Quantum experiments yield random data. We show that the most efficient way to store this empirical information by a finite number of bits is by means of the vector of square roots of observed relative frequencies. This vector has the unique property that its dispersion becomes invariant of the underlying probabilities, and therefore invariant of the physical parameters. This also extends to the complex square roots, and it remains true under a unitary transformation. This reveals quantum theory as a theory for making predictions which are as accurate as the input information, without any statistical loss. Our analysis also suggests that from the point of view of information a slightly more accurate theory than quantum theory should be possible.
Quantum experiments yield random data. We show that the most efficient way to store this empirical information by a finite number of bits is by means of the vector of square roots of observed relative frequencies. This vector has the unique property that its dispersion becomes invariant of the underlying probabilities, and therefore invariant of the physical parameters. This also extends to the complex square roots, and it remains true under a unitary transformation. This reveals quantum theory as a theory for making predictions which are as accurate as the input information, without any statistical loss. Our analysis also suggests that from the point of view of information a slightly more accurate theory than quantum theory should be possible.
In quantum experiments the acquisition and representation of basic experimental information is governed by the multinomial probability distribution. There exist unique random variables, whose standard deviation becomes asymptotically invariant of physical conditions. Representing all information by means of such random variables gives the quantum mechanical probability amplitude and a real alternative. For predictions, the linear evolution law (Schrodinger or Dirac equation) turns out to be the only way to extend the invariance property of the standard deviation to the predicted quantities. This indicates that quantum theory originates in the structure of gaining pure, probabilistic information, without any mechanical underpinning.
In quantum experiments the acquisition and representation of basic experimental information is governed by the multinomial probability distribution. There exist unique random variables, whose standard deviation becomes asymptotically invariant of physical conditions. Representing all information by means of such random variables gives the quantum mechanical probability amplitude and a real alternative. For predictions, the linear evolution law (Schrodinger or Dirac equation) turns out to be the only way to extend the invariance property of the standard deviation to the predicted quantities. This indicates that quantum theory originates in the structure of gaining pure, probabilistic information, without any mechanical underpinning.
As physics searches for invariants in observations, this paper looks for invariants of probabilistic observation without assuming physical structure. Structure emerges from the basic assumption of science that new information shall lead to more accurate knowledge of the invariants. This leads to statistically unique random variables for expressing observed information: Complex probability amplitudes. Predictions are also just random variables computed from observed data, and must become more accurate with more observations as input. This singles out the quantum mechanical superposition principle. The external conditions of a probabilistic experiment can themselves be monitored at the most detailed level, resulting in observation of coicidence probabilities. The invariants of any multi-coincidence experiment are the same as those of a one-event experiment with the same number of possible outcomes. An observable probability turns out to be controllable by two independent experimental conditions, naturally parametrized as a direction in a 3-dimensional space. In summary, the probabilistic paradigm itself defines a unique method of forming concepts and making predictions. The method appears irrefutable within probability, because, whenever a prediction turns out wrong the existence of an as yet unmonitored condition is postulated, and a formal way to incoroporate it is shown. The Hilbert space formalism of quantum theory seems to be isomorphic to this method.
Quantum theory (QT) provides statistical predictions for various physical phenomena. To verify these predictions a considerable amount of data has been accumulated in the 'measurements' performed on the ensembles of identically prepared physical systems or in the repeated 'measurements' on some trapped 'individual physical systems'. The outcomes of these measurements are, in general, some numerical time series registered by some macroscopic instruments. The various empirical probability distributions extracted from these time series were shown to be consistent with the probabilistic predictions of QT. More than 70 years ago the claim was made that QT provided the most complete description of 'individual' physical systems and outcomes of the measurements performed on 'individual' physical systems were obtained in an intrinsically random way. Spin polarization correlation experiments (SPCEs), performed to test the validity of Bell inequalities, clearly demonstrated the existence of strong long-range correlations and confirmed that the beams hitting far away detectors somehow preserve the memory of their common source which would be destroyed if the individual counts of far away detectors were purely random. Since the probabilities describe the random experiments and are not the attributes of the 'individual' physical systems, the claim that QT provides a complete description of 'individual' physical systems seems not only unjustified but also misleading and counter productive. In this paper, we point out that we even do not know whether QT is predictably complete because it has not been tested carefully enough. Namely, it was not proven that the time series of existing experimental data did not contain some stochastic fine structures that could have been averaged out by describing them in terms of the empirical probability distributions. In this paper, we advocate various statistical tests that could be used to search for such fine structures in the data and to answer the title question of this paper. In our opinion a proper understanding of the statistical character of QT and of its limitations is crucial in the domains such as quantum optics and quantum information.
The concept of a quantum state represents one of the most fundamental pillars of the paradigm of quantum theory.'3 Contrary to its mathematical elegance and convenience in calculations, the physical interpretation of a quantum state is not so transparent. The problem is that the quantum state (described either by a state vector, or density operator or a phase-space probability density distribution) does not have a well defined objective status, i.e. a state vector is not an objective property of a particle. According to Peres (see,1 p. 374): "There is no physical evidence whatsoever that every physical system has at every instant a well defined state. .. In strict interpretation of quantum theory these mathematical symbols [i.e., state vectorsi represent statistical information enabling us to compute the probabilities of occurrence of specific events." Once this point of view is adopted then it becomes clear that any "measurement" or a reconstruction of a density operator (or its mathematical equivalent) can be understood exclusively as an expression of our knowledge about the quantum mechanical state based on a certain set of measured data. To be more specific, any quantum-mechanical reconstruction scheme is nothing more than an a posteriori estimation of the density operator of a quantum-mechanical (microscopic) system based on data obtained with the help of a macroscopic measurement apparatus.3 The quality of the reconstruction depends on the "quality" of the measured data and the efficiency of the reconstruction procedure with the help of which the data analysis is performed. In particular, we can specify three different situations. Firstly, when all system observables are precisely measured. In this case the complete reconstruction of an initially unknown state can be performed (we will call this the reconstruction on the complete observation level) . Secondly, when just part of the system observables is precisely measured then one cannot perform a complete reconstruction of the measured state. Nevertheless, the reconstructed density operator still uniquely determines mean values of the measured observables (we will denote this scheme as reconstruction on incomplete observation levels) . Finally, when measurement does not provide us with sufficient information to specify the exact mean values (or probability distributions) but only the frequencies of appearances of eigenstates of the measured observables, then one can perform an estimation (e.g. reconstruction based on quantum Bayesian inference) which is the "best" with respect to the given measured data and the a priori knowledge about the state of the measured system.
Abstract The object of this paper is to reformulate the principles of the quantum theory as a sequence of propositions which shall be either summary statements of standard experimental procedure or hypotheses concerning the results of experiment and having an immediate physical interpretation. It is shown that the standard process in micro-physics is a generalised spectral analysis, whose properties are simply expressible in symbolic form by means of projective or “idempotent” operators (Einzeloperatoren). It appears that only two hypotheses need be made and that these relate to the existence and properties of transition probabilities. From these fundamental principles, which have a direct physical significance, it is possible to deduce the subsidiary principles which form the accepted basis of the mathematical analysis of the quantum theory and which deal with the representation of quantum states and physical quantities by vectors and linear operators respectively. In this paper the emphasis is laid on the experimental process determining a state of a system and on the associated operators rather than on the state itself or the vector representing it in the system space. Projective operators, which represent actual processes of measurement, and unitary operators, which represent actual transformations of systems of measurement, are given priority over the (statistical) operators which represent physical variables. This method of representation makes the physical meaning of the theory fundamental, instead of leaving it to be extracted from a purely mathematical system of non-commutative algebra or differential equations.