I tentatively suggest that the superposition principle of quantum mechanics is explicable in a mathematically natural way if it is possible to understand probability amplitudes as complex-valued logarithms. This notion is inspired by the fact that the quantum state may be interpreted as a measure of information.
We have seen that there is an intimate relationship between probability and information. The values we assign to probabilities depend on the information available, and information is a function of probabilities. This connection makes it inevitable that information will be an important concept in any statistical theory, including thermodynamics and, of course, quantum physics. The probabilistic interpretation of quantum theory has probability amplitudes rather than probabilities as the fundamental quantities. This feature, together with the associated superposition principle, is responsible for intrinsically quantum phenomena and gives quantum information theory its distinctive flavour. We shall see that the quantum rules for dynamical evolution and measurement, together with the existence of entangled states, have important implications for quantum information. They also make it possible to perform tasks which are either impractical or impossible within the classical domain. In describing these we shall make extensive use of simple but fundamental ideas in quantum theory. This chapter introduces the mathematical description of quantum physics and the concepts which will be employed in our study of quantum information.
By comparing Schrödinger's cat with its classical counterpart, I show that a quantum superposition should be understood as an expectation over possible eigenstates weighted by wave-like probabilities. Upon the occurrence of a certain event, the quantum system is randomly realized into one of the possible eigenstates due to its intrinsic stochasticity. While the randomness of a single realization cannot be controlled or predicted, the overall distribution can be regulated via experimental setup and converges as the number of events increases. A measurement is indeed an activity employing a certain event to convert a quantum effect into a macroscopic outcome. Consequently, the puzzling concepts of wavefunction collapse, many worlds, and decoherence become unnecessary for understanding quantum superposition. This expectation-realization interpretation, which integrates probability theory with wave mechanics, can also be extended to quantum pathways. Moreover, it reframes tests of Bell's inequalities as validating the wave-like probability nature of quantum mechanics, with no need to invoke the mysterious notions of quantum non-locality and "spooky action at a distance".
Quantum mechanics is based on the concepts of indeterminacy , indistinguishability probability amplitudes , probabilities , reversibility , superposition , and uncertainty . And yet that is only part of the essence of quantum mechanics. Using the words attached to the concepts just described provides only a partial description of what quantum mechanics really is. The other part is provided by a set of physical and mathematical principles annexed to the mentioned concepts. The beauty is that quantum mechanics becomes workable and functional just by observing its mathematical principles. There is no need for any particular interpretation. Not even the orthodox interpretation. Here, fifteen mathematical-physical principles of quantum mechanics are listed and succinctly explained.
In quantum mechanics it is well known that, if any two states are superposed, they interfere with each other. It is true, we should not deny such interference in principle, but we may assert what follows. When two states different from each other in a great many degrees of freedom are superposed, the interference effect becomes obscure. If they are different in an infinitely many degrees of freedom, they do not interfere at all, and their superposition is nothing but a mere probability function. This assertion enables us to understand how the probability amplitude for a micro-system is converted into a probability function for a measuring apparatus in the cource of measurement.
Lying at the heart of quantum mechanics, the notion of quantum superposition causes enormous difficulty in understanding the problem of quantum measurement, which concerns the Einstein-Bohr debate on the conceptual foundations of the quantum theory. According to Bell’s theorem, Einstein’s viewpoint in his debate with Bohr seems to be wrong. In the present paper, a new principle (referred to as the general principle of measurements) is introduced and proved as a mathematical theorem. Based on this principle, various forms of quantum superposition (including quantum entanglement) and the corresponding experiments are scrutinized. The main findings are as follows. (a) Einstein’s viewpoint is correct and Bell’s theorem is problematic. (b) Measurement outcomes of any actual experiment with individual microscopic objects described in a form of quantum superposition, in particular, the experimental results of testing Bell inequalities, are all erroneously explained. (c) Bell inequalities failed to capture the essence of the Einstein-Bohr debate, i.e., whether quantum superposition is legitimate for describing individual microscopic objects. (d) All kinds of quantum superposition violate the general principle of measurements and hence are illegitimate. (e) Quantum mechanics can be completed by using disjunction (“or”) as the logical relation between the orthonormal vectors that span an arbitrarily given Hilbert space for describing a single microscopic object, and the mathematical setting will remain essentially unchanged; hidden-variable theories are irrelevant to the real world. (f) After completing quantum mechanics as above, the difficulty in understanding the problem of quantum measurement disappears naturally. Implications of the findings are also discussed.
Applications of quantum mechanics have led to many successful predictions and explanations of puzzling phenomena, and we now apply quantum mechanics to gain, process, and communicate information in novel ways. We can understand quantum mechanics by understanding how we have applied it. We should not seek agreement on the nature of the world it represents, because this theory does not itself represent the physical world (though its applications do help us to represent it better). When applied to a quantum state, quantum mechanics yields probabilities for physical events: both state and probability are objective—not because they represent elements of physical reality, but because each exerts normative authority over the beliefs of anyone who accepts quantum mechanics and applies it relative to a physical situation they may (but need not) occupy. These events may be described by statements (about values of magnitudes) that are meaningful in an appropriate environmental context, and quantum mechanics can help one to say when that is. Measurement creates an appropriate context, so here the Born rule indirectly yields probabilities of measurement outcomes. The quantum state of a system does not “collapse” on measurement: a new state must be assigned relative to a physical situation in which information about the outcome is accessible. Understood this way, there is no measurement problem, and violation of Bell inequalities does not demonstrate “spooky” non-local action. Quantum field theories have no physical ontology of their own: a quantum field is a mathematical object in a model whose application helps to improve and extend our descriptions of the world in other terms. We cannot realise the scenario of Wigner’s friend and its recent extensions: but the data that provide overwhelming evidence for quantum mechanics are objective in the same sense as the relative measurement outcomes described in those scenarios.