Quantum Measurements and Information Theory

  • K.-E. Hellwig
Part of the Mathematical Physics Studies book series (MPST, volume 13)


Max Born [1] (1926) has proposed the statistical interpretation of quantum mechanics and there is no doubt that it well describes the statistics of pointer readings. Is this knowledge sufficient for to understand the physical reality of microparticles, i.e. can a physical theory be complete if nothing behind the statistics of pointer readings is assumed? Such questions arose shortly after Max Born’s proposal in the Bohr-Einstein debate which culminated in the famous Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox [2]. Later investigations have led to the Bell type inequalities [3]. The experimental tests by A. Aspect and his coworkers gave deep insight into the physical situation: IT somebody believes in the physical reality of accidental properties of a single microparticle described by some kind of hidden variables, then he has to assume the existence of actions at a distance.


Pure State Positive Operator Density Operator Physical Reality Quantum Measurement 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. [1]
    M. Born: “Zur Quantenmechanik der Stoflvorgänge”, Z. Physik 37, 863–867 (1926).ADSzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. [2]
    A. Einstein, B. Podolsky, N. Rosen: “Can quantum mechanical description of physical reality considered complete”, Phys. Rev. 47, 777–780 (1935).ADSzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. [3]
    J. S. Bell: “On the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox”, Physics 1, 195–200 (1964).Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    W. Weidlich: “Problems of the quantum theory of measurement”, Z. Physik 205, 199–220 (1967).ADSzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. [5]
    J. M. Jauch: “The problem of measurement in quantum machanics”, Helvetica Physica Acta 37, 293–316 (1964).MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. [6]
    M. Jammer: “The philosophy of quantum mechanics”, New York (1974), see Ch. 11.2 for a review.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    B. DeWitt, N. Graham (eds.): “The many worlds interpretation”, Princeton (1973).Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    E. P. Wigner: “Die Messung quantenmechanischer Operatoren” Z. Physik 133, 101–108 (1952); E. P. Wigner, M. M. Yanase: Information contents of distributions, Proc. N. A. S. 49, 910-918 (1963).MathSciNetADSzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. [9]
    For a closed representation see K. Kraus: “States, effects,-and operations”, Lecture Notes in Physics 190, Springer, Berlin (1983).Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    G. Ludwig: Foundations of Quantum Mechanics I, Texts an Monographs in Physics, Springer, New York (1985).Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    S. T. Ali, E. Prugovecki: “Systems of imprimitivity and representations of quantum mechanics on fuzzy phase space”, J. Math. Phys. 18, 219–228 (1977); “Classical and quantum statistical mechanics in the common Liouville space”, Physica 89A, 501-521 (1977).MathSciNetADSzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. [12]
    M. Singer, W. Stulpe: “Phase space representations of general statistical physical theories”, J. Math. 3Phys. 33, 131–142 (1992).MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. [13]
    Matthias Singer: “Zur Informationstheorie statistischer Experimente”, Fachbereich Physik der Technischen Universität Berlin, D 83 (1989).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  • K.-E. Hellwig
    • 1
  1. 1.Institut für Theoretische PhysikTechnische Universität BerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations