Skip to main content

Foundations of Quantum Mechanics and Quantum Information Theory

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
  • 4800 Accesses

Part of the book series: Graduate Texts in Physics ((GTP))

Abstract

In this chapter, we introduce the general theory of QM with two formulations. The first one is based on the Postulates (Axioms) of QM, which rather follows a traditional view, while the second one is devised for an application of quantum information science in a way to clarify the most general classes of quantum states, measurements, and time evolutions of a given quantum system under the possible presence of environment. By specifying the underling preconditions, we carefully explain their logical and physical connections between superficially different formulations.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   69.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    For the mathematical simplicity, we restrict ourselves to the cases where the associated Hilbert spaces are finite-dimensional. However, a formal generalization to the infinite-dimensional cases follows in the parallel manner [1] subject to the careful treatments of topological issues and domains of operators [2].

  2. 2.

    The symbol “\( |\)” with “\(s\)” implies that the probability is considered as the conditional probability conditioned that the state is \(s\). (see the footnote 18 for the conditional probability). Precisely speaking, we are identifying the random variable and the measurement and use the same symbol \(M\).

  3. 3.

    Using a measure theoretical languages, one can formulate the general measurement theory in a parallel manner including continuous outcomes (see e.g. [8]).

  4. 4.

    With an ONB \(\{|\psi _i\rangle \}_{i=1}^d\) of \(\mathop {\mathcal {H}}\nolimits \), let \((a_1,\,\ldots ,\,a_d)^T:= (\langle \psi _1 | \psi \rangle ,\,\ldots ,\,\langle \psi _d | \psi \rangle ), (b_1,\,\ldots ,\,b_d)^T := (\langle \psi _1 | \phi \rangle ,\,\ldots ,\,\langle \psi _d | \phi \rangle ) \in \mathop {\mathbb {C}}\nolimits ^d\) be representations (A.4) of vectors \(|\psi \rangle \) and \(|\phi \rangle \). Then, the matrix representation of \(A:=|\phi \rangle \langle \psi | \) with the same ONB reads \(a_{ij}:= \langle \psi _i | A \psi _j \rangle = \langle \psi _i | \phi \rangle \langle \psi | \psi _j \rangle = b_i \overline{a_j}\) (see (5.6) in Exercise 5.1).

  5. 5.

    A linear map from \(\mathop {\mathcal {H}}\nolimits \) to \(\mathop {\mathbb {C}}\nolimits \) (or \(\mathbb {R}\)) is called a linear functional on \(\mathop {\mathcal {H}}\nolimits \).

  6. 6.

    This idea is mainly credited to Ozawa. See [7, 1012], and references therein for the detail.

  7. 7.

    By the Born rule (5.9), we have \(\mathrm {Pr}( A = a \ | \ |\psi \rangle ) = \langle e^{i \theta }\phi | P_a e^{i\theta }\phi \rangle = e^{-i\theta } e^{i\theta } \langle \phi | P_a \phi \rangle = \mathrm {Pr}(A = a \ | \ |\phi \rangle )\) for any physical quantity \(A\).

  8. 8.

    For those who are interested in this problem, we recommend to read [13].

  9. 9.

    Using (2.7), we have \(|\phi ^x_+ \rangle \langle \phi ^x_+| = \frac{1}{2} \left( \begin{array}{cc}1 &{} 1 \\ 1 &{} 1 \end{array}\right) \), \(|\phi ^x_- \rangle \langle \phi ^x_-| = \frac{1}{2} \left( \begin{array}{cc}1 &{} -1 \\ -1 &{} 1 \end{array}\right) \), from which we obtain \(|\phi ^x_+ \rangle \langle \phi ^x_+| - |\phi ^x_- \rangle \langle \phi ^x_-| = \left( \begin{array}{cc}0 &{} 1 \\ 1 &{} 0 \end{array}\right) = \sigma _x\).

  10. 10.

    Notice that the multiplicities of eigenvalues \(0\) and \(6\) are \(1\) and \(2\), respectively. A unit eigenvector belonging to the eigenvalue \(0\) is \(|\xi _0\rangle = \frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}(1,-1,-2)^T\), and thus one can compute \(P_0 = |\xi _0 \rangle \langle \xi _0|\) by using (2.7). On the other hand, the eigenvalue \(6\) has a multiplicity \(2\), where one can find two orthogonal unit eigenvectors, e.g., \(|\xi _6\rangle := \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(1,1,0)^T\) and \(|\xi ^\prime _6\rangle := \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}(1,-1,1)\). From these eigenvectors, we obtain \(P_6= |\xi _6 \rangle \langle \xi _6| + |\xi ^\prime _6 \rangle \langle \xi ^\prime _6| = \frac{1}{6}A\). Observe here the difference between an eigenvalue decomposition \(A = 0 |\xi _0 \rangle \langle \xi _0| + 6 |\xi _6 \rangle \langle \xi _6| + 6 |\xi '_6 \rangle \langle \xi '_6| = \sum _{i=1}^3 a_i |\phi _i \rangle \langle \phi _i|\) where \(a_1= 0,a_2=a_3 = 6\), \(|\phi _1\rangle := |\xi _0\rangle ,|\phi _2\rangle := |\xi _6\rangle ,|\phi _3\rangle := |\xi '_6\rangle \) and the spectral decomposition \(A = 0 P_0 + 6 P_6 = \sum _{a=0,6} a P_a\).

  11. 11.

    Note that \(P_a Q_a = P_a (1-P_a) = P_a - P_a^2 = 0\). Check also that \(Q_a = Q_a^2 = Q_a^\dagger \).

  12. 12.

    A pair of a position and a momentum is another typical example of the complementary pair of physical quantities, although we need an infinite-dimensional Hilbert space to describe them.

  13. 13.

    The second equality follows since \(\langle \psi | C \psi \rangle \) is real for any Hermitian operator \(C\) (see Proposition A.5).

  14. 14.

    The marginal (probability) distribution gives the local probability distribution of a subset of random variables (physical quantities) without reference to other random variables. For instance, with the joint probability distribution \(\mathrm {Pr}(A=a,B=b)\) of \(A\) and \(B\), the marginal distribution of \(A\) is calculated as \(\sum _{b} \mathrm {Pr}(A=a,B=b) \) by the sum rule of the probability for mutually exclusive events: If events \(E_1\) and \(E_2\) are mutually exclusive, i.e., if one of the occurrence implies non-occurrence of other events, then the probability \(\mathrm {Pr}(E_1 \cup E_2)\) for the sum event \(E_1 \cup E_2\) is the sum of the probabilities \(\mathrm {Pr}(E_1)\) and \(\mathrm {Pr}(E_2)\).

  15. 15.

    Note that we have to collect up all the eigenvalues \(a\) satisfying \(b=f(a)\) for the case where \(f\) is not injective.

  16. 16.

    By Proposition A.8, there exists an ONB \(\{|\phi _i\rangle \}\) which simultaneously diagonalizes \(A\) and \(B\): \(A = \sum _{i=1}^d a_i |\phi _i \rangle \langle \phi _i|,B = \sum _{j=1}^d b_j |\phi _j \rangle \langle \phi _j|\). Letting \(c_i \ (i=1,\ldots ,d)\) be all distinct real numbers, define a Hermitian operator \(C\) by \(C:= \sum _i c_i |\phi _i \rangle \langle \phi _i|\). By choosing real functions \(f\) and \(g\) such that \(a_i = f(c_i),b_i = f(c_i) \ (i=1,\ldots ,d)\), we have \(A=f(C)\) and \(B= g(C)\).

  17. 17.

    For those who are not satisfied with using classical probabilistic events in the theory of QM, just replace a coin to some qubit system in a state, say \(|+\rangle = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(1,1)^T\), and measure a computational basis \(\{|0\rangle ,|1\rangle \}\) to get probabilities \(1/2\).

  18. 18.

    Remind that a probability under a certain conditioning of an event is called a conditional probability . Under a conditioning event \(B\) with non-zero probability \(\mathrm {Pr}(B)\), the conditional probability of \(A\) given \(B\), denoted by \(\mathrm {Pr}(A|B)\), is defined by \(\mathrm {Pr}(A|B) := \frac{\mathrm {Pr}(A \cap B)}{\mathrm {Pr}(B)}\), where \(\mathrm {Pr}(A \cap B)\) is the joint probability of \(A\) and \(B\).

  19. 19.

    One can show this by contradiction. Suppose that \(s\) is described by some unit vector \(|\xi \rangle \in \mathop {\mathbb {C}}\nolimits ^2\). Let \(|\xi \rangle ^\perp \) be an orthogonal vector to \(|\xi \rangle \) so that \(\{|\xi \rangle ,|\xi \rangle ^\perp \}\) forms an ONB of \(\mathop {\mathbb {C}}\nolimits ^2\). Then, the basis measurement \(\{|\xi \rangle ,|\xi \rangle ^\perp \}\) under state \(|\xi \rangle \) gives a contradiction: The probability to get the outcome corresponding to \(|\xi \rangle \) is \( |\langle \xi | \xi \rangle |^2= 1\), which is inconsistent with (5.31).

  20. 20.

    In classical mechanics, a pure state is described by positions and momentums of the particles, namely a point in the phase space. A mixed state is described by a probability distribution on the phase space.

  21. 21.

    To obtain the second equality, one can substitute \(|\pm \rangle = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|0\rangle \pm |1\rangle )\). Alternatively, just use the arbitrariness of ONBs in the definition of the trace operation: \(\mathop {\mathrm{Tr}}\nolimits P_a = \langle 0|P_a|0\rangle + \langle 1|P_a|1\rangle = \langle +|P_a|+\rangle + \langle -|P_a|-\rangle \) (see Appendix A.3.8).

  22. 22.

    By putting \(A = |\psi \rangle \langle \psi |\) with an arbitrary \(|\psi \rangle \in \mathop {\mathcal {H}}\nolimits \), we have \(\langle \psi | \rho \psi \rangle = \mathrm {Pr}(A = 1 | \rho ) = \mathrm {Pr}(A = 1 | \rho ') = \langle \psi | \rho ' \psi \rangle \). From Proposition A.3-(ii), we have \(\rho = \rho '\).

  23. 23.

    For unit vectors \(|\psi \rangle \) and \(|\phi \rangle \) such that \(|\phi \rangle = e^{i\theta } |\psi \rangle \), the corresponding density operators are the same: \(|\phi \rangle \langle \phi | = e^{i \theta } |\psi \rangle \langle \psi | e^{-i \theta } = |\psi \rangle \langle \psi |\).

  24. 24.

    Notice that this method may not be the only preparation of \(\rho \). As is shown later, a mixed state has always non-unique (and indeed infinitely many) state-preparations, while a pure state has the unique state-preparation (see Proposition 5.7).

  25. 25.

    In this book, we introduce the Bloch vector only in a qubit system. However, one can easily generalize the Bloch vector in arbitrary \(d\)-level quantum systems [14, 15].

  26. 26.

    Take the inner product between \(\sigma _i \ (i=0,1,2,3)\) and \(A = \sum _{j=0}^3 x_j \sigma _j\) (the expansion of \(A\) with respect to the basis) and use condition (5.46) to get \(x_i = \frac{1}{2} \mathop {\mathrm{Tr}}\nolimits (A \sigma _i)\).

  27. 27.

    By putting \(\rho = |\psi \rangle \langle \psi |\) with the parametrization (2.15), one can get \(b_1 = \sin \theta \cos \phi ,b_2 = \sin \theta \sin \phi , b_3 = \cos \theta \), which give the polar coordinates of \({\mathbf b}\).

  28. 28.

    For instance, for \(X \in \mathop {\mathcal {L}}\nolimits (\mathop {\mathcal {H}}\nolimits _\mathrm{E}), Y \in \mathop {\mathcal {L}}\nolimits (\mathop {\mathcal {H}}\nolimits _\mathrm{SE})\), \(\mathop {\mathrm{Tr}}\nolimits _\mathrm{E} X \in \mathop {\mathbb {C}}\nolimits \) is a usual trace of \(X\) but \(\mathop {\mathrm{Tr}}\nolimits _\mathrm{E} Y \in \mathop {\mathcal {L}}\nolimits (\mathop {\mathcal {H}}\nolimits _\mathrm{S})\) is a partial trace of \(Y\).

  29. 29.

    Moreover, it has recently been shown that the purification is one of the essential properties to single out QM among all operationally valid probabilistic theories [17].

  30. 30.

    Note, however, that there also exist classically correlated states (separable states) which are not entangled states but have non-zero correlations (see Chap. 7).

  31. 31.

    By the same argument of the derivation of (5.24) under a density operator, we get \(\mathrm {Pr}(A = a, B = b | |\psi \rangle ) = \mathop {\mathrm{Tr}}\nolimits _\mathrm{SE}(P_a \otimes Q_b \rho )\), where \(A = \sum _a a P_a\) and \(B= \sum _b b Q_b\) are spectral decomposition of \(A\) and \(B\). Substitute this into \(\mathrm {Pr}(A = a, B = b | \rho ) = \mathrm {Pr}(A = a | \rho _\mathrm{S}) \mathrm {Pr}(B = b | \rho _\mathrm{E})\), we have \(\mathop {\mathrm{Tr}}\nolimits _\mathrm{SE}(P_a \otimes Q_b \rho ) = (\mathop {\mathrm{Tr}}\nolimits _\mathrm{S} P_a \rho _\mathrm{S})(\mathop {\mathrm{Tr}}\nolimits _\mathrm{E} Q_b \rho _\mathrm{E}) = \mathop {\mathrm{Tr}}\nolimits _\mathrm{SE}(P_a \otimes Q_b \rho _\mathrm{S} \otimes \rho _\mathrm{E})\). As \(A\) and \(B\) are arbitrary, we obtain \(\rho = \rho _\mathrm{S}\otimes \rho _\mathrm{E}\).

  32. 32.

    We refer Proposition 1 (page 52) in [13] and Lemma 4.11 (page 210) in [18] for this statement. However, it turns out that this is universally satisfied not only for QM, but also for any operationally valid probabilistic theories including classical physics (see [19] and references therein).

  33. 33.

    Alternatively, if \(\rho \) is prepared as a reduced density operator (even with probabilistic mixtures), one can realize the map (5.51) by means of a local unitary evolution. Note that based on Postulate \(2\), the total unitary evolution is given by a unitary operator \(U \otimes \mathop {I}\nolimits \) on a total system.

  34. 34.

    Preparing the state by a probabilistic mixture \(\{p,1-p;s_1,s_2\}\), we have \(\mathrm {Pr}(M = m \ | \ \{p,1-p;s_1,s_2\}) = \mathrm {Pr}(``M = m\text {''} \cap s_1) + \mathrm {Pr}(``M = m\text {''} \cap s_2) = p \mathrm {Pr}(M = m |s_1) + (1-p) \mathrm {Pr}(M = m | s_2)\). (see also the derivation of (5.31)).

  35. 35.

    Let \(f\) be an affine function from a convex subset \(W\) of a vector space \(V\) to a vector space \(V'\). A linear extension \(\tilde{f}\) of \(f\) is a linear map from \(V\) to \(V'\) satisfying \(f(w) = \tilde{f}(w)\) for all \(w \in W\).

  36. 36.

    The careful and rigorous consideration was mainly given by Ozawa (see e.g. [7, 8, 1012] and references therein).

  37. 37.

    By the positivity of \(E_m\), we have \(\mathop {\mathrm{Tr}}\nolimits (E_m \rho ) = \sum _i q_i \langle \phi _i | E_m \phi _i \rangle \ge 0\), where \(\rho = \sum _i q_i |\phi _i \rangle \langle \phi _i|\) is an eigenvalue decomposition of \(\rho \). Also, by the condition \(\sum _m E_m = \mathop {I}\nolimits \), we have \(\sum _m \mathop {\mathrm{Tr}}\nolimits (E_m \rho ) = \mathop {\mathrm{Tr}}\nolimits ((\sum _m E_m) \rho ) = \mathop {\mathrm{Tr}}\nolimits \rho = 1\).

  38. 38.

    By \(P_m=P_m^2\) and \(\sum _n P_n = \mathop {I}\nolimits \), we have \(P_m = P_m \mathop {I}\nolimits P_m = P_m (\sum _n P_n) P_m = P_m + \sum _{n \ne m} P_m P_n P_m\) for any \(m\), thus \( \sum _{n \ne m} P_m P_n P_m = 0\). As the sum of positive operators \(P_m P_n P_m\) is zero, we have \(P_m P_n P_m = 0 \ (n \ne m)\). Moreover, as \(P_mP_nP_m = P_m P_n P_n P_m = (P_n P_m)^\dagger (P_n P_m)\), we obtain \(P_n P_m = 0\) for any \(n \ne m\). (Show that \(A^\dagger A = 0\) implies \(A = 0\).)

  39. 39.

    For any \(A \ge 0\) and any \(|\psi \rangle \), we have \(\langle \psi | (U^\dagger A U)\psi \rangle = \langle (U \psi ) | A(U \psi ) \rangle \ge 0\).

  40. 40.

    For \(E \ge 0\) we can define \(\sqrt{E}:= \sum _e \sqrt{e} P_e\) where \(E = \sum _e e P_e \ (e \ge 0)\) is the spectral decomposition of \(E\). Note that \((\sqrt{E})^\dagger = \sqrt{E} \ge 0, (\sqrt{E})^2 = E\).

  41. 41.

    For any \(|\psi \rangle \otimes |\phi _1\rangle ,|\psi '\rangle \otimes |\phi _1\rangle \in W\), we have \(\langle U (\psi \otimes \phi _1) | U (\psi ' \otimes \phi _1) \rangle = \sum _{j,k=1}^n \langle \sqrt{E_j} \psi \otimes \phi _j | \sqrt{E_k} \psi ' \otimes \phi _k \rangle = \sum _{j,k=1}^n \langle \psi | \sqrt{E_j}^\dagger \sqrt{E_k}\psi ' \rangle \langle \phi _j | \phi _k \rangle = \sum _{j} \langle \psi | E_j \psi ' \rangle = \langle \psi | ( \sum _{j} E_j) \psi ' \rangle = \langle \psi | \psi ' \rangle \).

  42. 42.

    In general, \(\rho \) and \(\sigma \) can be distinguished by the following procedure: First, we perform a POVM measurement \(\{F_k\}_{k \in \mathcal K}\). Then, we decide whether the true state is \(\rho \) or \(\sigma \) from the obtained outcome \(k \in \mathcal{K}\) by using a two-valued decision function \(f\!:\!\mathcal{K} \rightarrow \{1,2\}\). (One can use a mixed strategy as well, but in this case, it is enough to use a two-valued decision function.) Under a state \(\xi =\rho \) or \(\sigma \), the probability to obtain the final outcome \(i=1,2\) is given by \(\sum _{k; f(k)=i}\mathop {\mathrm{Tr}}\nolimits (\xi F_k) = \mathop {\mathrm{Tr}}\nolimits (\xi (\sum _{k; f(k)=i}F_k))\). Therefore, by putting \(E_i\!:=\! \sum _{k; f(k)=1}F_k \ (i=1,2)\), the above procedure can be reduced to the application of the two-valued POVM \(\{E_1,E_2\}\). That is, the condition to distinguish the two states \(\rho \) and \(\sigma \) is the existence of a POVM \(\{E_1,E_2\}\) satisfying that \(\mathop {\mathrm{Tr}}\nolimits \rho E_1 = 1, \mathop {\mathrm{Tr}}\nolimits \sigma E_2 = 1 \ (\Leftrightarrow \mathop {\mathrm{Tr}}\nolimits \rho E_2 = 0, \mathop {\mathrm{Tr}}\nolimits \sigma E_1 = 0)\).

  43. 43.

    One can consider the affine property for time-evolution map as one of the preconditions.

  44. 44.

    Any operator \(A \in \mathop {\mathcal {L}}\nolimits (\mathop {\mathcal {H}}\nolimits _\mathrm{A})\) can be written as \(A = \sum _{k=0}^3 i^k p_k \rho _k\) with non-negative real numbers \(p_k \ge 0\) and density operators \(\rho _k \in \mathop {\mathcal {S}}\nolimits (\mathop {\mathcal {H}}\nolimits _\mathrm{A})\) (\(k=0,1,2,3\)). (see the solution of Exercise 5.14.) By the linearity of the trace, we have \(\mathop {\mathrm{Tr}}\nolimits _\mathrm{B} (\Lambda '(A)) = \sum _k i^k p_k \mathop {\mathrm{Tr}}\nolimits _\mathrm{B}(\Lambda (\rho _k)) = \sum _k i^k p_k \mathop {\mathrm{Tr}}\nolimits _\mathrm{A}(\rho _k) = \mathop {\mathrm{Tr}}\nolimits _\mathrm{A} (A)\). (Note that \(\mathop {\mathrm{Tr}}\nolimits _\mathrm{B}(\Lambda '(\rho _k)) = 1 = \mathop {\mathrm{Tr}}\nolimits _\mathrm{A}(\rho _k) \) since \(\rho _k\) and \(\Lambda (\rho _k)\) are density operators.) Since any positive operator \(A \in \mathop {\mathcal {L}}\nolimits (\mathop {\mathcal {H}}\nolimits _\mathrm{A})\) can be written as \(A = a \rho \) with a non-negative real number \(a := \mathop {\mathrm{Tr}}\nolimits A\) and a density operator \(\rho :=A /a\), we have \(\Lambda '(A) = a \Lambda (\rho )\). As \(a \ge 0\) and \( \mathop {\mathcal {S}}\nolimits (\mathop {\mathcal {H}}\nolimits _\mathrm{B}) \ni \Lambda (\rho ) \ge 0\), \(\Lambda '(A)\) is a positive operator.

  45. 45.

    Note, however, that there is a longstanding argument for the validity of this matter. It is usually discussed with reference to the presence of initial correlations with an environment. However, the root problem includes the validity to deal with a time evolution by means of a map (see [21] and references therein).

  46. 46.

    The theory of measurement processes with operational point of view was initiated by Davies and Lewis [22], and completed by Kraus [6] and Ozawa [23] by adding the notion of complete positivity. In particular, a careful consideration of the necessary and sufficient conditions for the description of measurement processes was thoroughly given by Ozawa.

  47. 47.

    Any discrete CP instrument \(\{\Lambda _m\}_m\) can be described by measurement operators as follows: Let \(\Lambda _m (A) = \sum _{k=1}^{l_m} V^{(m)}_k A {V^{(m)}_k}^\dagger \) be the (Kraus) representation. By \(\sum _{m,k} {V^{(m)}_k}^\dagger V^{(m)}_k = \mathop {I}\nolimits \), we have a tuple \(\{V^{(m)}_k\}_{k,m}\) of measurement operators. By performing a non-selective measurement \(M'\) of \(\{V^{(m)}_k\}_{k,m}\) and outputting only \(m\) with discarding \(k\), we obtain (5.80).

  48. 48.

    One can construct any CP instrument based on (5.85) assisted by a certain time evolution [24].

  49. 49.

    One can use the same proof for Theorem 5.6 by letting a TPCP map represented by \(\Lambda (X) = \sum _m V_m X V_m^\dagger \) (Kraus representation). Only the difference is that we don’t perform the final measurement \(|m \rangle \langle m|\).

References

  1. J. von Neumann, Mathematische Grundlagen der Quantenmechanik (Springer, Berlin, 1932)

    Google Scholar 

  2. M. Reed, B. Simon, Methods of Modern Mathematical Physics I: Functional Analysis (Academic Press, New York, 1980)

    Google Scholar 

  3. M.A. Nielsen, I.L. Chuang, Quantum Computation and Quantum Information (Cambridge University Press, 2000)

    Google Scholar 

  4. C.W. Helstrom, Quantum Detection and Estimation Theory (Academic Press, New York, 1976)

    Google Scholar 

  5. A.S. Holevo, Probabilistic and Statistical Aspects of Quantum Theory (North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1982)

    Google Scholar 

  6. K. Kraus, States, Effects, and Operations (Springer, Berlin, 1983)

    Google Scholar 

  7. M. Ozawa, Ann. Phys. 311, 350–416 (2004)

    Article  ADS  MATH  Google Scholar 

  8. M. Ozawa, Rep. Math. Phys. 18, 11–28 (1980)

    Article  ADS  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  9. P.A.M. Dirac, The Principles of Quantum Mechanics (Oxford, New York, 1958)

    Google Scholar 

  10. M. Ozawa, in Quantum Communication, Computing, and Measurement, ed. by P. Tombesi, O. Hirota (Kluwer, New York, 1997), pp. 233–241

    Google Scholar 

  11. M. Ozawa, Ann. Phys. (N.Y.) 259, 121–137 (1997)

    Google Scholar 

  12. M. Ozawa, Fortschr. Phys. 46, 615–625 (1998)

    Google Scholar 

  13. B. d’Espagnat, Conceptual Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, 2nd ed., (Addison-Wesley, Boston, 1976)

    Google Scholar 

  14. G. Kimura, Phys. Lett. A 314, 339–349 (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  15. G. Kimura, A. Kossakowski, Open Sys. Inf. Dyn. 12, 207–229 (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  16. M. Hayashi ed., Asymptotic Theory in Quantum Statistical Inference: Selected Papers (World Scientific, New York, 2005)

    Google Scholar 

  17. G. Chiribella, G.M. D’Ariano, P. Perinotti, Phys. Rev. A 84, 012311 (2011)

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  18. M. Takesaki, Theory of Operator Algebra I (Springer, Berlin, 1979)

    Google Scholar 

  19. G. Kimura, S. Tasaki, Bussei Kenkyu 97, 421–428 (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  20. G. Lindblad, Commun. Math. Phys. 40, 147–151 (1975)

    Article  ADS  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  21. G. Kimura, in Decoherence Suppression in Quantum Systems 2008, ed. by M. Nakahara, R. Rahimi, A. SaiToh (2008), pp. 1–51

    Google Scholar 

  22. E.B. Davies, J.T. Lewis, Comm. Math. Phys. 17, 239–260 (1970)

    Article  ADS  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  23. M. Ozawa, J. Math. Phys. 25, 79–87 (1984)

    Article  ADS  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  24. M. Hayashi, Quantum Information: An Introduction (Springer, Berlin, 2006) Originally published in Japanese in 2004

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Masahito Hayashi .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Hayashi, M., Ishizaka, S., Kawachi, A., Kimura, G., Ogawa, T. (2015). Foundations of Quantum Mechanics and Quantum Information Theory. In: Introduction to Quantum Information Science. Graduate Texts in Physics. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-43502-1_5

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-43502-1_5

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-662-43501-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-662-43502-1

  • eBook Packages: Physics and AstronomyPhysics and Astronomy (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics