operator associated with classical random variables outside the Gauss-Poisson class? The Introduction is intended to place in historical perspective the recent developments that are the main object of the present exposition.
The discovery that any classical random variable with all moments gives rise to a full quantum theory (that in the Gaussian and Poisson cases coincides with the usual one) implies that a quantum-type formalism will enter into practically all applications of classical probability and statistics. The new challenge consists in finding the classical interpretation, for different types of classical contexts, of typical quantum notions such as entanglement, normal order, equilibrium states, etc. As an example, every classical symmetric random variable has a canonically associated conjugate momentum. In usual quantum mechanics (associated with Gaussian or Poisson classical random variables), the interpretation of the momentum operator was already clear to Heisenberg. How should we interpret the conjugate momentum operator associated with classical random variables outside the Gauss-Poisson class? The Introduction is intended to place in historical perspective the recent developments that are the main object of the present exposition.
We survey some results obtained in the last 25 years to illustrate the following probabilistic quantization statement: quantum probability is not a generalization of classical probability but a deeper level of it. Generalizing the classical theory of orthogonal polynomials, one can show that any random field X admitting all the moments can be represented as the sum of three operators, which are natural extensions of the creation, annihilation, and preservation operators in the usual boson Fock quantum theory. These operators generate a noncommutative ∗-algebra on which the quantum extension of the expected value relative to the probability distribution of the field X induces a quantum state. So, any classical algebraic probability space generates a quantum space with its own commutation relations. The Heisenberg commutation relation characterizes the classical fields, while the new type of commutation relations (of type II) appears in non-Gaussian cases. The same machinery, but applied to Bernoulli fields, leads to Fermi-Dirac anticommutation relations (see the introduction).
We survey some results obtained in the last 25 years to illustrate the following probabilistic quantization statement: quantum probability is not a generalization of classical probability but a deeper level of it. Generalizing the classical theory of orthogonal polynomials, one can show that any random field X admitting all the moments can be represented as the sum of three operators, which are natural extensions of the creation, annihilation, and preservation operators in the usual boson Fock quantum theory. These operators generate a noncommutative ∗-algebra on which the quantum extension of the expected value relative to the probability distribution of the field X induces a quantum state. So, any classical algebraic probability space generates a quantum space with its own commutation relations. The Heisenberg commutation relation characterizes the classical fields, while the new type of commutation relations (of type II) appears in non-Gaussian cases. The same machinery, but applied to Bernoulli fields, leads to Fermi--Dirac anticommutation relations (see the introduction).
Physical observables which are measured in a particular state of a dynamical system can be conveniently represented in classical mechanics by mathematical variables, on the grounds that all have definite values in any classical state. In contrast, the statistical interpretation of wave functions describing the quantum states implies that there are uncertainties in the measurement of any two observables which can be represented by canonically conjugate variables, such as position q and momentum p q . This requires any measured dynamical observable A in a quantum state to be associated with an expectation value 〈 A 〉.
Quantum physics consists of a formal core that is universally agreed upon (basically being a piece of mathematics with suggestive names for concepts matching related concepts of experimental culture) and an interpretational halo (trying to make this relation more precise) that remains highly disputed even after more than 90 years of modern quantum physics. The latter is the subject of the interpretation of quantum mechanics (see Part II), where many interpretations coexist and compete for the attention of those interested in what quantum physics really means. In this chapter, an axiomatic introduction to the undisputed formal core of quantum physics is given. The axioms described present nonrelativistic quantum statistical mechanics in the Schrödinger picture. The relativistic case is outside the scope of these axioms, as it must be treated by quantum field theory; see Chapter 7. As in any axiomatic setting (necessary for a formal discipline), there are a number of different but equivalent sets of axioms or postulates that can be used to define formal quantum physics. Since they are equivalent, their choice is a matter of convenience. The choice presented here is a formulation featuring three aspects: It emphasises the similarity of quantum mechanics and classical mechanics, gives most direct access to statistical mechanics, and is free from allusions to measurement. The reason for the first is that this similarity serves as a guide to meaning. From the axiomatic setting for quantum mechanics presented below, classical mechanics (in the Koopman setting discussed in Section 7.10) is obtained by simply restricting the operators to be diagonal, so that all operations happen pointwise on the diagonal elements. Thus, multiplication is commutative, and one can identify operators and functions. In particular, the density operator degenerates into a probability density. Therefore, the quantum case appears as a generalization of the classical case allowing for noncommutativity, so that both q-observables and the density operator are (usually infinite-dimensional) operators. The reason for the second is that statistical mechanics is the main tool for applications of quantum physics to the macroscopic systems we are familiar with. The reason for the third is that realistic measurements constitute a complex process involving macroscopic detectors, hence should be explained by quantum statistical mechanics rather than be part of the axiomatic foundations themselves. (This is in marked contrast to other foundations, and distinguishes the present system of axioms.)
In this chapter, we consider the way quantum theory represents deterministic, statistical, and probabilistic aspects of Nature. After a discussion in Section 3.1 of uncertainty in general, we discuss in Sections 3.2-3.4 several formal notions of classical probability, their relation to the probability concept used in applied statistics, and their dependence on the description used. Section 3.5 briefly discusses various examples, where probabilistic features emerge from fully deterministic situations-a theme to be taken up in much more detail in Chapter 11. Section 3.6 then shows how the statistical aspects of the quantum formalism naturally follow from the weak law of large numbers. The notions of c-probability in the classical case and of q-probability in the quantum case are formally defined in Section 3.7. Historically, the concept of classical probability (including its use in stochastic processes) was given an undisputed formal mathematical foundation in 1933 in terms of the measure-theoretic setting of Kolmogorov [164]. Apart from this traditional axiomatic foundation of classical probability theory, there is a less well-known equivalent axiomatic treatment by Whittle [302] in terms of expectations. Here probabilities appear as the expectations of statements, {0, 1}-valued random variables. von Plato [240] discusses the history of the concept of probability. Krüger et al. [169] discuss the history of probability in the various fields of application. Sklar [275] discusses the philosophical problems of the probability concept, with an emphasis on statistical mechanics.
Recent tremendous development of quantum information theory led to a number of quantum technological projects, e.g., quantum random generators.This development stimulates a new wave of interest in quantum foundations.One of the most intriguing problems of quantum foundations is elaboration of a consistent and commonly accepted interpretation of quantum state.Closely related problem is clarification of the notion of quantum randomness and its interrelation with classical randomness.In this short review we shall discuss basics of classical theory of randomness (which by itself is very complex and characterized by diversity of approaches) and compare it with irreducible quantum randomness.The second part of this review is devoted to the information interpretation of quantum mechanics (QM) in the spirit of Zeilinger and Brukner (and QBism of Fuchs et al.) and physics in general (e.g., Wheeler's "it from bit") as well as digital philosophy of Chaitin (with historical coupling to ideas of Leibnitz).Finally, we continue discussion on interrelation of quantum and classical randomness and information interpretation of QM.