72 57 v 1 [ qu an tph ] 2 8 M ar 2 01 3 Statistical theory of ideal quantum measurement processes

Abstract In order to elucidate the properties currently attributed to ideal measurements, one must explain how the concept of an individual event with a well-defined outcome may emerge from quantum theory which deals with statistical ensembles, and how different runs issued from the same initial state may end up with different final states. This so-called “measurement problem” is tackled with two guidelines. On the one hand, the dynamics of the macroscopic apparatus A coupled to the tested system S is described mathematically within a standard quantum formalism, where “ q -probabilities” remain devoid of interpretation. On the other hand, interpretative principles, aimed to be minimal, are introduced to account for the expected features of ideal measurements. Most of the five principles stated here, which relate the quantum formalism to physical reality, are straightforward and refer to macroscopic variables. The process can be identified with a relaxation of S + A to thermodynamic equilibrium, not only for a large ensemble E of runs but even for its sub-ensembles. The different mechanisms of quantum statistical dynamics that ensure these types of relaxation are exhibited, and the required properties of the Hamiltonian of S + A are indicated. The additional theoretical information provided by the study of sub-ensembles remove Schrodinger’s quantum ambiguity of the final density operator for E which hinders its direct interpretation, and bring out a commutative behaviour of the pointer observable at the final time. The latter property supports the introduction of a last interpretative principle, needed to switch from the statistical ensembles and sub-ensembles described by quantum theory to individual experimental events. It amounts to identify some formal “ q -probabilities” with ordinary frequencies, but only those which refer to the final indications of the pointer. The desired properties of ideal measurements, in particular the uniqueness of the result for each individual run of the ensemble and von Neumann’s reduction, are thereby recovered with economic interpretations. The status of Born’s rule involving both A and S is re-evaluated, and contextuality of quantum measurements is made obvious.

[1]  Joseph M. Renes,et al.  Gleason-Type Derivations of the Quantum Probability Rule for Generalized Measurements , 2004 .

[2]  L. Landau,et al.  statistical-physics-part-1 , 1958 .

[3]  P. Busch Quantum states and generalized observables: a simple proof of Gleason's theorem. , 1999, Physical review letters.

[4]  A. Gleason Measures on the Closed Subspaces of a Hilbert Space , 1957 .

[5]  Andrei Khrennikov Bell's Inequality: Nonlocalty, “Death of Reality”, or Incompatibility of Random Variables? , 2007 .

[6]  Theo M. Nieuwenhuizen,et al.  The Bell Inequalities , 2012 .

[7]  E. Schrödinger Discussion of Probability Relations between Separated Systems , 1935, Mathematical Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society.

[8]  Sylvester Okwunodu Ogbechie,et al.  Contexts , 2004, A New Deal for Children?.

[9]  Marian Kupczynski Bell Inequalities, Experimental Protocols and Contextuality , 2014 .

[10]  Walter Thirring,et al.  A Course in Mathematical Physics 3: Quantum Mechanics of Atoms and Molecules , 1999 .

[11]  Alexia Auffèves,et al.  Contexts, Systems and Modalities: A New Ontology for Quantum Mechanics , 2014, 1409.2120.

[12]  G. Yocky,et al.  Decoherence , 2018, Principles of Quantum Computation and Information.

[13]  W. Heisenberg A quantum-theoretical reinterpretation of kinematic and mechanical relations , 1925 .

[14]  G. Lüders Über die Zustandsänderung durch den Meßprozeß , 1950 .

[15]  S. S. Wilks,et al.  Probability, statistics and truth , 1939 .

[16]  Thermodynamic aspects of Schrödinger's probability relations , 1988 .

[17]  Aarnout Brombacher,et al.  Probability... , 2009, Qual. Reliab. Eng. Int..

[18]  A. Daneri,et al.  QUANTUM THEORY OF MEASUREMENT AND ERGODICITY CONDITIONS , 1962 .

[19]  R. Balian From microphysics to macrophysics , 1991 .

[20]  E. Jaynes Information Theory and Statistical Mechanics , 1957 .

[21]  M. Kafatos Bell's theorem, quantum theory and conceptions of the universe , 1989 .

[22]  D. Home,et al.  Ensemble interpretations of quantum mechanics. A modern perspective , 1992 .

[23]  F. David The Formalisms of Quantum Mechanics: An Introduction , 2014 .

[24]  E. Schrödinger Probability relations between separated systems , 1936, Mathematical Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society.

[25]  N. Kampen,et al.  Ten theorems about quantum mechanical measurements , 1988 .

[26]  Gregg S. Jaeger,et al.  Do We Really Understand Quantum Mechanics? , 2012 .

[27]  G. Sewell Can the Quantum Measurement Problem be Resolved within the Framework of Schroedinger Dynamics and Quantum Probability , 2005, 0710.3315.

[28]  W. Zurek Decoherence, einselection, and the quantum origins of the classical , 2001, quant-ph/0105127.

[29]  Karl Hess,et al.  Bell’s theorem: Critique of proofs with and without inequalities , 2005 .

[30]  J. Wheeler,et al.  Quantum theory and measurement , 1983 .

[31]  Comment on ``How macroscopic properties dictate microscopic probabilities'' , 2002, quant-ph/0204006.

[32]  S. Weinberg What happens in a measurement , 2016, 1603.06008.

[33]  J. Bell On Wave Packet Reduction in the Coleman-HEPP Model , 1974 .

[34]  Armen E. Allahverdyan,et al.  Understanding quantum measurement from the solution of dynamical models , 2011, 1107.2138.

[35]  Quantum Measurement of a Single System , 2001 .

[36]  W. Heisenberg Über quantentheoretische Umdeutung kinematischer und mechanischer Beziehungen , 1925 .

[37]  Saverio Pascazio,et al.  Quantum theory of measurement based on the many Hilbert space approach , 1993 .

[38]  How macroscopic properties dictate microscopic probabilities , 2001, quant-ph/0110093.

[39]  W. Wreszinski,et al.  On reduction of the wave-packet, decoherence, irreversibility and the second law of thermodynamics , 2013, 1309.2550.

[40]  Incomplete descriptions and relevant entropies , 1999, cond-mat/9907015.

[41]  A. Peres When is a quantum measurement , 1986 .

[42]  Curie-Weiss model of the quantum measurement process , 2002, cond-mat/0203460.

[43]  G. Lüders,et al.  Concerning the state‐change due to the measurement process , 2006 .

[44]  D. Haar,et al.  Statistical Physics , 1971, Nature.

[45]  N. Balazs,et al.  Fundamental Problems in Statistical Mechanics , 1962 .

[46]  P. Grangier,et al.  A simple derivation of Born's rule with and without Gleason's theorem , 2015, 1505.01369.

[47]  E. Squires On an alleged “proof” of the quantum probability law , 1990 .

[48]  R. Balian,et al.  Equiprobability, inference, and entropy in quantum theory , 1987 .

[49]  W. D. Muynck Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, an Empiricist Approach , 2002 .

[50]  H. De Raedt,et al.  Possible experience: From Boole to Bell , 2009, 0907.0767.

[51]  R. Balian,et al.  From Microphysics to Macrophysics: Methods and Applications of Statistical Physics , 1992 .

[52]  R. Balian,et al.  Determining a quantum state by means of a single apparatus. , 2003, Physical review letters.

[53]  T. Nieuwenhuizen,et al.  Is the Contextuality Loophole Fatal for the Derivation of Bell Inequalities? , 2011 .