Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Introduction
P P = 0,
P P = 1,
(1)
where 0 is the zero operator, corresponding to the trivially always-false proposition (projecting onto the trivial subspace {0}), and 1 is the unit operator, corresponding to the trivially always-true proposition (projecting onto the whole
Hilbert space). Note that 0 = 1.
Under these logical operations the set of projections forms an orthomodular
lattice, rather than a Boolean lattice as would be formed by a set of classical
yes/no propositions [5, 6]. In particular, the distributive law P (Q R) =
(P Q) (P R) for Boolean lattices does not hold for general projections P ,
Q and R.
However, significantly, any set of mutually orthogonal projections P1 , P2 , . . . ,
corresponding to a set of mutually orthogonal subspaces, does generate a Boolean
lattice under the above logical operations. It is easy to show that the elements
of such a set commute, and that
Pj Pk = Pj + Pk ,
Pj Pk = Pj Pk = 0,
for j 6= k.
(2)
(3)
for any set of mutually orthogonal projectors P1 , P2 , . . . . One must further have
ps (1) = 1,
(4)
(5)
(6)
Thus, in the quantum logic approach, Borns rule follows once one has axioms
sufficient to identify experimental propositions with Hilbert space projections.
It is of interest to remark that Bell adapted Gleasons proof to show that one
cannot consistently assign pre-existing definite outcomes of quantum measurements to the set of projections, for Hilbert spaces of three or more dimensions [8].
This is an example of quantum contextuality, analogous to the Kochen-Specker
theorem [9], but independent of the latter and requiring consideration of a continuum of projections rather than a finite number.
Gleasons theorem in Eq. (5) only applies to Hilbert spaces of three or more
dimensions. For qubits it is simple to find counterexamples.
For example, note for a qubit Hilbert space that any one-dimensional projection P , and its orthogonal complement P , have the respective forms
P = |ih| = 12 (1 + n ),
P = 1 |ih| = 21 (1 n ),
(7)
(8)
Clearly, this function is nonlinear in P , and hence cannot be generated by a
density operator as per Eq. (5). However, using Tr [z ] = 0, one has
o
o
n
n
3
3
ps (P ) = 21 1 + (Tr [(1 P )z ]) = 21 1 (Tr [P z ]) = 1 ps (P ).
(10)
still be motivated. For example, one can postulate that if two probability operators E, F satisfy E + F 1, then they must correspond to disjoint outcomes
of some physical experiment. Note that a similar postulate is implicit to the
weaker assumption in Eq. (3) [7], although in the latter case one has a logical
motivation for considering the set of mutually orthogonal projections.
Putting the interesting question of motivation aside, Eq. (10) most certainly
provides a suitable assumption for extending Gleasons theorem to the qubit
case [2]. In contrast, the additional assumptions proposed recently by De Zela [3]
do not, as will now be discussed.
Remarks
References
[1] A. M. Gleason, J. Math. Mech. 6 (1957) 885
[2] P. Busch, Phys. Rev. Lett. 91 (2003) 120403
[3] F. De Zela, Found. Phys. 46 (2016) 1293
[4] A. Benavoli, A. Facchini and M. Zaffalon, arXiv:1606.03615v2 [quant-ph];
D. Aerts, M. S. de Bianchi and S. Sozzo, arXiv:1609.02658v1 [quant-ph];
A. Bolotin, arXiv:1610.01847v1 [quant-ph]
[5] G. Birkhoff and J. von Neumann, Ann. Math. 37 (1936) 823
[6] E. G. Beltrametti, and G. Cassinelli The Logic of Quantum Mechanics
(Addison-Wesley, Massachusetts, 1981).
[7] M. J. W. Hall, Int. J Theoret. Phys. 31 (1992) 1131
[8] J. S. Bell, Rev. Mod. Phys. 38 (1966) 447
[9] S. Kochen and E. P. Specker, J. Math. Mech. 17 (1967) 59
[10] N. Gisin, Synthese 89 (1991) 287
[11] S. P. Gudder, Stochastic Methods in Quantum Mechanics (North-Holland,
New York, 1979)
[12] M. J. W. Hall, D.-A. Deckert and H. M. Wiseman, Phys. Rev. X 4 (2014)
041013
[13] M. J. W. Hall and M. Reginatto, Ensembles on Configuration Space: Classical, Quantum, and Beyond (Springer, Switzerland, 2016)