4.2 Article

General Bayesian theories and the emergence of the exclusivity principle

期刊

PHYSICAL REVIEW RESEARCH
卷 2, 期 4, 页码 -

出版社

AMER PHYSICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevResearch.2.042001

关键词

-

资金

  1. Foundational Questions Institute [FQXi-RFP3-1325]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [11675136]
  3. Hong Kong Research Grant Council [17300317]
  4. Spanish Ministry of Science, Innovation and Universities (MICINN)
  5. Spanish Ministry of Economy, Industry and Competitiveness (MINECO)
  6. European Regional Development Fund FEDER [FIS2017-89609-P, FIS2015-67161-P]
  7. ERC [258647/GEDENTQOPT, 683107/TempoQ]
  8. Basque Government [IT986-16]
  9. Foundational Questions Institute
  10. Fetzer Franklin Fund
  11. Silicon Valley Community Foundation (FQXi FFF) [FQXi-RFP1815]
  12. Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics
  13. Government of Canada through the Department of Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada
  14. Province of Ontario through the Ministry of Research, Innovation and Science

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We address the problem of reconstructing quantum theory from the perspective of an agent who makes bets about the outcomes of possible experiments. We build a general Bayesian framework that can be used to organize the agent's beliefs and update them when new information becomes available. Our framework includes as special cases classical and quantum probability theory, as well as other forms of probabilistic reasoning that may arise in future physical theories. Building on this framework, we develop a notion of an ideal experiment, which in quantum theory coincides with the notion of projective measurement. We then prove that, in every general Bayesian theory, ideal experiments must satisfy the exclusivity principle, a property of projective measurements that plays a central role in the characterization of quantum correlations. Our result suggests that the set of quantum correlations may be completely characterized in terms of Bayesian consistency conditions.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据