**eJournal: uffmm.org, ISSN 2567-6458, 2.January 2019
Email: info@uffmm.org
Author: Gerd Doeben-Henisch
Email: **

**gerd@doeben-henisch.de**

**CONTEXT**

This is a continuation from the post WHY QT FOR AAI? explaining the motivation why to look to quantum theory (QT) in the case of the AAI paradigm. After approaching QT from a philosophy of science perspective (see the post QUANTUM THEORY (QT). BASIC PROPERTIES**) **giving a ‘birds view’ of the relationship between a QT and the presupposed ‘real world’ and digging a bit into the first person view inside an observer we are here interested in the formal machinery of QT. For this we follow Grifftiths in his chapter 1.

**QT BASIC ELEMENTS**

**MEASUREMENT**

- The starting point of a quantum theory QT are ‘
*phenomena*‘, which “lack any description in classical physics”, a kind of things “*which human beings cannot observe directly*”. To measure such phenomena one needs highly sophisticated machines, which poses the problem, that the interpretation of possible ‘measurement data’ in terms of a quantum theory depends highly on the understanding of the working of the used measurement apparatus. (cf. p.8) - This problem is well known in philosophy of science: (i) one wants to built a new theory T. (ii) For this theory one needs appropriate measurement data MD. (iii) The measurement as such needs a well defined procedure including different kinds of pre-defined objects and artifacts. The description of the procedure including the artifacts (which can be machines) is a theory of its own called
*measurement theory T*.*(iv) Thus one needs a theory T* to enable a new theory T. - In the case of QT one has the
*special case that QT itself has to be part of the measurement theory T**, i.e. QT__subset__T*. But, as Griffiths points out, the measurement problem in QT is even deeper; it is not only the*conceptual dependency*of QT from its measurement theory T*, but in the case of QT does the measurement apparatus directly interact with the target objects of QT because the*measurement apparatus is itself part of the atomic and sub-atomic world which is the target*. (cf. p.8) This has led to include the measurement as ‘stochastic time development’ explicitly into the QT. (cf. p.8) In his book Griffiths follows the strategy to deal with the ‘collapse of the wave function’ within the theoretical level, because it does not take place “in the experimental physicist’s laboratory”. (cf. p.9) - As a consequence of these considerations Griffiths develops the
*fundamental principles in the chapters 2-16 without making any reference to measurement*.

**PRE-KNOWLEDGE**

- Besides the special problem of measurement in quantum mechanics there is the general problem of measurement for every kind of empirical discipline which requires a perception of the real world guided by a
*scientific bias called ‘scientific knowledge’*! Without a*theoretical pre-knowledge*there is no scientific observation possible. A scientific observation needs already a**pre-theory T***defining the measurement procedure as well as the pre-defined standard object as well as – eventually — an ‘appropriate’ measurement device. Furthermore, to be able to talk about some measurement data as ‘*data related to an object of QT’*one needs additionally a sufficient ‘pre-knowledge’ of such an object which enables the*observer to decide whether the measured data are to be classified as ‘related to the object of QT*. The most convenient way to enable this is to have already a proposal for a QT as the ‘knowledge guide’ how one ‘should look’ to the measured data.

**QT STATES**

- Related to the phenomena of quantum mechanics the phenomena are in QT according to Griffiths understood as ‘
*particles*‘ whose ‘*state*‘ is given by a ‘*complex-valued wave function ψ(x)*‘, and the collection of all possible wave functions is assumed to be a ‘*complex linear vector space*‘ with an ‘inner product’, known as a ‘*Hilbert space*‘. “Two wave functions φ(x) and ψ(x) represent ‘distinct physical states’ … if and only if they are ‘orthogonal’ in the sense that their ‘inner product is zero’. Otherwise φ(x) and ψ(x) represent*incompatible states*of the quantum system …” .(p.2) - “A
*quantum property*… corresponds to a subspace of the quantum Hilbert space or the projector onto this subspace.” (p.2) - A
*sample space*of mutually-exclusive possibilities is a decomposition of the*identity*as a sum of mutually commuting projectors. One and only one of these projectors can be a*correct description of a quantum system at a given time.*cf. p.3) - Quantum sample spaces can be
*mutually incompatible*. (cf. p.3) - “In … quantum mechanics [a
*physical variable*] is represented by a*Hermitian operator.*… a real-valued function defined on a particular sample space, or decomposition of the identity … a quantum system can be said to have a value … of a physical variable represented by the*operator F*if and only if the quantum wave function is in an*eigenstate of F …*. Two physical variables whose operators do not commute correspond to incompatible sample spaces… “.(cf. p.3) - “Both classical and quantum mechanics have
*dynamical laws*which enable one to say something about the*future (or past) state of a physical system*if its state is known at a particular time. … the quantum … dynamical law … is the (time-dependent)*Schrödinger equation*. Given some wave function ψ_0 at a time t_0 , integration of this equation leads to a unique wave function ψ_t at any other time t. At two times t and t’ these uniquely defined wave functions are related by a … time development operator T(t’ , t) on the Hilbert space. Consequently we say that integrating the Schrödinger equation leads to*unitary time development*.” (p.3) - “Quantum mechanics also allows for a
*stochastic or probabilistic time development …*. In order to describe this in a systematic way, one needs the concept of a*quantum history …*a sequence of quantum events (wave functions or sub-spaces of the Hilbert space) at*successive times.*A collection of mutually … exclusive histories forms a sample space or*family of histories*, where*each history*is associated with a*projector*on a history Hilbert space. The successive events of a history are, in general, not related to one another through the Schrödinger equation. However, the Schrödinger equation, or … the*time development operators T(t’ , t), can be used to assign probabilities to the different histories*belonging to a particular family.” (p.3f)

**HILBERT SPACE: FINITE AND INFINITE**

- “The wave functions for even such a simple system as a quantum particle in one dimension form an
*infinite-dimensional Hilbert space*… [but] one does not have to learn functional analysis in order to understand the basic principles of quantum theory. The majority of the illustrations used in Chs. 2–16 are*toy models with a finite-dimensional Hilbert space*to which the usual rules of linear algebra apply without any qualification, and for these models there are no mathematical subtleties to add to the conceptual difficulties of quantum theory … Nevertheless, they provide many useful insights into general quantum principles.”. (p.4f)

**CALCULUS AND PROBABILITY**

- Griffiths (2003) makes considerable use of toy models with a
*simple discretized time dependence*… To obtain … unitary time development, one only needs to solve a*simple difference equation*, and this can be done in closed form on the back of an envelope. (cf. p.5f) - “
*Probability theory*plays an important role in discussions of the time development of quantum systems. … when using*toy models*the simplest version of probability theory, based on a*finite discrete sample space*, is perfectly adequate.” (p.6) - “The basic concepts of probability theory are the same in quantum mechanics as in other branches of physics;
*one does not need a new “quantum probability”*. What distinguishes quantum from classical physics is the issue of*choosing a suitable sample space with its associated event algebra*. … in any single quantum sample space the ordinary rules for probabilistic reasoning are valid. ” (p.6)

**QUANTUM REASONING**

- The important difference compared to classical mechanics is the fact that “an
*initial quantum state*does not single out a particular framework, or sample space of stochastic histories, much less determine which history in the framework will actually occur.” (p.7) There are*multiple incompatible frameworks possible*and to use the*ordinary rules of propositional logic*presupposes to apply these to a*single framework*. Therefore it is important to understand how to choose an appropriate framework.(cf. p.7)

**NEXT**

These are the basic ingredients which Griffiths mentions in chapter 1 of his book 2013. In the following these ingredients have to be understood so far, that is becomes clear how to relate the idea of a *possible history of states* (cf. chapters 8ff) where the future of a successor state in a sequence of timely separated states is described by some probability.

**REFERENCES**

- R.B. Griffiths. Consistent Quantum Theory. Cambridge University Press, New York, 2003