What is the significance of the Gleason theorem in Quantum Logic?

  • Thread starter Thread starter thankqwerty
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Theorem
thankqwerty
Messages
3
Reaction score
1
Hi all, I'm doing a modcule on Quantum Logic and there is this Gleason theorem but the lecturer didnt explain it clear enough, can somebody help me out please?

sorry that i really have no idea what it is about, all I've got is a heading "gleason theorem" in my note, then it started going on talking about logic of all hilbert subspaces... then go to introduce pure quantum states and convex combination of pure states...

thank you
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I think you will find what you want in this paper. I found it by googling on gleason's theorem.
 
Gleason's theorem

Gleason's theorem is a derivation of the quantum probability rule from the structure of observables in quantum theory. It has two assumptions:

1. Assume that observable quantities are represented by Hermitian observables and that the possible outcomes are represented by the projectors in the spectral decomposition of such operators.

2. Assume that the probability is a function of the projectors only, i.e. it does not depend on which observable the projector came from. This is called non-contextuality.

Conclusion: There is a density operator representing the quantum state, with measurement probabilities given by the standard probability rule.

The theorem holds in Hilbert sapces of dimension 3 or larger, so interestingly it does not hold for the spin of a spin 1/2 particle. However, a POVM version of the theorem has been proved which does hold for these cases.
 
thank you very much
that's very helpful
 
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In her YouTube video Bell’s Theorem Experiments on Entangled Photons, Dr. Fugate shows how polarization-entangled photons violate Bell’s inequality. In this Insight, I will use quantum information theory to explain why such entangled photon-polarization qubits violate the version of Bell’s inequality due to John Clauser, Michael Horne, Abner Shimony, and Richard Holt known as the...
Not an expert in QM. AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is quite different from the classical wave equation. The former is an equation for the dynamics of the state of a (quantum?) system, the latter is an equation for the dynamics of a (classical) degree of freedom. As a matter of fact, Schrödinger's equation is first order in time derivatives, while the classical wave equation is second order. But, AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is a wave equation; only its interpretation makes it non-classical...
I asked a question related to a table levitating but I am going to try to be specific about my question after one of the forum mentors stated I should make my question more specific (although I'm still not sure why one couldn't have asked if a table levitating is possible according to physics). Specifically, I am interested in knowing how much justification we have for an extreme low probability thermal fluctuation that results in a "miraculous" event compared to, say, a dice roll. Does a...
Back
Top