Graduate State Space and Probability Theory

Click For Summary
The discussion revolves around the validity of the concept of a state space in relation to probability theory, particularly as referenced in a specific paper. It clarifies that while mathematical probability theory defines a "probability space," it does not explicitly define a "state space." The conversation highlights that classical probability can be applied to state spaces as understood in physics, where outcomes can be represented as vectors. The distinction between classical and quantum mechanics is emphasized, noting that quantum pure states are not definitively observable, unlike classical outcomes. Overall, the dialogue underscores the complexities and applications of probability theory in different contexts.
Messages
10,967
Reaction score
3,836
Hi All

This is in relation to the folllowing paper:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1402.6562.pdf

See section 3 on examples where standard probability theory is discussed. Is it valid? To me its rather obvious but I had had a retired professor of probability say probability theory doesn't have a state space. This has me totality flummoxed. Is he right and if so what am I missing?

Thanks
Bill
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Mathematical probability theory defines a "probability space" and does not define a "state space".

What the article calls "Classical probability" is not an exposition of mathematical probability theory. Instead it is an application of mathematical probability theory to "state space" as defined in physics - presumably as defined in "classical" physics.
 
  • Like
Likes Zafa Pi
Stephen Tashi said:
Instead it is an application of mathematical probability theory to "state space" as defined in physics - presumably as defined in "classical" physics.

Yes - agreed. But its a perfectly legit space

Its easy to define. If your outcomes are definite you simply define each as a vector with 1 in the outcome. They are by definition the pure states. Then you create all the convex sums of them. That forms a space. The sums are by definition called mixed states and of course the 'weight' in that sum can easily be interpreted as the probability of that pure state. Or have I made a mistake?

Its purpose is to bring out the difference to QM. There states are positive operators of trace 1. Pure states are defined to be of the form |u><u|. You can also form mixed states from them with the same interpretation. The difference is the pure states are not definite - there is no way to tell what a quantum pure state is by observation.

This is all part of a class of theories based on probability but generalize it in all sorts of ways

Thanks
Bill
 
Last edited:
The standard _A " operator" maps a Null Hypothesis Ho into a decision set { Do not reject:=1 and reject :=0}. In this sense ( HA)_A , makes no sense. Since H0, HA aren't exhaustive, can we find an alternative operator, _A' , so that ( H_A)_A' makes sense? Isn't Pearson Neyman related to this? Hope I'm making sense. Edit: I was motivated by a superficial similarity of the idea with double transposition of matrices M, with ## (M^{T})^{T}=M##, and just wanted to see if it made sense to talk...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 93 ·
4
Replies
93
Views
7K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 292 ·
10
Replies
292
Views
12K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K