Classical and Quantum Probability in the ∈-Model

We describe the probabilistic study of a hiddenvariable model in which the origin of the quantumprobability is due to fluctuations of the internal stateof the measuring apparatus. By varying the intensity of these fluctuations from zero to a maximalvalue, we describe in a heuristic manner the transitionfrom classical behavior to quantum behavior. Wecharacterize this transition in terms of theAccardi–Fedullo inequalities. This is a review article in whichwe gather our recent contributions to the subject, mostof which have not been published in articleform.     

New Challenges for Classical and Quantum Probability

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.     

Classical Versus Quantum Probability in Sequential Measurements

We demonstrate in this paper that the probabilities for sequential measurements have features very different from those of single-time measurements. First, they cannot be modelled by a classical stochastic process. Second, they are contextual, namely they depend strongly on the specific measurement scheme through which they are determined. We construct Positive-Operator-Valued measures (POVM) that provide such probabilities. For observables with continuous spectrum, the constructed POVMs depend strongly on the resolution of the measurement device, a conclusion that persists even if we consider a quantum mechanical measurement device or the presence of an environment. We then examine the same issues in alternative interpretations of quantum theory. We first show that multi-time probabilities cannot be naturally defined in terms of a frequency operator. We next prove that local hidden variable theories cannot reproduce the predictions of quantum theory for sequential measurements, even when the degrees of freedom of the measuring apparatus are taken into account. Bohmian mechanics, however, does not fall in this category. We finally examine an alternative proposal that sequential measurements can be modeled by a process that does not satisfy the Kolmogorov axioms of probability. This removes contextuality without introducing non-locality, but implies that the empirical probabilities cannot be always defined (the event frequencies do not converge). We argue that the predictions of this hypothesis are not ruled out by existing experimental results (examining in particular the “which way” experiments); they are, however, distinguishable in principle.     

Common Cause Completability of Classical and Quantum Probability Spaces

It is shown that for a given set of correlations either in a classical or in a quantumprobability space both the classical and the quantum probability spaces areextendable in such a way that the extension contains common causes of thegiven correlations, where common cause is taken in the sense of Reichenbach'sdefinition. These results strongly restrict the possible ways of disprovingReichenbach's common cause principle and indicate that EPR-type quantumcorrelations might very well have a common cause explanation.     

Error Probability Mitigation in Quantum Reading Using Classical Codes

A general framework describing the statistical discrimination of an ensemble of quantum channels is given by the name quantum reading. Several tools can be applied in quantum reading to reduce the error probability in distinguishing the ensemble of channels. Classical and quantum codes can be envisioned for this goal. The aim of this paper is to present a simple but fruitful protocol for this task using classical error-correcting codes. Three families of codes are considered: Reed–Solomon codes, BCH codes, and Reed–Muller codes. In conjunction with the use of codes, we also analyze the role of the receiver. In particular, heterodyne and Dolinar receivers are taken into consideration. The encoding and measurement schemes are connected by the probing step. As probes, we consider coherent states. In such a simple manner, interesting results are obtained. As we show, there is a threshold below which using codes surpass optimal and sophisticated schemes for any fixed rate and code. BCH codes in conjunction with Dolinar receiver turn out to be the optimal strategy for error mitigation in quantum reading.     

No-Forcing and No-Matching Theorems for Classical Probability Applied to Quantum Mechanics

Correlations of spins in a system of entangled particles are inconsistent with Kolmogorov’s probability theory (KPT), provided the system is assumed to be non-contextual. In the Alice–Bob EPR paradigm, non-contextuality means that the identity of Alice’s spin (i.e., the probability space on which it is defined as a random variable) is determined only by the axis $\alpha _{i}$ chosen by Alice, irrespective of Bob’s axis $\beta _{j}$ (and vice versa). Here, we study contextual KPT models, with two properties: (1) Alice’s and Bob’s spins are identified as $A_{ij}$ and $B_{ij}$ , even though their distributions are determined by, respectively, $\alpha _{i}$ alone and $\beta _{j}$ alone, in accordance with the no-signaling requirement; and (2) the joint distributions of the spins $A_{ij},B_{ij}$ across all values of $\alpha _{i},\beta _{j}$ are constrained by fixing distributions of some subsets thereof. Of special interest among these subsets is the set of probabilistic connections, defined as the pairs $\left( A_{ij},A_{ij'}\right) $ and $\left( B_{ij},B_{i'j}\right) $ with $\alpha _{i}\not =\alpha _{i'}$ and $\beta _{j}\not =\beta _{j'}$ (the non-contextuality assumption is obtained as a special case of connections, with zero probabilities of $A_{ij}\not =A_{ij'}$ and $B_{ij}\not =B_{i'j}$ ). Thus, one can achieve a complete KPT characterization of the Bell-type inequalities, or Tsirelson’s inequalities, by specifying the distributions of probabilistic connections compatible with those and only those spin pairs $\left( A_{ij},B_{ij}\right) $ that are subject to these inequalities. We show, however, that quantum-mechanical (QM) constraints are special. No-forcing theorem says that if a set of probabilistic connections is not compatible with correlations violating QM, then it is compatible only with the classical–mechanical correlations. No-matching theorem says that there are no subsets of the spin variables $A_{ij},B_{ij}$ whose distributions can be fixed to be compatible with and only with QM-compliant correlations.     

Quantum and Classical Brackets

We describe p-mechanical (Kisil, V. V. (1996). Journal of Natural Geometry 9(1), 1–14; Kisil, V. V. (1999). Advances in Mathematics 147(1), 35–73; Prezhdo, O. V. and Kisil, V. V. (1997). Physical Review A 56(1), 162–175) brackets that generate quantum (commutator) and classical (Poisson) brackets in corresponding representations of the Heisenberg group. We do not use any kind of semiclassical approximation or limiting procedure for 0     

Probability Representation of Quantum Observables and Quantum States

We introduce the probability distributions describing quantum observables in conventional quantum mechanics and clarify their relations to the tomographic probability distributions describing quantum states. We derive the evolution equation for quantum observables (Heisenberg equation) in the probability representation and give examples of the spin-1/2 (qubit) states and the spin observables. We present quantum channels for qubits in the probability representation.     

Objective Probability and Quantum Fuzziness

This paper offers a critique of the Bayesian interpretation of quantum mechanics with particular focus on a paper by Caves, Fuchs, and Schack containing a critique of the “objective preparations view” or OPV. It also aims to carry the discussion beyond the hardened positions of Bayesians and proponents of the OPV. Several claims made by Caves et al. are rebutted, including the claim that different pure states may legitimately be assigned to the same system at the same time, and the claim that the quantum nature of a preparation device cannot legitimately be ignored. Both Bayesians and proponents of the OPV regard the time dependence of a quantum state as the continuous dependence on time of an evolving state of some kind. This leads to a false dilemma: quantum states are either objective states of nature or subjective states of belief. In reality they are neither. The present paper views the aforesaid dependence as a dependence on the time of the measurement to whose possible outcomes the quantum state serves to assign probabilities. This makes it possible to recognize the full implications of the only testable feature of the theory, viz., the probabilities it assigns to measurement outcomes. Most important among these are the objective fuzziness of all relative positions and momenta and the consequent incomplete spatiotemporal differentiation of the physical world. The latter makes it possible to draw a clear distinction between the macroscopic and the microscopic. This in turn makes it possible to understand the special status of measurements in all standard formulations of the theory. Whereas Bayesians have written contemptuously about the “folly” of conjoining “objective” to “probability,” there are various reasons why quantum-mechanical probabilities can be considered objective, not least the fact that they are needed to quantify an objective fuzziness. But this cannot be appreciated without giving thought to the makeup of the world, which Bayesians refuse to do. Doing this on the basis of how quantum mechanics assigns probabilities, one finds that what constitutes the macroworld is a single Ultimate Reality, about which we know nothing, except that it manifests the macroworld or manifests itself as the macroworld. The so-called microworld is neither a world nor a part of any world but instead is instrumental in the manifestation of the macroworld. Quantum mechanics affords us a glimpse “behind” the manifested world, at stages in the process of manifestation, but it does not allow us to describe what lies “behind” the manifested world except in terms of the finished product—the manifested world, for without the manifested world there is nothing in whose terms we could describe its manifestation.     

On Classical and Quantum Objectivity

We propose a conceptual framework for understanding the relationship between observables and operators in mechanics. To do so, we introduce a postulate that establishes a correspondence between the objective properties permitting to identify physical states and the symmetry transformations that modify their gauge dependant properties. We show that the uncertainty principle results from a faithful—or equivariant—realization of this correspondence. It is a consequence of the proposed postulate that the quantum notion of objective physical states is not incomplete, but rather that the classical notion is overdetermined.     

Separating Classical and Quantum Correlations

We examine to what extent the correlation between two quantum observables at a mixed state can be separated into a classical and a quantum term. The nonunique decomposition of quantum mixed states into pure states makes such a separation ambiguous. We outline this fact by a simple example, which also shows that classical and quantum correlations may cancel each other out.     

Classical Limit and Quantum Logic

The analysis of the classical limit of quantum mechanics usually focuses on the state of the system. The general idea is to explain the disappearance of the interference terms of quantum states appealing to the decoherence process induced by the environment. However, in these approaches it is not explained how the structure of quantum properties becomes classical. In this paper, we consider the classical limit from a different perspective. We consider the set of properties of a quantum system and we study the quantum-to-classical transition of its logical structure. The aim is to open the door to a new study based on dynamical logics, that is, logics that change over time. In particular, we appeal to the notion of hybrid logics to describe semiclassical systems. Moreover, we consider systems with many characteristic decoherence times, whose sublattices of properties become distributive at different times.     

Classical and Quantum Coherent States

p-Mechanics is a consistent physical theory which describes both quantum and classical mechanics simultaneously (V. V. Kisil, p-Mechanics as a physical theory. An Introduction, E-print:arXiv:quant-ph/0212101, 2002; International Journal of Theoretical Physics 41(1), 63–77, 2002). We continue the development of p-mechanics by introducing the concept of states. The set of coherent states we introduce allows us to evaluate classical observables at any point of phase space and simultaneously to evaluate quantum probability amplitudes. The example of the forced harmonic oscillator is used to demonstrate these concepts.     

Classical Mechanics and Quantum Mechanics

The Newton equation of motion is derived from quantum mechanics.     

Quantum Mechanics and Imprecise Probability

An extension of the Born rule, the quantum typicality rule, has recently been proposed [B. Galvan in Found. Phys. 37:1540–1562 (2007)]. Roughly speaking, this rule states that if the wave function of a particle is split into non-overlapping wave packets, the particle stays approximately inside the support of one of the wave packets, without jumping to the others. In this paper a formal definition of this rule is given in terms of imprecise probability. An imprecise probability space is a measurable space endowed with a set of probability measures ℘. The quantum formalism and the quantum typicality rule allow us to define a set of probabilities on (X ^T ,ℱ), where X is the configuration space of a quantum system, T is a time interval and ℱ is the σ-algebra generated by the cylinder sets. Thus, it is proposed that a quantum system can be represented as the imprecise stochastic process , which is a canonical stochastic process in which the single probability measure is replaced by a set of measures. It is argued that this mathematical model, when used to represent macroscopic systems, has sufficient predictive power to explain both the results of the statistical experiments and the quasi-classical structure of the macroscopic evolution.     

Probability Representation of Classical States

Probability representation of classical states described by symplectic tomograms is discussed. Tomographic symbols of classical observables which are functions on phase-space are studied. Explicit form of kernel of commutative star-product of the tomographic symbols is obtained.     

Hilbert Modules in Quantum Electro Dynamics and Quantum Probability

A physical system of the form with a distinguished state on may be described in a natural way on a Hilbert -module. Following the ideas of Accardi and Lu [1], we apply this possibility to a concrete system consisting of a boson field in the vacuum state coupled to a free electron. We show that the physical system is described adequately on a new type of Fock module: the symmetric Fock module. It turns out that a module has to fulfill an algebraic condition in order to allow for the construction of a symmetric Fock module. We prove in a central limit theorem that in the stochastic limit the moments of the collective operators (i.e. more or less the time-integrated interaction Hamiltonian) converge to the moments of free creators and annihilators on a full Fock module. In the sense of Voiculescu [22] and Speicher [20] these operators form a free white noise over the algebra . Received: 28 October 1996 / Accepted: 21 July 1997     

Quantum and Classical Disparity and Accord

Discrepancies and accords between quantum (QM) and classical mechanics (CM) related to expectation values and periods are generally found for both the harmonic oscillator (SHO) and a free particle in a box (FPB), which may apply generally. These indicate non-locality is expected throughout QM. The FPB energy states violate the Correspondence Principle. Previously unexpected accords are found and proven that 〈x ²〉 _CM =〈x ²〉 _QM and τ _CM =τ _QMb (beat period i.e. beats between the phases for adjoining energy states) for the SHO for all quantum numbers, n. However, for the FPB the beat periods differ at small n. It is shown that a particle’s velocity in an infinite square well varies, no matter how wide the box, nor how far the particle is from the walls. The quantum free particle variances share an indirect commonality with the Aharonov-Bohm and Aharonov-Casher effects in that there is a quantum action in the absence of a force. The concept of an “Expectation Value over a Partial Well Width” is introduced. This paper raises the question as to whether these inconsistencies are undetectable, or can be empirically ascertained. These inherent variances may need to be fixed, or nature is manifestly more non-classical than expected.