It is shown how, given a "probability data table" for a quantum or classical system, the representation of states and measurement outcomes as vectors in a real vector space follows in a natural way. Some properties of the resulting sets of these vectors are discussed, as well as some connexions with the quantum-mechanical formalism.
It is shown how, given a "probability data table" for a quantum or classical system, the representation of states and measurement outcomes as vectors in a real vector space follows in a natural way. Some properties of the resulting sets of these vectors are discussed, as well as some connexions with the quantum-mechanical formalism.
According to quantum theory, pure physical states correspond to equivalence classes of state vectors, where any two members of one class differ by a complex factor. The point is that such a factor does not change the probability for the occurrence of any measurement result as computed within the formalism of quantum mechanics. In the formalism to be presented here, the state vector does not only determine the probabilities for the occurrence of measurement results, rather it determines the result itself. The information which guides the selection process is obtained from the state vector in a way that is not invariant against multiplication by a complex factor. It can be seen as a kind of global phase of the state vectors. This global phase then is a perfectly hidden variable. For this presentation of quantum mechanics we have a remarkable parallelism to classical statistical mechanics: If we would know exactly the initial state of a system, we could compute the outcomes for all experiments to be done later on this system. In the quantum case the initial state is to be represented by its state vector with specified phase, e.g. as a concrete complex-valued wave function.
First steps are taken toward a formulation of quantum mechanics which avoids the use of probability amplitudes and is expressed entirely in terms of observable probabilities. Quantum states are represented not by state vectors or density matrices but by “probability tables,” which contain only the probabilities of the outcomes of certain special measurements. The rule for computing transition probabilities, normally given by the squared modulus of the inner product of two state vectors, is re-expressed in terms of probability tables. The new version of the rule is surprisingly simple, especially when one considers that the notion of complex phases, so crucial in the evaluation of inner products, is entirely absent from the representation of states used here.
We summarize below some of the postulates and definitions basic to our formalism, and present some important results based on these postulates. The formalism is purely mathematical in nature with very little physics input, but it provides the structure within which the physical concepts that will be discussed in the later chapters will be framed. State vectors It is important to realize that the Quantum Theory is a linear theory in which the physical state of a system is described by a vector in a complex, linear vector space. This vector may represent a free particle or a particle bound in an atom or a particle interacting with other particles or with external fields. It is much like a vector in ordinary three-dimensional space, following many of the same rules, except that it describes a very complicated physical system. We will be elaborating further on this in the following. The mathematical structure of a quantum mechanical system will be presented in terms of the notations developed by Dirac. A physical state in this notation is described by a “ket” vector, |〉, designated variously as |α〉 or |ψ〉 or a ket with other appropriate symbols depending on the specific problem at hand. The kets can be complex. Their complex conjugates, |〉 * , are designated by 〈| which are called “bra” vectors. Thus, corresponding to every ket vector there is a bra vector. These vectors are abstract quantities whose physical interpretation is derived through their so-called “representatives” in the coordinate or momentum space or in a space appropriate to the problem under consideration.
Quantum mechanics describes the physical state of a microscopic system using vectors in a complex Hilbert space rather than deterministic numerical variables. This mathematical formulation provides a rigorous framework for understanding quantum superposition, probability, and measurement. The Hilbert space structure allows quantum states to be represented as normalized vectors, while inner products define transition probabilities through the Born rule. Linear operators acting on these vectors correspond to measurable physical observables such as position, momentum, and energy. This paper presents a concise mathematical treatment of quantum states in Hilbert space, emphasizing vector representation, superposition, normalization, and projection-based measurement. In addition, the mathematical formulation underlying the concept of quantum immortality is briefly discussed from the perspective of the Many-Worlds Interpretation. The study demonstrates how linear algebra serves as the fundamental language of modern quantum mechanics and provides the theoretical basis for advanced areas including quantum computation, quantum information theory, and quantum communication.
In classical physics, the ‘state’ of a particle, at any particular time, is taken to involve a definite position in space and a definite motion; and the state of a system of particles is taken to involve a definite position in space and a definite motion for each of the particles. The situation in relation to quantum mechanics is completely different. As in classical physics, calculations can be made concerning the position and motion of a particle. However, this representation is not by means of symbols for scalar or vector quantities: it is by a more complex mathematical object. This quantum state does not indicate or represent position or motion in any direct way: what it does in substance is to enable calculation of the probability of the particle in question being found to have a position or momentum if an appropriate measurement is made.
I discuss a set of strong, but probabilistically intelligible, axioms from which one can {\em almost} derive the appratus of finite dimensional quantum theory. Stated informally, these require that systems appear completely classical as restricted to a single measurement, that different measurements, and likewise different pure states, be equivalent (up to the action of a compact group of symmetries), and that every state be the marginal of a bipartite non-signaling state perfectly correlating two measurements. This much yields a mathematical representation of measurements and states that is already very suggestive of quantum mechanics. In particular, in any theory satisfying these axioms, measurements can be represented by orthonormal subsets of, and states, by vectors in, an ordered real Hilbert space -- in the quantum case, the space of Hermitian operators, with its usual tracial inner product. One final postulate (a simple minimization principle, still in need of a clear interpretation) forces the positive cone of this space to be homogeneous and self-dual and hence, to be the the state space of a formally real Jordan algebra. From here, the route to the standard framework of finite-dimensional quantum mechanics is quite short.