Quantum Bayesianism
Part of a series of articles about |
Quantum mechanics |
---|
In
This interpretation is distinguished by its use of a
More generally, any work that uses a Bayesian or personalist (a.k.a. "subjective") treatment of the probabilities that appear in quantum theory is also sometimes called quantum Bayesian. QBism, in particular, has been referred to as "the radical Bayesian interpretation".[12]
In addition to presenting an interpretation of the existing mathematical structure of quantum theory, some QBists have advocated a research program of reconstructing quantum theory from basic physical principles whose QBist character is manifest. The ultimate goal of this research is to identify what aspects of the ontology of the physical world make quantum theory a good tool for agents to use.[13] However, the QBist interpretation itself, as described in § Core positions, does not depend on any particular reconstruction.
History and development
E. T. Jaynes, a promoter of the use of Bayesian probability in statistical physics, once suggested that quantum theory is "[a] peculiar mixture describing in part realities of Nature, in part incomplete human information about Nature—all scrambled up by Heisenberg and Bohr into an omelette that nobody has seen how to unscramble".[15] QBism developed out of efforts to separate these parts using the tools of quantum information theory and personalist Bayesian probability theory
There are many
According to QBists, the advantages of adopting this view of probability are twofold. First, for QBists the role of quantum states, such as the wavefunctions of particles, is to efficiently encode probabilities; so quantum states are ultimately degrees of belief themselves. (If one considers any single measurement that is a minimal, informationally complete
Christopher Fuchs introduced the term "QBism" and outlined the interpretation in more or less its present form in 2010,[24] carrying further and demanding consistency of ideas broached earlier, notably in publications from 2002.[25][26] Several subsequent works have expanded and elaborated upon these foundations, notably a Reviews of Modern Physics article by Fuchs and Schack;[19] an American Journal of Physics article by Fuchs, Mermin, and Schack;[23] and Enrico Fermi Summer School[27] lecture notes by Fuchs and Stacey.[22]
Prior to the 2010 article, the term "quantum Bayesianism" was used to describe the developments which have since led to QBism in its present form. However, as noted above, QBism subscribes to a particular kind of Bayesianism which does not suit everyone who might apply Bayesian reasoning to quantum theory (see, for example, § Other uses of Bayesian probability in quantum physics below). Consequently, Fuchs chose to call the interpretation "QBism", pronounced "cubism", preserving the Bayesian spirit via the CamelCase in the first two letters, but distancing it from Bayesianism more broadly. As this neologism is a homophone of Cubism the art movement, it has motivated conceptual comparisons between the two,[28] and media coverage of QBism has been illustrated with art by Picasso[7] and Gris.[29] However, QBism itself was not influenced or motivated by Cubism and has no lineage to a potential connection between Cubist art and Bohr's views on quantum theory.[30]
Core positions
According to QBism, quantum theory is a tool which an agent may use to help manage their expectations, more like probability theory than a conventional physical theory.[13] Quantum theory, QBism claims, is fundamentally a guide for decision making which has been shaped by some aspects of physical reality. Chief among the tenets of QBism are the following:[31]
- All probabilities, including those equal to zero or one, are valuations that an agent ascribes to their degrees of belief in possible outcomes. As they define and update probabilities, quantum states (density operators), channels (completely positive trace-preserving maps), and measurements (positive operator-valued measures)are also the personal judgements of an agent.
- The normative, not descriptive. It is a relation to which an agent should strive to adhere in their probability and quantum-state assignments.
- Quantum measurement outcomes are personal experiences for the agent gambling on them. Different agents may confer and agree upon the consequences of a measurement, but the outcome is the experience each of them individually has.
- A measurement apparatus is conceptually an extension of the agent. It should be considered analogous to a sense organ or prosthetic limb—simultaneously a tool and a part of the individual.
Reception and criticism
Reactions to the QBist interpretation have ranged from enthusiastic
Certain authors find QBism internally self-consistent, but do not subscribe to the interpretation.
The philosophy literature has also discussed QBism from the viewpoints of structural realism and of phenomenology.[60][61][62]
Ballentine argues that "the initial assumption of QBism is not valid" because the inferential probability of Bayesian theory used by QBism is not applicable to quantum mechanics.[63]
Relation to other interpretations
Copenhagen interpretations
The views of many physicists (Bohr, Heisenberg, Rosenfeld, von Weizsäcker, Peres, etc.) are often grouped together as the "Copenhagen interpretation" of quantum mechanics. Several authors have deprecated this terminology, claiming that it is historically misleading and obscures differences between physicists that are as important as their similarities.[14][64] QBism shares many characteristics in common with the ideas often labeled as "the Copenhagen interpretation", but the differences are important; to conflate them or to regard QBism as a minor modification of the points of view of Bohr or Heisenberg, for instance, would be a substantial misrepresentation.[10][31]
QBism takes probabilities to be personal judgments of the individual agent who is using quantum mechanics. This contrasts with older Copenhagen-type views, which hold that probabilities are given by quantum states that are in turn fixed by objective facts about preparation procedures.
Other epistemic interpretations
Approaches to quantum theory, like QBism,
if a quantum state is a state of knowledge, and it is not knowledge of local and noncontextual hidden variables, then what is it knowledge about? We do not at present have a good answer to this question. We shall therefore remain completely agnostic about the nature of the reality to which the knowledge represented by quantum states pertains. This is not to say that the question is not important. Rather, we see the epistemic approach as an unfinished project, and this question as the central obstacle to its completion. Nonetheless, we argue that even in the absence of an answer to this question, a case can be made for the epistemic view. The key is that one can hope to identify phenomena that are characteristic of states of incomplete knowledge regardless of what this knowledge is about.[67]
Leifer and Spekkens propose a way of treating quantum probabilities as Bayesian probabilities, thereby considering quantum states as epistemic, which they state is "closely aligned in its philosophical starting point" with QBism.[68] However, they remain deliberately agnostic about what physical properties or entities quantum states are information (or beliefs) about, as opposed to QBism, which offers an answer to that question.[68] Another approach, advocated by Bub and Pitowsky, argues that quantum states are information about propositions within event spaces that form non-Boolean lattices.[69] On occasion, the proposals of Bub and Pitowsky are also called "quantum Bayesianism".[70]
Zeilinger and Brukner have also proposed an interpretation of quantum mechanics in which "information" is a fundamental concept, and in which quantum states are epistemic quantities.[71] Unlike QBism, the Brukner–Zeilinger interpretation treats some probabilities as objectively fixed. In the Brukner–Zeilinger interpretation, a quantum state represents the information that a hypothetical observer in possession of all possible data would have. Put another way, a quantum state belongs in their interpretation to an optimally informed agent, whereas in QBism, any agent can formulate a state to encode her own expectations.[72] Despite this difference, in Cabello's classification, the proposals of Zeilinger and Brukner are also designated as "participatory realism", as QBism and the Copenhagen-type interpretations are.[6]
Bayesian, or epistemic, interpretations of quantum probabilities were proposed in the early 1990s by Baez and Youssef.[73][74]
Von Neumann's views
Relational quantum mechanics
Comparisons have also been made between QBism and the relational quantum mechanics (RQM) espoused by Carlo Rovelli and others.[76][77] In both QBism and RQM, quantum states are not intrinsic properties of physical systems.[78] Both QBism and RQM deny the existence of an absolute, universal wavefunction. Furthermore, both QBism and RQM insist that quantum mechanics is a fundamentally local theory.[23][79] In addition, Rovelli, like several QBist authors, advocates reconstructing quantum theory from physical principles in order to bring clarity to the subject of quantum foundations.[80] (The QBist approaches to doing so are different from Rovelli's, and are described below.) One important distinction between the two interpretations is their philosophy of probability: RQM does not adopt the Ramsey–de Finetti school of personalist Bayesianism.[6][17] Moreover, RQM does not insist that a measurement outcome is necessarily an agent's experience.[17]
Other uses of Bayesian probability in quantum physics
QBism should be distinguished from other applications of Bayesian inference in quantum physics, and from quantum analogues of Bayesian inference.[19][73] For example, some in the field of computer science have introduced a kind of quantum Bayesian network, which they argue could have applications in "medical diagnosis, monitoring of processes, and genetics".[81][82] Bayesian inference has also been applied in quantum theory for updating probability densities over quantum states,[83] and MaxEnt methods have been used in similar ways.[73][84] Bayesian methods for quantum state and process tomography are an active area of research.[85]
Technical developments and reconstructing quantum theory
Conceptual concerns about the interpretation of quantum mechanics and the meaning of probability have motivated technical work. A quantum version of the de Finetti theorem, introduced by Caves, Fuchs, and Schack (independently reproving a result found using different means by Størmer[86]) to provide a Bayesian understanding of the idea of an "unknown quantum state",[87][88] has found application elsewhere, in topics like quantum key distribution[89] and entanglement detection.[90]
Adherents of several interpretations of quantum mechanics, QBism included, have been motivated to reconstruct quantum theory. The goal of these research efforts has been to identify a new set of axioms or postulates from which the mathematical structure of quantum theory can be derived, in the hope that with such a reformulation, the features of nature which made quantum theory the way it is might be more easily identified.[51][91] Although the core tenets of QBism do not demand such a reconstruction, some QBists—Fuchs,[26] in particular—have argued that the task should be pursued.
One topic prominent in the reconstruction effort is the set of mathematical structures known as symmetric, informationally-complete, positive operator-valued measures (SIC-POVMs). QBist foundational research stimulated interest in these structures, which now have applications in quantum theory outside of foundational studies[92] and in pure mathematics.[93]
The most extensively explored QBist reformulation of quantum theory involves the use of SIC-POVMs to rewrite quantum states (either pure or mixed) as a set of probabilities defined over the outcomes of a "Bureau of Standards" measurement.[94][95] That is, if one expresses a density matrix as a probability distribution over the outcomes of a SIC-POVM experiment, one can reproduce all the statistical predictions implied by the density matrix from the SIC-POVM probabilities instead.[96] The Born rule then takes the role of relating one valid probability distribution to another, rather than of deriving probabilities from something apparently more fundamental. Fuchs, Schack, and others have taken to calling this restatement of the Born rule the urgleichung, from the German for "primal equation" (see Ur- prefix), because of the central role it plays in their reconstruction of quantum theory.[19][97][98]
The following discussion presumes some familiarity with the mathematics of quantum information theory, and in particular, the modeling of measurement procedures by POVMs. Consider a quantum system to which is associated a -dimensional Hilbert space. If a set of rank-1 projectors satisfying
Note that the urgleichung is structurally very similar to the law of total probability, which is the expression
It is important to recognize that the urgleichung does not replace the law of total probability. Rather, the urgleichung and the law of total probability apply in different scenarios because and refer to different situations. is the probability that an agent assigns for obtaining outcome on her second of two planned measurements, that is, for obtaining outcome after first making the SIC measurement and obtaining one of the outcomes. , on the other hand, is the probability an agent assigns for obtaining outcome when she does not plan to first make the SIC measurement. The law of total probability is a consequence of coherence within the operational context of performing the two measurements as described. The urgleichung, in contrast, is a relation between different contexts which finds its justification in the predictive success of quantum physics.
The SIC representation of quantum states also provides a reformulation of quantum dynamics. Consider a quantum state with SIC representation . The time evolution of this state is found by applying a unitary operator to form the new state , which has the SIC representation
The second equality is written in the Heisenberg picture of quantum dynamics, with respect to which the time evolution of a quantum system is captured by the probabilities associated with a rotated SIC measurement of the original quantum state . Then the Schrödinger equation is completely captured in the urgleichung for this measurement:
Those QBists who find this approach promising are pursuing a complete reconstruction of quantum theory featuring the urgleichung as the key postulate.[97] (The urgleichung has also been discussed in the context of category theory.[100]) Comparisons between this approach and others not associated with QBism (or indeed with any particular interpretation) can be found in a book chapter by Fuchs and Stacey[101] and an article by Appleby et al.[97] As of 2017, alternative QBist reconstruction efforts are in the beginning stages.[102]
See also
- Bayes factor
- Bayesian inference
- Credible intervals
- Degree of belief
- Doxastic logic
- Philosophy of science
- Quantum logic
- Quantum probability
- Statistical inference
References
- ^ S2CID 16775153.
- ^ ISSN 0031-9228.
- ISBN 978-0198718536.
- ISBN 9780199573097.
- ^ For "participatory realism", see, e.g.:
- Fuchs, Christopher A. (2017). "On Participatory Realism". In Durham, Ian T.; Rickles, Dean (eds.). Information and Interaction: Eddington, Wheeler, and the Limits of Knowledge. OCLC 967844832.
- Fuchs, Christopher A.; Timpson, Christopher G. "Does Participatory Realism Make Sense? The Role of Observership in Quantum Theory". FQXi: Foundational Questions Institute. Retrieved 2017-04-18.
- Fuchs, Christopher A. (2017). "On Participatory Realism". In Durham, Ian T.; Rickles, Dean (eds.). Information and Interaction: Eddington, Wheeler, and the Limits of Knowledge.
- ^ S2CID 118419619.
- ^ PMID 24678539.
- ].
- ^ S2CID 55537196.
- ^ S2CID 118458259.
- ^ Hänsch, Theodor. "Changing Concepts of Light and Matter". The Pontifical Academy of Sciences. Retrieved 2017-04-18.
- ^ ISBN 978-3-540-92127-1.
- ^ ISBN 978-0674504646.
- ^ S2CID 16829387.
- ^ Jaynes, E. T. (1990). "Probability in Quantum Theory". In Zurek, W. H. (ed.). Complexity, Entropy, and the Physics of Information. Redwood City, CA: Addison-Wesley. p. 381.
- ^ a b Gefter, Amanda. "A Private View of Quantum Reality". Quanta. Retrieved 2017-04-24.
- ^ ].
- OCLC 922625832.
- ^ S2CID 18256163.
- ^ Fine, Arthur (2016-01-01). "The Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen Argument in Quantum Theory". In Zalta, Edward N. (ed.). The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2016 ed.). Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University.
- measure-theoretictreatments of probability.
- ^ arXiv:1612.07308 [quant-ph].
- ^ S2CID 56387090.
- ].
- S2CID 119515728.
- ^ arXiv:quant-ph/0205039.
- ^ "International School of Physics "Enrico Fermi"". Italian Physical Society. Retrieved 2017-04-18.
- ^ ].
- ^ a b von Rauchhaupt, Ulf (9 February 2014). "Philosophische Quantenphysik : Ganz im Auge des Betrachters". Frankfurter Allgemeine Sonntagszeitung (in German). Vol. 6. p. 62. Retrieved 2017-04-18.
- ^ "Q3: Quantum Metaphysics Panel". Vimeo. 13 February 2016. Retrieved 2017-04-18.
- ^ Bibcode:2017arXiv170503483F.
- ^ S2CID 117823345.
- ISBN 9783319043814.
- ^ Norsen, Travis (2014). "Quantum Solipsism and Non-Locality" (PDF). Int. J. Quant. Found. John Bell Workshop.
- ].
- S2CID 119428587.
- .
- .
- S2CID 14553716.
- ISSN 0031-9228.
- ISSN 0031-9228.
- ^ a b Healey, Richard (2016). "Quantum-Bayesian and Pragmatist Views of Quantum Theory". In Zalta, Edward N. (ed.). Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University.
- ].
- . Elliptic Composability. Retrieved 10 March 2017.
- S2CID 118398374.
- S2CID 118003617.
- ].
- S2CID 119529426.
- arXiv:1406.1573 [quant-ph].. New Scientist. Retrieved 2017-12-06.
See also Webb, Richard (2016-11-30). "Physics may be a small but crucial fraction of our reality". New Scientist. Retrieved 2017-04-22.
See also Ball, Philip (2017-11-08). "Consciously quantum" - PMID 23729070.
- ^ PMID 24025823.
- ^ Siegfried, Tom (2014-01-30). "'QBists' tackle quantum problems by adding a subjective aspect to science". Science News. Retrieved 2017-04-20.
- ^ Waldrop, M. Mitchell. "Painting a QBist Picture of Reality". fqxi.org. Retrieved 2017-04-20.
- ^ Frank, Adam (2017-03-13). Powell, Corey S. (ed.). "Materialism alone cannot explain the riddle of consciousness". Aeon. Retrieved 2017-04-22.
- ^ Folger, Tim (May 2017). "The War Over Reality". Discover Magazine. Retrieved 2017-05-10.
- ^ Henderson, Bob (2022-02-23). "My Quantum Leap". Nautilus Quarterly. Retrieved 2022-02-23.
- ^ Frank, Adam (2023-09-07). "QBism: The most radical interpretation of quantum mechanics ever". Big Think. Retrieved 2023-09-21.
- OCLC 1031304139.
- OCLC 1089112651.
- ^ Rickles, Dean (2019). "Johntology: Participatory Realism and its Problems". Mind and Matter. 17 (2): 205–211.
- S2CID 226714879.
- S2CID 226670546.
- S2CID 219759324.
- S2CID 57559199.
- S2CID 119549678.
- S2CID 32755624.
- S2CID 117284016.
- ^ S2CID 43563970.
- Bibcode:2007arXiv0712.4258B.
- .
- S2CID 73599204.
- S2CID 119267791.
- ^ a b c Baez, John (2003-09-12). "Bayesian Probability Theory and Quantum Mechanics". Retrieved 2017-04-18.
- S2CID 18506337.
- ISBN 978-3-540-36581-5.
- S2CID 126294105.
- S2CID 237363865.
- S2CID 601271.
- S2CID 11816650.
- S2CID 16325959.
- S2CID 18217167.
- PMID 26858669.
- .
- .
- S2CID 88521187.
- hdl:10852/45014.
- S2CID 17416262.
- ^ Baez, J. (2007). "This Week's Finds in Mathematical Physics (Week 251)". Retrieved 2017-04-18.
- arXiv:quant-ph/0512258.
- S2CID 44241800.
- S2CID 118699215.
- ^ Technical references on SIC-POVMs include the following:
Scott, A. J. (2006-01-01). "Tight informationally complete quantum measurements". Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General. 39 (43): 13507–13530.S2CID 33144766.
].
Appleby, D. M.; Bengtsson, Ingemar; Brierley, Stephen; Grassl, Markus; Gross, David; Larsson, Jan-Åke (2012-05-01). "The Monomial Representations of the Clifford Group". Quantum Information & Computation. 12 (5–6): 404–431.S2CID 1250951.
Hou, Zhibo; Tang, Jun-Feng; Shang, Jiangwei; Zhu, Huangjun; Li, Jian; Yuan, Yuan; Wu, Kang-Da; Xiang, Guo-Yong; Li, Chuan-Feng (2018-04-12). "Deterministic realization of collective measurements via photonic quantum walks".PMID 29650977. - S2CID 119334103.
- S2CID 119277535.
- S2CID 119296426.
- S2CID 119102347.
- ^ S2CID 119240836.
- S2CID 221663304.
- ISBN 9783540706229.
- S2CID 53635011.
- S2CID 116428784.
- ^ Chiribella, Giulio; Cabello, Adán; Kleinmann, Matthias. "The Observer Observed: a Bayesian Route to the Reconstruction of Quantum Theory". FQXi: Foundational Questions Institute. Retrieved 2017-04-18.
External links
- Exotic Probability Theories and Quantum Mechanics: References
- Notes on a Paulian Idea: Foundational, Historical, Anecdotal and Forward-Looking Thoughts on the Quantum – Cerro Grande Fire Series, Volume 1
- My Struggles with the Block Universe – Cerro Grande Fire Series, Volume 2
- Why the multiverse is all about you – The Philosopher's Zone interview with Fuchs
- A Private View of Quantum Reality – Quanta Magazine interview with Fuchs
- Rüdiger Schack on QBism in The Conversation
- Participatory Realism – 2017 conference at the Stellenbosch Institute for Advanced Study
- Being Bayesian in a Quantum World – 2005 conference at the University of Konstanz
- Cabello, Adán (September 2017). "El puzle de la teoría cuántica: ¿Es posible zanjar científicamente el debate sobre la naturaleza del mundo cuántico?". Investigación y Ciencia.
- Fuchs, Christopher (presenter); Stacey, Blake (editor); Thisdell, Bill (editor) (2018-04-25). Some Tenets of QBism. YouTube. Retrieved 2018-05-17.
- DeBrota, John B.; Stacey, Blake C. (2018-10-31). "FAQBism". arXiv:1810.13401 [quant-ph].