* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download Quantum mechanics as a representation of classical conditional
Ensemble interpretation wikipedia , lookup
Bohr–Einstein debates wikipedia , lookup
Quantum fiction wikipedia , lookup
Quantum machine learning wikipedia , lookup
Quantum field theory wikipedia , lookup
Quantum electrodynamics wikipedia , lookup
Bell test experiments wikipedia , lookup
History of quantum field theory wikipedia , lookup
Quantum group wikipedia , lookup
Coherent states wikipedia , lookup
Second quantization wikipedia , lookup
Quantum teleportation wikipedia , lookup
Quantum decoherence wikipedia , lookup
Probability amplitude wikipedia , lookup
Copenhagen interpretation wikipedia , lookup
Quantum key distribution wikipedia , lookup
Bra–ket notation wikipedia , lookup
Relativistic quantum mechanics wikipedia , lookup
Many-worlds interpretation wikipedia , lookup
Interpretations of quantum mechanics wikipedia , lookup
Quantum state wikipedia , lookup
Quantum entanglement wikipedia , lookup
EPR paradox wikipedia , lookup
Hidden variable theory wikipedia , lookup
Compact operator on Hilbert space wikipedia , lookup
Self-adjoint operator wikipedia , lookup
Measurement in quantum mechanics wikipedia , lookup
Symmetry in quantum mechanics wikipedia , lookup
Canonical quantization wikipedia , lookup
Quantum mechanics as a representation of classical conditional probabilities Gábor Hofer-Szabó Research Centre for the Humanities, Budapest – p. 1 Project Questions: 1. How to represent conditional probabilities in a noncommutative setting? 2. How to reconstruct the quantum state by measuring simply conditional probabilities? 3. How to represent observables and states such that the Born rule yields us the conditional probabilities? – p. 2 Project Outline: I. The formalism of QM II. Empirical foundations III. Representing measurements by operators IV. How to assign operators to measurements? – p. 3 I. The formalism of QM – p. 4 The formalism of QM General scheme: Operator assignment: System Measurement: a Outcomes: Ai State: s −→ H: Hilbert space −→ Oa : self-adjoint operator −→ Pai : projections −→ Ws : density operator Born rule: ps (Ai |a) =: pia = Tr(Ws Pai ) – p. 5 The formalism of QM Yes-no questions: Operator assignment: System −→ C2 Measurement: a −→ Oa = aσ a ∈ R3 , |a| = 1 σ = (σx , σy , σz ) Outcomes: A± −→ Pa± = 21 (1 ± aσ) State: s −→ Ws = 12 (1 + sσ) s ∈ R3 , |s| 6 1 |s| = 1: pure, |s| < 1: mixed state Born rule: ± = Tr (W P ps (A± |a) =: p± s a ) a – p. 6 The formalism of QM Outcomes: A± −→ Pa± = 21 (1 ± aσ) z State: s −→ Ws = 12 (1 + sσ) a 1 = Born rule: p± a 2 (1 ± sa) s y x – p. 7 II. Empirical foundations – p. 8 Empirical foundations 1. Measurement and state preparation are different things. 2. States refer to ensembles not to individual systems. 3. In a series of papers Band and Park provided means to “empirically” specify the state of a system: (a) If dim H = 2, then any three noncommuting self-adjoint operators suffice to specify Ws . (b) If dim H = n, then a set of n2 − 1 self-adjoint operators is needed, but to specify the set is difficult. – p. 9 Empirical foundations 4. In quantum tomography one is looking for a sufficient set of self-adjoint operators (called the quorum) by which the density operator of the system can be reconstructed. 5. However, in quantum tomography it is taken for granted that the measurement −→ self-adjoint operator; measurement outcome −→ (orthogonal) projection assignment is already given. 6. Can this assignment can be empirically grounded? – p. 10 III. Representing measurements by operators – p. 11 Representing measurements by operators One measurement: ! Ws = p+ a p− a Pa+ = 1 ! 0 Pa− = 0 ! 1 Tr(Ws Pa± ) = p± a The off-diagonals do not matter Ws is not necessarily a density matrix – p. 12 Representing measurements by operators Two commensurable measurements: p++ ab Ws = p+− ab p−+ ab p−− ab p+ a p− a p+ b p− b – p. 13 Representing measurements by operators Two commensurable measurements: Note that +− + p++ + p = p a ab ab −+ + p++ + p = p ab ab b does not hold a priori. If it does, then the upper block is enough: ++ pab Ws = p+− ab p−+ ab p−− ab – p. 14 Representing measurements by operators Two incommensurable measurements: + pa Ws = p− a p+ b p− b – p. 15 Representing measurements by operators Two incommensurable measurements: Operator assignment: System −→ C2 Measurements: a −→ Oa = aσ b −→ Ob = bσ Outcomes: A± −→ Pa± = 12 (1 ± aσ) B± −→ Pb± = 21 (1 ± bσ) State: s −→ Ws = ? – p. 16 Representing measurements by operators Two incommensurable measurements: Born rule: ± = Tr (W P ps (A± |a) =: p± s a ) a ± ps (B ± |b) =: p± = Tr (W P s b b ) – p. 17 Representing measurements by operators An example: Operator assignment: System: Color: a Size: b Shape: c Black/White: A± Large/Small: B ± Round/Cubic: C ± State: s −→ C2 −→ Oa = aσ −→ Ob = bσ −→ Oc = cσ −→ Pa± = 21 (1 ± aσ) −→ Pb± = 12 (1 ± bσ) −→ Pc± = 12 (1 ± cσ) −→ Ws = ? – p. 18 Representing measurements by operators Do measurements a, b, c and ± ± fix W ? , p probabilities p± , p s a c b z Only if the {a, b, c} 7→ {a, b, c} assignment is fixed. s a y c x b But even in this case Ws is not necessarily a density matrix! – p. 19 Representing measurements by operators A counter-example: Let z + + = p p+ = p a c =: p b c and a y x b s a = x b = (0, cos ϕ, − sin ϕ) c = z Then for any p ≈ 1 and ϕ ≈ π/2: |s| > 1 Ws is not a density matrix. – p. 20 IV. How to assign operators to measurements? – p. 21 How to assign operators to measurements? Symmetry considerations: Spin: Let the rotation group be represented on C. Spin measurement in direction a −→ Oa = aσ Outcomes: A± −→ Pa± = 21 (1 ± aσ) Then Ws gets fixed. – p. 22 How to assign operators to measurements? Projection postulate: Measuring a and selecting A± the system previously in state s −→ Wa± := Pa± W Pa± Tr(Pa± W Pa± ) will go over to state sa± – p. 23 How to assign operators to measurements? Selecting outcome A+ , the state z a 1 W = (1 + sσ) 2 s y x – p. 24 How to assign operators to measurements? Selecting outcome A+ , the state z 1 W = (1 + sσ) 2 s=a y x turns into Pa+ 1 = (1 + aσ) 2 – p. 25 How to assign operators to measurements? z The probability of obtaining outcome B + is + pa+ (B |b) = s=a Tr(Pa+ Pb+ ) 1 = (1 + ab) 2 y x b – p. 26 How to assign operators to measurements? z Similarly, for the reversed case 1 pa+ (B |b) = pb+ (A |a) = (1 + ba) 2 + a + y x b – p. 27 How to assign operators to measurements? Question: Does Ws get fixed if we assume that the conditional probabilities emerge from underlying elements of reality? – p. 28 How to assign operators to measurements? Elements of reality: An event type α± is called an element of reality with respect to measurement a if the following hold: ps (A± |a ∧ α± ) = δ±± ps (a ∧ α± ) = ps (a) ps (α± ) – p. 29 How to assign operators to measurements? Elements of reality: If α± , β ± and γ ± are elements of reality with respect to a measurements a, b and c, respectively, then: ps (A± |a) = ps (α± ) ps (B ± |b) = ps (β ± ) ps (C ± |c) = ps (γ ± ) – p. 30 How to assign operators to measurements? Answer: z There is a statistical ensemble with the following probability for atomic elements of reality: c a y x b s 1 ps (α ∧ β ∧ γ ) = (1 ∓ sin ϕ) 8 ± ± ± which leads to the conditional probabilities represented by vectors a, b and c, for which Ws is not a density operator. – p. 31 Conclusions Given three yes-no measurements on a statistical ensemble 1. and representing the three pairs of measurement outcomes by three orthogonal pairs of projections in M2 ; 2. the state of the system by a matrix Ws in M2 ; 3. requiring that the conditional probabilities of the measurement outcomes be given by the Born rule; 4. requiring that the projection postulate also holds; 5. and also requiring that the conditional probabilities emerge from the underlying elements of reality even if all these hold, Ws is not necessarily a density operator. That is the formalism of QM does not apply. – p. 32 References G. M. D’Ariano, L. Maccone and M.G. A. Paris, “Quorum of observables for universal quantum estimation,” J. Phys. A, 34, 93-103, 2001. M. Gömöri and G. Hofer-Szabó, “On the meaning of EPR’s Criterion of Reality,” (in preparation). G. Hofer-Szabó, “ How human and nature shake hands: the role of no-conspiracy in physical theories,” (submitted). J. M. Jauch, Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, (New York: Addison-Wesley, 1968). H. Margenau, “Measurements and Quantum States, Part I and Part II,” Phil. Sci., 30, 1-16 and 138-157, 1963. J. L. Park and W. Band, “The empirical determination of quantum states,” Found. Phys., 1, 133-144 (1970). J. L. Park and W. Band, “A general theory of empirical state determination in quantum mechanics, Part I and Part II,” Found. Phys., 1, 211-226 and 339-357 (1971). J. L. Park and W. Band, “Preparation and Measurement in Quantum Physics,” Found. Phys., 22, 657-668 (1992). L. Wessels, “The preparation problem in quantum mechanics,” in J. Earman and J. D. Norton (eds.), The Cosmos of Science, Essays of Exploration, (University of Pittsburgh Press – Universitätsverlag Konstanz, 243-273, 1997) – p. 33