arXiv:quant-ph/0604178v1 24 Apr 2006 o h esrmn oyedtevalue the yield to measurement the for ieigdgnrce) fa observable con- (without an follows if as [2] degeneracies): stated out- sidering typically measurement is of It predictions comes. probabilistic formal- with space ism Hilbert a in mechanics quantum terministic inue eo,ti uesae httepoaiiyis probability the that states rule r this T below, used tion e ecie ytesaevector |h state the by described tem states bevn ytmta si state a of in probability is the that that system example a observing textbook the is familiar range ueb aigsm ai supin bu quantum about assumptions studies Born’s basic these deriving some All making in by interest rule [11]. considerable Barnum ana- attracted by been have also modified has and Zurek approach by lyzed “envariance” and [2] Zurek’s Fine and [10]. ana- Schlosshauer by recently detail was in method, lyzed Deutsch’s to- from approach, Born This different so- the tally mechanics. deriving the quantum within for approach, from [9], rule new approach significantly “envariance” re- called a Zurek proposed mechanics. many cently quantum Everett’s of and interpretation rule between Born worlds connection the the of analyzed derivations [8] possible Wallace and [7] son Barnum by criticized the- was al. decision approach Deutsch’s classical [4]. of ory” theory” part quantum non-probabilistic of “the rule axioms and Born non-probabilistic the “the deriving example, For of from possibility rule. the pro- Born postulate. showed the to this Deutsch of attempts derivation several of physical been a physics have vide mathe- there does the reason purely and into this a spaces For insight Hilbert is provide in it vectors not but about rule, result Born matical the of motivation rule. Hence, this of, moti- derivation underlying experiment. or an with providing for, in vation agreement interest in intense is far there mechanics thus quantum in is postulate and fundamental a as pears O h onrl 1 otltsacneto ewe de- between connection a postulates [1] rule Born The lao’ hoe 3,freape rvdsaformal a provides example, for [3], theorem Gleason’s [ i 5 u a eetyrifre ySudr 6.Han- [6]. Saunders by reinforced recently was but [5] ρ | ψ ψ i| x ρ {| O 2 to O lentvl,i h est arxformula- matrix density the in Alternatively, . i ,where ], i i} x hwta h onrl sntsll unu ehncl rat mechanical; quantum solely not of is formulation rule space Born the that show fteBr ue n mato t nesadn nteframe the 03.65.Ca in 03.65.Sq, understanding numbers: its PACS on impact and rule, Born the of iiyo nigasse,dsrbdby described system, a finding of bility + n spectrum and osdrbeeothsbe eoe odrvn h onrul Born the deriving to devoted been has effort Considerable dx .INTRODUCTION I. ρ sgvnby given is ψ = h onRl nQatmadCasclMechanics Classical and Quantum in Rule Born The | ψ ih ψ { | n etrfrQatmIfrainadQatmControl Quantum and Information Quantum for Center and O |h and i x classical } | smaue nasys- a on measured is , ψ nvriyo oot,Trno 5 H,Canada 3H6, M5S Toronto, Toronto, of University i| ρ | O 2 ψ ψ dx. i i = ntecoordinate the in h probability the , ehnc swl.Teerslspoienwisgt not into insights new provide results These well. as mechanics alBue n inbnGong Jiangbin and Brumer Paul onsrl ap- rule Born’s O O | ˆ O hmclPyisTer Group Theory Physics Chemical i iheigen- with , i ih sgvnby given is Dtd aur 7 2006) 17, January (Dated: O i | ψ Most . between , et uei o oeyqatmmcaia n hti arises it of that formulation space and Hilbert mechanical the quantum in naturally solely not is rule of processes. origin wavefunction measurement physical (e.g., quantum details the of the that to collapse) clear unrelated 6, now is the 4, seems rule on [2, Born’s it rule based 11], Born 10, example, the 9, For derive to efforts physics. compared above-mentioned as classical mechanics the quantum understanding in with for unique other truly and from is mechanics what postulate quantum this in isolating Born concepts for the new important of experimentally origin is any the rule predict understanding However, help the of not physics. derivation will strict rule a even Born sense, this In experiments. observables. of values expectation or probabilities 8,ta h unu n lsia ytm r repre- are systems classical 17, vectors and 16, by quantum 15, sented 14, the both in [13, that operators that formulated density 18], recall be of space can (1) Hilbert mechanics the we: classical and mechanics quantum classical and rule. tum Born the con- of in derivations asked previous partic- be the In can with questions mechanics. nection interesting quantum and in new rule phys- ular, this the of understanding mechanics origin to ical classical routes interest- in new an mechanics. stimulate rule quantum should as Born in the regarded rule exposing arguably Born Similarly, considerations the be for original then motivation Born’s ing can in 12], role [1, no correspondence, played quantum-classical Indeed, which “quantum” sounds. as it not probabilities as is connecting eigenfunctions rule and Born eigenvalues with the such, As chanics. pc,adthat and space, ibr pc fdniymti;ad()ta h classi- of representation the space that phase (3) the and the of matrix; interpretation in cal density associated superoperators of of density space set given Hilbert of a a terms of eigendistributions in of with expressed coefficient be expansion quan- can su- the the rule classical that Born and (2) mechanical show quantum tum and commuting respectively; of set peroperators, a of states uei lsia ehnc,adgvseatytesame the exactly gives Born’s and of mechanics, extraction classical the in allows density rule probability a as x and h anproeo hswr st hwta Born’s that show to is work this of purpose main The future any violate to expected not is rule Born The odmntaeta h onrl xssi ohquan- both in exists rule Born the that demonstrate To x + e,i rssntrlyi h Hilbert the in naturally arises it her, dx oko unu mechanics. quantum of work eg that (e.g. e nqatmmcais eewe Here mechanics. quantum in ) ρ ρ and and | ψ ( ρ ρ x c c ) epciey nta Hilbert that in respectively, , | 2 a eepne neigen- in expanded be can dx steproba- the is enature he classical me- ρ c 2

′ structure as the quantum mechanical Born rule. Consider now the quantum probability PQ(K ) of find- These results suggest that the quantum mechanical ˆ ′ ing the quantum observables Ki with eigenvalues Ki, Born rule not only applies to cases of large quantum i = 1, 2, · · · ,N, given that the system is in state ρ. We numbers, but also has a well-defined purely classical show here that the Born rule is then equivalent to the ′ limit. Hence, independent of other subtle elements of the statement that PQ(K ) must be proportional to the ex- quantum theory, the inherent consistency with the clas- pansion coefficient DK′,0 of the given density ρ associ- sical Born rule for the macroscopic world imposes an im- ated with the common eigendistribution ρK′,0 of superop- portant condition on any eigenvalue-eigenfunction based 1 ˆ ′ erators 2 [Ki, ]+ with eigenvalues Ki and of superopera- probability rule in quantum mechanics. 1 ˆ tors h¯ [Ki, ] with eigenvalue zero. To see this, consider first a quantum density for a pure quantum state, e.g., II. THE QUANTUM MECHANICAL BORN ρ = |ψihψ| (the extension to mixed states is straightfor- RULE IN DENSITY MATRIX FORMALISM ward). Then the Born rule gives that ′ ′ 2 ′ ′ PQ(K ) = |hψ|K i| = T r [|K ihK ||ψihψ|] Consider first quantum mechanics in the Hilbert space = T r [|K′ihK′|ρ] , (5) of the density matrix [16, 17]. Given an operator Oˆ ≡ KˆN for a system of N degrees of freedom, we first consider where |K′i is a common and normalized eigenfunction of the (classically) integrable case where there exist N in- operators Kˆi, i =1, 2, · · · ,N. However, dependent and commuting observables Kˆi, i =1, · · · ,N. Another extreme, the chaotic case, will be discussed 1 ′ ′ ′ ′ ′ ′ ′ [Kˆ , |K ihK |]+ = K |K ihK |; [Kˆ , |K ihK |]=0, (6) in Sec. IV. For convenience we also assume that the 2 i i i Kˆi, i = 1, 2, · · · ,N, have a discrete spectrum, but the ′ ′ central result below applies to cases with a continuous so that |K ihK | is seen to be the common eigendistribu- 1 ˆ ′ spectrum as well. The complete set of commuting su- tion of superoperators 2 [Ki, ]+ with eigenvalues Ki and peroperators in the quantum Hilbert space can be con- 1 ˆ of superoperators h¯ [Ki, ] with eigenvalue zero. That is, structed as ′ ′ 1 1 |K ihK | = ρK′,0. (7) [Kˆi, ], [Kˆi, ]+, (i =1, 2, · · · ,N), (1) ¯h 2 Equations (4), (5), and (7) then lead to where [, ] denotes the commutator and [, ]+ denotes the ′ ′ anticommutator, i.e., [A,ˆ Bˆ]= AˆBˆ−BˆAˆ, [A,ˆ Bˆ]+ = AˆBˆ+ PQ(K )= DK ,0. (8) ˆ ˆ BA. The simultaneous eigendensities of the complete set Equation (8) is a general restatement of the quantum me- of superoperators are denoted ρα,β. That is, chanical Born rule based on the Hilbert space structure 1 of density matrix. [Kˆ ,ρ ]+ = α ρ ; 2 i α,β i α,β Note that the multidimensional result of Eq. (5) has 1 carefully accounted for possible degeneracies associated Kˆi,ρα,β = βiρα,β, (2) ′ ′ with KN . That is, the total probability of observing KN ¯h h i ′ would be obtained by summing PQ(K ) with all possi- where α ≡ (α1, α2, · · · , αN ) is the collection of eigenval- ble K′, i = 1, 2, · · · , (N − 1), a necessary procedure not 1 ˆ i ues associated with 2 [Ki, ]+, and β ≡ (β1,β2, · · · ,βN ) explicitly stated in Born’s rule. 1 ˆ is the collection of eigenvalues associated with h¯ [Ki, ]. The state of the quantum system is described by an arbitrary density matrix ρ in the Hilbert space under III. THE BORN RULE IN CLASSICAL consideration, and can be expanded in terms of the basis MECHANICS states ρα,β as Consider now classical mechanics. The mechanics ρ = Dα,βρα,β, (3) has numerous equivalent formulations, such as New- Xα,β ton’s Laws, the Lagrangian or Hamiltonian formulations, where the sum is over all eigendensities. The sum should Hamilton-Jacobi theory, etc. The less familiar Hilbert be understood as an integral if the spectrum is contin- space formulation of classical mechanics used below was uous. Clearly, the expansion coefficients in Eq. (3) are first established by Koopman [13] and subsequently ap- given by preciated by, for example, Prigogine [14], Zwanzig [15] and us [17, 18] in some theoretical considerations. This † being the case, the above eigenvalue-eigenfunction struc- Dα,β = T r ρρα,β . (4) h i ture is not unique to quantum mechanics, a fact that may Equations (3) and (4), i.e. the expansion of ρ in terms not be well appreciated and that is exploited below. of the eigendensities ρα,β, is central to the analysis later It is convenient to introduce the classical picture in below. the phase space representation, although abstract Hilbert 3 space formulations may be used as well. Consider then The RK′ ,Λ are “improper states”, insofar as they contain the same case as above. Let the classical limit of the delta functions. However, this is consistent with the fact Wigner-Weyl representation of Kˆi be Ki(p, q), where that they are eigendistributions of classical superopera- (p, q) are momentum and coordinate space variables. tors that have continuous spectra. If desired, a Rigged The complete set of commuting superoperators on the Hilbert space [21] can be used to include these states classical Hilbert space is then [17] more formally. Given a classical probability density ρc(p, q) that i{Kj(p, q), },Kj(p, q), j =1, 2, · · · , N, (9) describes the state of the system, we can convert ′ to the K, Q representation to obtain ρc(K, Q) ≡ where K (p, q) are multiplicative operators and { , } de- ′ j ρc [p(K, Q), q(K, Q)]. The probability Pc(K ) of find- notes the classical Poisson bracket. The simultaneous ing the observables between K′ and K′+dK is evidently eigendensities of this complete set of classical operators, given by c denoted ραc,βc (p, q), satisfy:

c c c ′ ′ ′ p q c c p q c c p q Pc(K )= dKdQ δ(K − K)ρc(K, Q) dK. (15) Kj( , )ρα ,β ( , ) = αj ρα ,β ( , ); Z  c c c i{Kj(p, q),ραc,βc (p, q)} = βj ραc,βc (p, q), (10) This result has an enlightening interpretation in the c c c c where the notation α ,β , αj , and βj is introduced in Hilbert space formulation of classical mechanics, as can parallel with the quantum case. An arbitrary classical be seen by independently obtaining Eq. (15) using this probability density ρc(p, q) can be expanded as approach. To do so, we first expand the given density in terms of the basis states RK′,Λ. That is, c c ρc(p, q)= Dαc,βc ραc,βc (p, q), (11) αXc,βc ′ ′ c ρ (K, Q)= dK dΛD ′ RK′,Λ(K, Q), (16) c Z K ,Λ where where the expansion coefficients are given by the overlap c c∗ D c c = dpdq ρc(p, q) ρ c c (p, q) integrals α ,β Z α ,β   c† c c c ′ ∗ ≡ T r ρcρα ,β , (12) DK′ Λ = dKdQ ρ (K, Q)RK′ Λ(K, Q). (17) h i , Z c , and where the sum in Eq. (11) is over all eigendensities. Because classical probabilities in K, that do not refer to Consider now, within this formalism, the probabil- Q, are obtained by integrating over Q, we obtain ity of finding K [with K ≡ (K1,K2, · · · ,KN )] between K′ and K′ + dK′. To proceed we make a canoni- ′ ′ ′ cal transformation between representations (p, q) and Pc(K )= dQ ρc(K , Q) dK. (18) Z  (K, Q), where K are the new momentum variables, and Q ≡ (Q1,Q2, · · · ,QN ) denotes the new position vari- Substituting Eq. (16) into Eq. (18) and using Eq. (13) ables conjugate to K. The Q can be obtained by regard- then yields ing p as a function of q and K, defining the generating q ′ ′ function S(q, K) = p(q , K) · dq , and then noting ′ N/2 c q0 Pc(K ) = (2π) DK′,0dK (19) that Qi = ∂S/∂Ki [19].R In this representation the clas- c sical eigendensities ραc,βc take a rather simple form, This result is equivalent to Eq. (15), but contains an important message from the perspective of mechanics in c ′ ραc,βc (p, q) => RK ,Λ(K, Q) Hilbert space. That is, Eq. (19) indicates that, given a 1 classical density ρ′ that describes the state, the proba- K′ K Λ Q c = N/2 δ( − ) exp(i · )(13) bility of finding the observable K (j = 1, 2, · · · ,N) in (2π) j a regime (K′, K′ + dK), is proportional to the overlap ′ c c between the given density ρc and the common eigendis- with eigenvalues [20] αi = Ki and βi = Λi, for i = ′ ′ tribution RK ,0 of multiplicative operators Kj with eigen- 1, 2, · · · ,N. The set of eigendistributions RK ,Λ are com- ′ values Kj and of operators i{Kj, } with eigenvalue zero. plete and orthogonal, i.e., c ′ This overlap is DK′,0, the expansion coefficient of ρc in ′ ∗ ′ ′ ′′ ′′ terms of RK ,0. Significantly, this connection between dKdΛ R (K , Q )RK,Λ(K , Q ) Z K,Λ classical probabilities and the overlap between the given classical state density and a particular set of classical = δ(K′ − K′′)δ(Q′ − Q′′); eigendistributions [Eq. (19)] is the direct analog of the

∗ ′′ ′′ quantum mechanical Born rule in the density matrix for- dKdQ RK′,Λ′ (K, Q)RK ,Λ (K, Q) Z malism [Eq. (8)]. That is, Eq. (19) is the Born rule in = δ(Λ′ − Λ′′)δ(K′ − K′′). (14) classical mechanics. 4

ˆ ′ IV. QUANTUM VERSUS CLASSICAL BORN eigenfunction of KN with eigenvalue KN . These analy- RULE IN CHAOTIC CASES ses make it clear that even for chaotic cases, the Born rule formulated in terms of eigen-densities in the associ- Classical-quantum correspondence of Hilbert space ated (classical or quantum) Hilbert space exists in both structures in chaotic cases is more subtle and compli- quantum and classical mechanics. cated than in integrable cases [17]. Nevertheless, results above indicate that only a particular set of eigenden- sities are relevant in understanding the quantum ver- V. CONCLUDING REMARKS sus classical Born rule. Indeed, it is straightforward to show that our previous considerations also apply In summary, with the quantum mechanical Born rule to cases where there do not exist (N − 1) observables formulated in the Hilbert space of density matrix, we that commute with KN (p, q). For example, consider a have demonstrated an analogous Born rule in classical chaotic spectrum case where KN (p, q) does not commute mechanics. In so doing we never assumed that the quan- with any other smooth phase space functions Z(p, q), tum density goes smoothly, in the classical limit, to a i.e., {KN (p, q),Z(p, q)}= 6 0 always holds. Following classical density that already has a clear probabilistic in- Ref. [17] we consider a function τ(p, q) that satis- terpretation. Rather, we have simply assumed that a fies {τ(p, q),KN (p, q)} = 1. Then the classical eigen- system in either quantum or classical mechanics is de- function of the multiplicative operator KN (p, q) and of scribed by a density operator in Hilbert space, and that the operator i{KN (p, q), } with eigenvalue λ is given these density operators serve the same descriptive pur- ′ by ξδ[KN − KN (p, q)] exp[iλτ(p, q)], where ξ is a nor- pose in both mechanics. This, plus the decomposition of malization constant. In particular, the eigenfunction the operator in terms of eigendistributions of a set of com- with zero eigenvalue for the operator i{KN (p, q), } is muting superoperators, suffice to show that the Born rule ′ ξδ[KN −KN (p, q)]. This eigenfunction defines a (2N−1)- applies in both quantum and classical mechanics. Hence, dimensional hypersurface in phase space (whereas the the quantum mechanical Born rule appears to be very eigenfunction RK′,0 in the integral case defines an N- natural in the light of quantum-classical correspondence dimensional manifold). The overlap between this partic- in how Hilbert space structures embody measured prob- ular eigenfunction ξδ[KN − KN (p, q)] and a given phase abilities. The recognition that Born’s rule is not really a space probability density ρc(p, q), i.e., unique quantum element should complement, as well as impact upon, previous attempts to derive the Born rule ′ ′ [2, 4, 6, 9, 10, 11]. Further, it motivates numerous ques- Pc(K ) ≡ ξ dpdq ρc(p, q)δ[K − KN (p, q)], (20) N Z N tions, such as, can the quantum mechanical Born rule be

′ derived with fewer assumptions by taking advantage of yields the probability Pc(KN )dKN of finding KN (p, q) ′ ′ the classical Born rule as a limit? How can one recon- lying in the regime [KN ,KN + dKN ]. This is again cile derivations involving purely quantum language with in complete analogy to how the quantum probability ′ ′ the existence of a classical Born rule?, etc. These, and PQ(KN ) of finding the eigenvalue KN is determined, i.e., ′ related issues, are the subject of future work. PQ(KN ) is given by the overlap between a given quan- Acknowledgments: This work was supported by a tum density |ψihψ| and the eigenfunction of superoper- grant from the National Science and Engineering Re- 1 ˆ ′ ator 2 [KN , ]+ with eigenvalue KN and of superoperator search Council of Canada. We thank Profs. R. Kapral 1 ˆ h¯ [KN , ] with eigenvalue zero. Such a quantum eigen- and S. Whittington, University of Toronto, for comments ′ ′ ′ function is simply given by |KN ihKN |, where |KN i is the on an earlier version of this manuscript.

[1] M. Born, Z. Phys. 37, 863 (1926). be published). [2] M. Schlosshauer and A. Fine, Found. Phys. 35, 197 [12] M. Born, ”The Statistical Interpretation of Quantum Me- (2005). chanics”, Nobel Lecture, Dec. 11, 1954. [3] A.M. Gleason, J. Math. Mech. 6, 885, (1957). [13] B.O. Koopman, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 17, 315 [4] D. Deutsch, Proc. Roy. Soc. London A 455, 3129 (1999). (1931). [5] H. Barnum, C.M. Caves, J. Finkelstein, C.A. Fuchs, and [14] I. Progogine, Non-equilibrium Statistical Mechanics, Wi- R. Schack, Proc. Roy. Soc. London A 456, 1175 (2000). ley, New York (1962). [6] S. Saunders, Proc. Roy. Soc. London A 460, 1771 (2004). [15] R.S. Zwanzig, Lectures in Theoretical Physics, Vol.3, Wi- [7] R. Hanson, Found. Phys. 33, 1129 (2003). ley, New York, (1961), pp 135. [8] D. Wallace, Stud. Hist. Philos. Mod. Phys. 34B, 415 [16] U. Fano, Rev. Mod. Phys. 29, 74 (1959). (2003). [17] J. Wilkie and P. Brumer, Phys. Rev. A 55, 27 (1997); [9] W.H. Zurek, Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 120404 (2003). Phys. Rev. A 55, 43 (1997). [10] W.H. Zurek, Phys. Rev. A 71, 052105 (2005). [18] C. Jaff´eand P. Brumer, J. Phys. Chem. 88, 4829 (1984); [11] H. Barnum, e-print quant-ph/0312150; Phys. Rev. A (to J. Chem. Phys. 82, 2330 (1985). (2000). 5

[19] S. N. Rasband, Dynamics (John Wiley & Sons, New K, Q are action-angle variables. York, 1983). [21] A. Bohm, Quantum Mechanics: Foundations and Appli- [20] The eigenvalues Λ can be either continuous or discrete, cations (Springer, New York, 1993). depending on the system. For example, the spectrum comprises integers when, for an integrable system, the