text:
# Quantum vs stochastic processes and the role of complex numbers

## 1 Introduction

… Is what the matrix-physicists and q-number-physicists say true - that the wave equation describes only the behavior of a statistical ensemble, just like the so-called Fokker differential equation?…
Schrödinger to Planck, 1927
This quotation is from a letter Schrödinger sent to Planck  after the 5th Solvay Congress in 1926. In this congress the matrix mechanics of Heisenberg and the wave mechanics of Schrödinger had faced each other and were reconciled by the brilliant idea of Born to interpret Schrödinger’s wave function as corresponding to probability.

This proved to be one of the last pieces in the puzzle towards the development of a full-fledged quantum theory. But Schrödinger was not satisfied with this interpretation; he distrusted the philosophy underlying the physical ideas of Heisenberg, Born and Bohr (“the matrix-physicists and q-number-physicists” in the quotation). In fact, he wanted to interpret the wave function as a physical wave, but he could not: the wave function was defined on the configuration space and not on the physical space, as any physical wave ought to.

Fokker’s equation, to which Schrödinger refers is known today as the Fokker-Planck equation. It is the equation that describes the time evolution of the probability density in Brownian motion. For Schrödinger it was natural to consider that a probabilistic interpretation of the wave function would amount to its having a physical function analogous to that of a classical probability distribution. In such a case one could say that the wave function provides the description of a statistical ensemble rather than an individual quantum system.

But the interpretation of Schrödinger’s equation as a Fokker-Planck type of equation did not gain ground and for good reason. The structure of these equations are very distinct. The Fokker-Planck equation reads

$$\frac{}{t}\rho =\rho ,$$
(1. 1)
where $`\rho `$ is a probability distribution and $``$ a linear operator in the space, where the $`\rho `$ live. Schrödinger’s equation is of course

$$i\frac{}{t}\psi =H\psi $$
(1. 2)
$`H`$ is the Hamiltonian, a self-adjoint operator on the Hilbert space, where the $`\psi `$ live. The difference between these two equations and what distinguishes between classical and quantum probability is the presence of the complex unity $`i`$. Well, you might argue that complex numbers are not really measurable quantities, just a convenient device to simplify the writing of equations; indeed, Schrödinger’s equation can be written without the use of $`i`$ by splitting it into two equations, one for the real and one for the imaginary part of $`\psi `$. However, physical observables arise out of the probability distribution $`\rho =|\psi |^2`$, so even if we forego the use of complex numbers they will reappear in the form of the $`U(1)`$ invariance of the probabilities.

In effect, what distinguishes quantum from classical probability is the presence of the complex numbers, not so much in the dynamics, but as the $`U(1)`$ symmetry of the probability assignment.

Coming back to the Fokker-Planck equation, we note that they it is a part of the more general theory of stochastic processes. The stochastic processes can describe the dynamics in two ways: either through the Fokker-Planck equation by writing a deterministic equation for the probability density that refers to an ensemble of physical systems, or through stochastic differential equations (like the Langevin equation) that can be interpreted as referring to the behaviour of an individual system evolving under some random forces. In classical probability, we then have the following diagram
Fokker-Planck eqn. $``$ stochastic processes  $``$ Langevin eqn.
If we try to interpret Schrödinger’s equation as analogous to the Fokker-Planck equation, we immediately see that we lack both the general theory in which it will be embedded and the description (analogous to differential equations) that could be interpreted as referring to individual quantum systems. So the corresponding diagram has two gaps in it
Schrödinger’s eqn. $`X_1`$ theory $`X_2`$ eqn.
Nelson attempted to fill the gap in his stochastic mechanics programme , where for $`X_1`$ he considered again the theory of stochastic processes and for $`X_2`$ again stochastic differential equations 111He actually considered the Madelung equations that are derived from Schrödinger’s equation and the probability rule.. However, this description cannot account for all quantum phenomena as it violates Bell’s theorem. In fact, no stochastic process can reproduce all quantum mechanical predictions .

In this talk we are going to show how to fill in the previous diagram, without diverging from the predictions of standard quantum theory; we are going to write a class of theories which is modelled on stochastic processes but are not stochastic processes themselves, since they intrinsically incorporate the appearance of the complex numbers (or if you prefer a $`U(1)`$ symmetry). This class of theories we shall call quantum processes. They have been developed in a chain of argumentation starting from the consistent histories approach to quantum theory and the presence of the geometric phase. Quantum processes is the $`X_1`$ in our previous diagram; they can be unravelled to write full analogues of the stochastic differential equations, which could perhaps be interpreted as referring to individual system.

In general, our approach is very close to the ideas about quantum theory, that Einstein expressed in his later years  (in which it was made clear that his disagreement with quantum theory was not on reasons of determinism, but on reasons of realism)
“… … The concept that the $`\psi `$-function completely describes the physical behaviour of the individual single system is untenable. (…) But if one regards the $`\psi `$-function as the description of an ensemble, it furnishes statements that correspond satisfactorily to those of classical mechanics and at the same time account for the quantum structure of reality…. …”
In this paper we demonstrate, that this attitude is not forbidden by any non-go theorem of quantum mechanics; indeed at the mathematical level we can even write equations that could be interpreted as referring to individual systems. And, at least for the author, this attitude is in no way incompatible with the basic physical insights, that were put into the structure of quantum theory by Heisenberg and Bohr.

## 2 Classical vs quantum probability

Quantum theory was built in the late twenties and by the early thirties its basic principles and structures had been put in place. During the same period, classical probability was set in a solid axiomatic framework in the work of Kolmogorov. Kolmogorov founded probabilistic calculus on measure theory and thus removed ambiguities plaguing other intuitive approaches to probability. In particular, measure theory provided a framework, by which the theory of stochastic processes could be rigorously developed.

This was arguably one of the most important results in 20th century’s applied mathematics; in particular, it influenced the more mathematically-minded people that worked on the foundations of quantum theory. In particular, it was soon apparent that probability theory and quantum mechanics seemed to share the same basic “physical” concepts, even if their mathematical implementation is distinct. Classical probability theory is defined on a sample space $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, which is an ordinary set (often a manifold), while quantum theory is defined on a complex Hilbert space $`H`$.

A theory such as classical probability is a mathematical framework by which physical phenomena can be modeled, so that the statistical results (mean values, ratios of events) measurements can be predicted. So is quantum theory, at least in the Kopenhagen interpretation. Both theories employ the notions of
1. Observables: An observable is a physical quantity, whose value we measure. It is assumed that what we observe can only be a real number, since it is with respect to real numbers (distances in dials) that we encode all experimental information. It has to be a single-valued object, so that when we have a concrete measurement situation there will be no ambiguity as to the quantity we measure. Classically an observable is a measurable function on $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, while quantum mechanically a self-adjoint operator on $`H`$.
2. Events: As events we characterise the possible outcomes of individual experiments: an event corresponds to a property that is verified by an experiment, e.g. the particle passed through a slit located in that particular place. Quantum mechanical events are represented by projection operators and classical ones by measurable subsets of the sample space.
3. States: A state corresponds to the preparation of the physical system, before the measurement is carried out. As such, it contains information as much about the nature of the physical system as about the preparation procedure that was used for the experiment. A state should be a mathematical object that would be able to provide all information that can be accessed experimentally. If we think that in experiments we can determine mean values for observables and (perhaps) probabilities to events, the state should be an object that provides these. In classical probability theory a state corresponds to a probability distribution, while in quantum theory (thanks to Gleason’s theorem) by a density matrix. Note, however, that in representing the operational notion of the state by such mathematical objects we assumed that the probabilities that correspond to physical systems satisfy a number of properties. Most important of them is the additivity condition, that if $`A`$ and $`B`$ are two independent events then $`p(AB)=p(A)+p(B)`$. This is a theoretical “prejudice” rather than an axiom that arises naturally out of the consideration of the measurement processes.
In any case, starting from the work of von Neumann, Birkhoff, Wigner and Jordan  in the thirties, an ever increasing number of mathematical physicists considered quantum theory to be nothing but a generalised probability theory, i.e. a theory sharing the same basic objects as classical probability theory. This attitude is apparent in many schemes of axiomatisation of quantum theory, that want to get rid of the (mathematically) unintuitive structure of a Hilbert space (while keeping the non-commutativity of observables), by substituting it with something simpler: algebras of observables in the $`C^{}`$-algebraic approach, lattice of propositions in quantum logic(s), convex state spaces in the operational approach.

However, we still feel the need to ask the question, whether quantum theory is nothing but a generalised probability theory.
Our answer here is that it is not.
The analogy between classical probability and quantum mechanics stops, when we consider properties of the quantum system at more than one moment of time. Because in this case
1. Interference phases appear that have no analogue in classical probability theory. They are closely related to the geometric phases. Most important of all, they are measured as a statistical object.
2. The probabilities for properties defined on more than one moment of time are non-additive.
3. The interference phases and the non-additive probabilities are closely related.
4. The natural correlation functions of the observables are probabilities generically complex-valued.
It seems that in the case of studying properties at more than one moment of time, the complex numbers inherent in the structure of the quantum mechanical Hilbert space become manifest.

### 2.1 Non-additive probabilities

To explain the non-additive probabilities in quantum theory let us consider the following type of experiment. We have a source $`S`$, which emits some particles (our individual quantum systems) prepared in a well-defined state $`|\psi `$. The ensemble of systems is then represented by a beam; we let this beam cross two filters represented by $`P`$ and $`Q`$. A filter is an object that lets particles of the beam pass if they satisfy a certain property or, in other words, if a particular event occurs. In quantum theory a filter is represented by a projection operator, hence $`P`$ and $`Q`$ are projectors.

Now, after the second filter $`Q`$ the beam falls into a detector $`D`$ and we can measure the particles that have crossed the beams. Note that in the diagram the distance between the source, the filters and the detector is assumed to represent time intervals.

If the source emitted $`N`$ particles and the detector detected $`n`$, then for large $`N`$ the ratio $`n/N`$ ought to converge to a given number, which would be the probability for the particles prepared in the state $`|\psi `$ to pass through the two filters.

The rules of quantum theory give that this probability must be equal to

$`p(P,t_1;Q,t_2)`$ $`=`$ $`\psi |P(t_1)Q(t_2)P(t_1)|\psi `$ (2. 3)
$`P(t):`$ $`=`$ $`e^{iHt}Pe^{iHt},`$
where $`H`$ is the Hamiltonian that describes the self-dynamics of the individual system.

Now consider the following three experiments. In experiment number 1, we put in as a first filter $`P_1`$ and as second one $`Q`$. In experiment number 2, we put as a first filter $`P_2=1P_1`$, i.e. the filter corresponding to the property complementary of that of $`P_1`$ and keep $`Q`$ as a second filter . In experiment number 3, we simply have filter $`Q`$. If we use the rule (2.1) for the measured probabilities we see that

$$p_3p_1+p_2.$$
(2. 4)
This implies that the quantum mechanical probabilities do not satisfy the additivity condition. This simple experiment is a manifestation of the more general fact for quantum theory: experiments involving properties of the system at more than one moment of time cannot, in general, be modeled by an additive probability measure. So quantum probability for histories does not satisfy the basic Kolmogorov axioms for probabilities.

### 2.2 Consistent histories

Well, why would we mind if the probabilities are non-additive? Non-additivity of implies you lose an important rule of inference. Consider that you have two exclusive events $`A`$ and $`B`$, that are also exhaustive (one or the other can happen and nothing else). If we measure the probability for $`A`$ and we find $`p(A)=1`$, then we can be certain that the event $`B`$ would never occur in any repetition of this experiment, since $`p(B)`$ has to equal zero. If probabilities are non-additive, then the fact that $`p(A)=1`$ does not imply that $`p(B)=0`$ and the event $`B`$ would take place in the experiments with non-zero frequency.

In a nutshell, even if the probability of an event is $`1`$, we cannot preclude that its complement will never happen. Is this so bad? Not really if we have an operational stance, that quantum theory describes experiments in ensembles. However, it could be problematic if one wants to claim that the present formalism of quantum theory provides a theory for individual closed systems, because it would dramatically limit its predictability.

One way to resolve this problem (assuming it is a problem) is the consistent histories approach. This was developed by Griffiths , Omnés , Gell-Mann and Hartle . This work is motivated from its elegant formulation that has been developed by Isham  and Savvidou .

As far as this issue goes, the key idea of the consistent histories approach is that one can have additive probabilities if one is restricted within particular sets of histories, known as consistent sets. More precisely
1. A general history $`\alpha `$ is represented by a collection of projection operators $`\alpha _{t_i}`$ at successive instants of time

$$\alpha =(\alpha _{t_1},\alpha _{t_2},\mathrm{},\alpha _{t_n}),.$$

2. From these operators we can define an operator $`C_\alpha =\alpha _{t_n}(t_n)\mathrm{}\alpha _{t_2}(t_2)\alpha _{t_1}(t_1)`$ and a complex-valued functional on pairs of histories

$$d(\alpha ,\beta )=Tr(C_\alpha \rho _0C_\beta ^{}).$$
(2. 5)
This is known as the decoherence functional.
3. If in a exhaustive and exclusive set of histories

$$d(\alpha ,\beta )=0,\alpha \beta $$
(2. 6)
then $`d(\alpha ,\alpha )`$ is a probability for the history $`\alpha `$ and corresponds to an additive probability measure. The satisfaction of condition (2.5) renders a set of histories consistent.
The additivity of probabilities in each consistent set allows us to use the fact that probability one for an event means probability zero for its complement. This can be exploited to define the logical/physical notion for implication. The idea is that if we get by measurement a definite result for an individual system, we can employ the definability of this implication to identify other properties that this system has satisfied. However, implication is defined only within given consistent sets; hence when we employ implication in different consistent sets we can derive contrary results from the same definite (measured) event. This is a more general problem of realist interpretational schemes 222In our use, we employ the word realist to denote the attitude that the quantum mechanical formalism refers to properties of individual systems. and is related to the Kochen-Specker theorem.

However, the formalism of consistent histories makes sense irrespective of the interpretation: it can equally well be considered in a Copenhagen framework, in which we are content to provide predictions for outcomes of ensemble measurements. The merit of the formalism lies in the fact that it allows the description of quantum systems using covariant objects (histories) . As such it seems more adequate to deal with basic problems in the quantisation of the gravitational field, such as the problem of time (see  for this perspective). Moreover, the object that was introduced by the consistent histories approach, the decoherence functional is very convenient: it will be shown to contain the full information that can be extracted from a quantum process, even its non-probabilistic aspects.

### 2.3 Complex-valued correlation functions

Whenever we have a probabilistic system, there is a well defined prescription by which the temporal correlation functions can be determined. Assume we have an observable $`A`$, that can be spectrally analysed as $`A=_ia_iP_i`$, where $`P_i`$ are filters that can be experimentally employed. Now we repeat the experiment in figure 1 with $`P_i`$ for $`P`$ and $`P_j`$ for $`Q`$ for all possible combinations of $`i`$ and $`j`$. We can then measure the probabilities $`p(i,t_1;j,t_2)`$.

The statistical correlation function is then

$$A_{t_1}A_{t_2}_S=\underset{ij}{}a_ia_jp(i,t_1;j,t_2).$$
(2. 7)
It is clearly a real number. However, it is an object that cannot be naturally written in terms of the operators $`A`$. Moreover, it depends sensitively in the resolution of the observable in terms of the spectral projections (unlike statistical correlation functions in classical probability theory).

From quantum theory the natural object for the correlation function (that does not depend on the spectral resolution of the observable) is

$$A_{t_1}A_{t_2}_Q=\psi (t_1)|Ae^{iH(t_2t_1)}Ae^{iH(t_2t_1)}|\psi (t_1),$$
(2. 8)
or the corresponding time-ordered function.

This is generically a complex-valued object and has no natural operational interpretation as the statistical correlation function.

We should remark that temporal correlation functions have actually been measured in quantum optics (see for instance ). In that case the relevant observable is the photon number; this, however, commutes with the electromagnetic field’s Hamiltonian. This implies that the statistical and quantum correlation functions coincide.

So one may pose the question, why does quantum theory give as natural correlation functions, ones that are not operationally implementable? This is not a very sharp question, as the answer might be simply that there is no a priori reason to expect that it would be otherwise. However, we are going to show that there is a deeper reason and this is that quantum correlation functions have information from measurable quantities that do not correspond to probabilities: interference phases.

## 3 Interference phases

The point is that quantum theory predicts other physical quantities that can be determined statistically, but are not probabilities. These are the quantum phases and more precisely the geometric phases, paradigmatic example of which are the Bohm-Aharonov  and the Berry phase .

Let us recall the measurement of the Bohm-Aharonov phase
The basic configuration is that of a two-slit experiment. We let a prepared state of electrons cross through two slits and then measure the interference pattern on a screen. Having stored that in memory, we repeat the experiment by putting a solenoid (with some magnetic flux) behind one of the slits (such that the beam does not cross it). We observe a shift into the interference pattern, which is essentially proportional to the Bohm-Aharonov phase induced by the magnetic flux.

Two remarks must be made for this experiment, that are valid for all experiments measuring geometric phases. First, that the Bohm-Aharonov phase is a statistical object: it is measured in terms of an interference pattern, which is present only when a large number of electrons (thought of as corresponding to a statistical ensemble) are left to interfere. If we carried out the experiment with a single electron, there would be nothing to measure.

The second remark is that the geometric phase can be determined from the study of the interference of two beams with different history. This is reminiscent of the decoherence functional, which assigns a complex-valued object to a pair of histories. This suggests that the decoherence functional is somehow related to the geometric phases. This loose connection will turn out to be very precise: we can show that the decoherence functional is actually constructed from the mathematical object that is responsible for the presence of geometric phases: the Berry connection 333This is a $`U(1)`$ connection on the fiber bundle with base space the projective Hilbert space and total space the Hilbert space of a quantum system . .

More strongly, we can explicitly describe, how the off-diagonal elements of the decoherence functional can be explicitly measured; the corresponding measurement scheme is identical to the ones used for the determination of another version of the geometric phase, known as the Pancharatnam phase . This phase essentially corresponds to the argument of the inner product between two states $`\varphi `$ and $`|\psi `$. It is manifested in the following generic situations
1. Prepare two systems in the states $`|\psi `$ and $`|\varphi `$.
2. Perform on the beam corresponding to $`|\psi `$ the operation $`|\psi e^{i\chi }|\psi `$ for a controlled value of $`\chi `$.
3. Interfere the two beams to construct the beam $`|f=|\varphi +e^{i\chi }|\psi `$ and measure its intensity $`I=f|f`$.
4. Repeat the experiment for the range of all values of $`\chi `$ and construct the function $`I(\chi )`$ giving the intensity of the measured beam as a function of the external parameter $`\chi `$. This equals

$$I(\chi )=2|\psi |\varphi |\mathrm{cos}(\chi \mathrm{arg}\psi |\varphi )$$
(3. 9)
5. $`I(\chi )`$ takes its maximum value for $`\chi =\mathrm{arg}\psi |\varphi `$. This value of $`\chi `$ is the Pancharatnam phase between the two beams.
This procedure to measure the Pancharatnam phase has been performed in neutron interferometry . The difficult part is to perform step 2, i.e. to have a controlled way to change the phase of an individual quantum state. This can be achieved if $`|\psi `$ is an eigenstate of a Hamiltonian (so that the phase only depends on the number of periods the beam is left before interference).

Assuming that there is a prescription by which this phase change can be performed, the above prescription can be used to measure the off-diagonal elements of the decoherence functional.
Let us assume we have a source $`S`$ preparing particles in a state $`|\psi `$. After exiting $`S`$, the beam enters a beam splitter B.S. One of its components then enters a sequence of filters $`\alpha _{t_1}\mathrm{}\alpha _{t_n}`$ and the other a sequence of filters $`\beta _{t_1^{}}\mathrm{}\beta _{t_m^{}}`$, before they are recombined at C. The beam then propagates to a screen, where its intensity is measured. Now we repeat this experiment many times, but at each time the second component of the split beam has to pass through P.O. which performs the operation of phase change $`|\psi e^{i\chi }|\psi `$. Repeating the experiment for different values of $`\chi `$, we get a function $`I(\chi )`$, whose maximum determines a phase that is the argument of the value of the decoherence functional between the histories $`(\alpha _{t_1}\mathrm{}\alpha _{t_n})`$ and $`(\beta _{t_1^{}},\mathrm{},\beta _{t_m^{}})`$. The modulus of the phase of the decoherence functional can easily be determined by the maximum value of $`I`$ (see  for details).

In fact, it can be shown that the decoherence functional contains all information that can be obtained from experiments measuring either probabilities or relative phases. The name decoherence functional is then, rather misleading. Gell-Mann and Hartle introduced it as the object that provides information about decoherence of histories. However, its most important function is that it contains the information of the relative phases, hence of coherence of histories. For this reason a more adequate name for it would be the coherence functional or the phase functional.

It can also be shown that the complex-valued temporal correlation functions can in principle be determined by the measurement of a sufficiently large number of interference phases as described above. In effect, if one can determine the off-diagonal elements of a decoherence functional between a history $`\alpha _{ij}=(P_i,t_1;P_j,t_2)`$ and the trivial history $`\beta =1`$, then for the observable $`A=_ia_iP_i`$ the time-ordered two-point function will read

$$A_{t_1}A_{t_2}_Q=\underset{ij}{}a_ia_jd(\alpha _{ij},1),$$
(3. 10)
This gives an operational scheme for the determination of the quantum correlation functions through measurements analogous to the one performed for the Pancharatnam phase. The reader is referred to  for details.

## 4 A framework for quantum processes

### 4.1 Phases as primitive ingredients

Usually any discussion of the principles of quantum theory consider probabilities as the basic objects that are predicted by the formalism. But, as we showed there is good reason to consider (also) the phases as primitive ingredients of the formalism. We can then attempt to write an axiomatic scheme that achieves this.

In that case, we must accept that the probabilities of the corresponding quantum theory are non-additive, hence do not satisfy the Kolmogorov axioms. Accepting non-additive probabilities has important consequences for the structure of the resulting quantum theory. The theorems of Bell  and Kochen-Specker  that forbid hidden variable theories of reproducing the predictions of quantum theory assume that the corresponding hidden variable theories are either deterministic or stochastic. They do not forbid hidden variable theories that are modeled by a statistical theory that is not described by Kolmogorov probability.

Hence, by accepting phases as primitive ingredients of our formalism, we might be able to write a theory that reproduces the predictions of quantum mechanics, while having observables like any classical theory, purely commutative objects. This is indeed possible and we showed that in reference  by simply employing the Wigner transform on the standard quantum mechanical decoherence functional. In other words, the Hilbert space structure and the corresponding non-Boolean ( and non-distributive) nature of the events (usually referred to as quantum logic) is not necessary in a theory that takes phases as primitive ingredients.

Such a theory needs a mathematical structure analogous to that of a decoherence functional over a classical sample space. We shall explain in detail how such theories are formalised and constructed: we shall call them theories of quantum processes, because their mathematical structure is in many respects analogous to the theory of stochastic processes.

We will not attempt to write any interpretation of quantum theory different from Copenhagen; we shall take a strictly operational stance and simply consider that the theories of quantum processes refer only to measurement situations and the probabilities and relative phases always make reference to ensembles of individual quantum systems. We should, however, point out that our longer term perspective is realist: we want to find a way to talk about the physics of individual quantum system. The present is not, however, a good moment for this purpose.

##### Choosing the sample space

If we want to write a theory that reproduces the results of quantum mechanics, while having a classical sample space, we need to specify what this sample space would be. One could take the stance that the proper quantum mechanical sample space consists of variables very different from the ones that are naturally apparent to us: the true degrees of freedom refer to a subquantum level of reality, quite removed from standard physics (as for instance in ).

We shall take a more conservative approach here. He shall consider that the sample space is essentially the phase space of the corresponding classical system. There are three reasons for our choice:
1. We can show that a theory of quantum processes on the classical phase space allows us to fully reproduce the predictions of standard quantum theory (this is an a posteriori argument).
2. Symplectic manifolds have a very rich geometric structure, that allows us to reproduce many classic quantum mechanical results that seem to need a priori the notion of the Hilbert space. Such is the case for Wigner’s classification of particles (from the geometric quantisation of Konstant-Souriau ) and many aspects of the spin-statistics relation .
3. One of our motivation for undertaking this line of research is the attempt to write a quantum theory that has a pronounced spacetime character. In the closely related scheme of histories quantisation, Savvidou showed that in the space of phase space histories one can always implement a symplectic action of the group of spacetime diffeomorphisms  (in the case of general relativity it coexists with the algebra of constraints obtained by the 3+1 decomposition). This is a very important part for any quantum theory that wants to manifest the principle of general covariance and holds only for phase space histories (not configuration space ones).
These are the reasons that makes us consider the phase space histories as defining the basic sample space of quantum theory. Our arguments are sufficient to establish the naturality of our choice; of course, they are not necessary as they are directed by choices related to our long term aims. In any case, the formalism we shall present makes sense for any possible sample space.

### 4.2 The basic axioms

#### 4.2.1 Sample space, events, observables

At the level of observables, the structure of our theory is identical with that of classical probability theory. That is, we assume the existence of a space $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ of elementary alternatives. A point of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ corresponds to the most precise information one can extract from a measurement of the quantum system. Note, that at this level we do not distinguish, whether $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ refers to properties of a systems at one moment of time or to histories. Our definitions are general and only later shall we specify the history content.

This space $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ has to be equipped with some additional structure. In general, a measurement will yield some information stating that the system was found in a given subset of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. But not all subsets of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ are suitable to incorporate measurement outcomes. For instance, when we consider position it is physically meaningless to consider the subset of rational values of position (with respect to some unit). One, therefore needs to choose a family of subsets $`𝒞`$ of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, that correspond to the coarse-grained information we can obtain about the physical systems. These sets are often called events. The family $`𝒞`$ containing the events has to satisfy some natural mathematical conditions
i. $`\mathrm{\Omega }𝒞`$: if an experiment is performed one of the outcomes will occur.
ii. $`\mathrm{}𝒞`$: it is impossible that no outcome results if an experiment is performed.
iii. If $`A𝒞`$, then $`\mathrm{\Omega }A𝒞`$: if $`A`$ is a possible measurement outcome then so can be its complement.
iv. If $`A,B𝒞`$, then $`AB𝒞`$ and $`AB𝒞`$: unions and intersections of experimental outcomes are also possible experimental outcomes.
v. For countably many $`A_n𝒞,n=1,2,\mathrm{}`$, $`_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}𝒞`$. This is a technical condition particularly relevant when dealing with the case where $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is a manifold.
Equipping $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ with a choice of events turns it into a measurable space.
Since in experiments we eventually come to measure real numbers (or occasionally integers, which can be embedded into the real numbers) the mathematical object that would represent the notion of observable is a map from $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ to $`𝐑`$. However, not all possible maps will do: the structures corresponding to measurable sets have to be preserved. Such functions are called measurable and in the language of probability theory are known as random variables. We shall denote the space they belong to in as $`F(\mathrm{\Omega })`$.

Among all functions, important are characteristic functions of the various subsets of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. These are defined as

$`\chi _A(x)`$ $`=`$ $`1,x\mathrm{\Omega }`$ (4. 11)
$`=`$ $`0,x\mathrm{\Omega }`$ (4. 12)
An important property of the characteristic functions is the following. If $`\lambda `$ is a possible value of a random variable $`f`$ and $`A_\lambda =f^1(\lambda )`$, then it is evident

$$f=𝑑\lambda \lambda \chi _{A_\lambda }.$$
(4. 13)
#### 4.2.2 The decoherence functional

A decoherence functional $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ 444 Note that we changed notation for the decoherence functional from $`d`$, which is the standard in the bibliography to $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and was employed in the previous sections. This was done for reasons of notational convenience ($`d`$ tended to be confused with differentials). The letter $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ stands for phase. is a map from $`𝒞\times 𝒞𝐂`$, such that the following conditions are satisfied
B1. Null triviality: For any $`A𝒞`$, $`\mathrm{\Phi }(\mathrm{},A)=0`$.
In terms of our interpretation of the off-diagonal elements of the decoherence functional as corresponding to Pancharatnam phases, there can be no phase measurement if one of the two beams that have to be interfered is absent.
B2. Hermiticity: For $`A,B𝒞`$, $`\mathrm{\Phi }(B,A)=\mathrm{\Phi }^{}(A,B)`$.
Clearly the phase difference between two histories becomes opposite if we exchange the sequence, by which these histories are considered.
B3. Positivity: For any $`A𝒞`$, $`\mathrm{\Phi }(A,A)0`$.
This amounts to the fact that the diagonal elements of the decoherence functional are interpreted as probabilities (albeit non-additive). Operationally probabilities are defined by the number of times a particular event occurred in the ensemble and by definition they can only be positive.
B4. Normalisation: $`\mathrm{\Phi }(\mathrm{\Omega },\mathrm{\Omega })=1`$.
Clearly, if no measurement takes place the intensity of the beam would never change.
B5. Additivity: If $`A,B,C𝒞`$ and $`AB=\mathrm{}`$, then $`\mathrm{\Phi }(AB,C)=\mathrm{\Phi }(A,C)+\mathrm{\Phi }(B,C)`$.
There is no intuitive operational reason, why this should be the case. This property is equivalent to the superposition principle of quantum theory and we can consider that it is forced upon us by experimental results. Of course, this is the property that makes the decoherence functional the natural object to use.
B6. Boundedness: For all $`A,B𝒞`$, $`|\mathrm{\Phi }(A,B)|1`$. This arises from the operational procedure for the determination of $`|\mathrm{\Phi }(A,B)|`$ .
These axioms are an adaptation of the axioms written by Isham and Linden  for the case of consistent histories.

There are two points one needs to make regarding these axioms. First, the properties of $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ are identical to the matrix elements of a density matrix over some continuous basis (if this is identified with $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$). So the difference of quantum from stochastic processes is that they have a density matrix rather than a probability measure over the sample space of histories.

The second point is that the properties of the decoherence functional are these of a complex probability measure on $`\mathrm{\Omega }\times \mathrm{\Omega }`$. So we need not construct any different mathematics for the development of the theory: standard measure theory will suffice. In particular, we can use the Radon-Nikodym and Kolmogorov theorems that are very important in classical probability theory. Since $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ acts on events its action can be extended to all measurable functions on $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, i.e. we can write it as a map $`\mathrm{\Phi }:F(\mathrm{\Omega })F(\mathrm{\Omega })𝐂`$.

Now, if on $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ there is a Lebesque measure $`dx`$, we can write $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ in terms of s density $`\upsilon `$, i.e.

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(dx,dx^{})=\upsilon (x,x^{})dxdx^{}.$$
(4. 14)
In the trivial case that $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ refers only to a moment of time, it is easy to see that $`\upsilon `$ is written in terms of the density matrix as

$$\upsilon (x,x^{})=\rho (x,x^{})\delta (x,x^{})$$
(4. 15)
in a continuous basis (like position) or

$$\upsilon (x,x^{})=z|\rho |z^{}z^{}|z,$$
(4. 16)
in an overcomplete basis like the coherent states.

### 4.3 Quantum processes

We are interested in the non-trivial case, whenever $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is a space of histories, i.e. it is a suitable chosen subset of $`\times _t\mathrm{\Gamma }_t`$. We shall assume $`t`$ to take values in some interval of the real line, or the real line itself. An element of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ will then be a path on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and will be written written as $`z()`$.

Given a function $`f`$ on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, we can define a family of functions $`F_t`$ on $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ indexed by $`t`$ as

$$F_t[z()]=f(z(t)).$$
(4. 17)
In analogy with the definition of a stochastic process, a quantum process is defined as a triple $`(\mathrm{\Omega },\mathrm{\Phi },F_t^a)`$, where
\- $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is a path space
\- $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is a decoherence functional satisfying the relevant axioms
\- $`F_t^a`$ is a selected family of observables indexed by $`t`$ (not necessarily of the type (4.7)).
From the specification of the family of observables $`F_t^a`$ we can define the mixed correlation functions $`G^{n,m}`$ as

$`G^{n,m}(a_1,t_1;a_2,t_2;\mathrm{};a_n,t_n|b_1,t_1^{};b_2,t_2^{};\mathrm{};b_m,t_m^{})=`$ (4. 18)
$`\mathrm{\Phi }(F_{t_1}^{a_1}F_{t_2}^{a_2}\mathrm{}F_{t_n}^{a_n},F_{t_1^{}}^{b_1}F_{t_2^{}}^{b_2}\mathrm{}F_{t_m^{}}^{b_m}).`$
Here $`G^{n,0}`$ are the time-ordered correlation functions, $`G^{0,m}`$ are the anti-time-ordered and $`G^{n,m}`$ ones containing mixed entries.

From the hierarchy $`G^{n,m}`$ of correlation functions associated to $`F_t^a`$ we can define the corresponding generating functional $`Z_F[J_+,J_{}]`$, which is written in terms of the sources $`J_+^a(t),J_{}^a(t)`$ as

$`Z_F[J_+,J_{}]={\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{m=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{i^n(i)^m}{n!m!}}`$
$`\times {\displaystyle \underset{a_1,\mathrm{}a_n}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{b_1,\mathrm{},b_m}{}}{\displaystyle }dt_1\mathrm{}dt_ndt_1^{}\mathrm{}dt_m^{}`$
$`\times G^{n,m}(a_1,t_1;\mathrm{};a_n,t_n|b_1,t_1^{};\mathrm{};b_m,t_m^{})`$
$`\times J_+^{a_1}(t_1)\mathrm{}J_+^{a_n}(t_n)J_{}^{b_1}(t_1^{})\mathrm{}J_{}^{b_m}(t_m^{})`$ (4. 19)
This is known as the closed-time-path (CTP) generating functional. It was first introduced by Schwinger  and Keldysh . It is particularly relevant to the discussion of systems, in which there does not exist the symmetry of time translation (open quantum systems, field theory in curved spacetime etc). Clearly the CTP generating functional can be written as

$$Z_F[J_+,J_{}]=\mathrm{\Phi }(e^{iFJ_+},e^{iFJ_{}}),$$
(4. 20)
where $`FJ_\pm :=𝑑t_iF_t^iJ_\pm (t)`$.

##### Defining $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$

$`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is in general a path space. In order to define $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ on it, we treat it as a complex measure and employ an analogue of Kolmogorov ’s theorem for probability measures on path spaces. Namely, that $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is uniquely determined by the discrete-time versions of the decoherence functional: i.e. by a hierarchy of distribution functions

$$\upsilon ^{n,m}(z_1,t_1;z_2,t_2;\mathrm{};z_n,t_n|z_1^{},t_1^{};z_m^{},t_m^{})$$
(4. 21)
The functions of this hierarchy need to satisfy the (Kolmogorov) additivity condition:

$`{\displaystyle }dz_{n+1}\upsilon ^{n+1,m}((z_1,t_1;z_2,t_2;\mathrm{};z_n,t_n;z_{n+1},t_{n+1}|z_1^{},t_1^{};z_2^{},t_2^{};\mathrm{};z_m^{},t_m^{})=`$
$`\upsilon ^{n,m}(z_1,t_1;z_2,t_2;\mathrm{};z_n,t_n|z_1^{},t_1^{};z_2^{},t_2^{};\mathrm{};z_m^{},t_m^{}).`$ (4. 22)
The point is that a measure (hence a decoherence functional) for the continuous-time case can be determined by the specification of only discrete-time expressions.

### 4.4 The kinematical process

One can construct quantum processes starting from standard quantum theory, by employing the coherent states. In general, the coherent states provide a from a symplectic manifold $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ to the projective Hilbert space: $`z\mathrm{\Gamma }|zz|`$. If $`f`$ is a function on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ then one can define a corresponding operator on the Hilbert space as

$$A=𝑑zf(z)|zz|.$$
(4. 23)
This is not the only choice, but as we shall see it is the most natural.

We want first to define the kinematical process, i.e. the quantum process that corresponds to a system with vanishing Hamiltonian.

Having $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ one can define the space $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ of continuous paths on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and the family of functions $`F_t^a`$ associated to the $`f^a`$ of equation (4.13). All that is missing from the definition of a quantum processes is the specification of a decoherence functional. This is achieved by specifying the hierarchy of ordered distribution functions $`\upsilon ^{n,m}`$. To do so, we write the time instants in terms of their ordering $`t_1t_2\mathrm{}t_n`$, and $`t_1^{}t_2^{}\mathrm{}t_m^{}`$. If we write $`\widehat{\alpha }_z=|zz|`$ we will have

$`\upsilon _{z_0}^{n,m}(z_1,t_1;z_2,t_2;\mathrm{};z_n,t_n|z_1^{},t_1^{};z_2^{},t_2^{};\mathrm{};z_m^{},t_m^{})=`$
$`Tr\left(\widehat{\alpha }_{z_n}\widehat{\alpha }_{z_{n1}}\mathrm{}\widehat{\alpha }_{z_2}\widehat{\alpha }_{z_1}\widehat{\alpha }_{z_0}\widehat{\alpha }_{z_1^{}}\mathrm{}\widehat{\alpha }_{z_{m1}^{}}\widehat{\alpha }_{z_m^{}}\right)=`$
$`z_m^{}|z_nz_n|z_{n1}\mathrm{}z_2|z_1z_1|z_0z_0|z_1^{}z_1^{}|z_2^{}\mathrm{}z_{m1}^{}|z_m^{}.`$ (4. 24)
Let us now note the following concerning the kinematical process.
1. The expression for the distribution function factorises in products of the form $`z|z^{}`$. The knowledge of this inner product, suffices to fully determine the kinematical process. In fact, the distribution function $`\upsilon ^{n,m}`$ is known as the $`n+m+1`$ Bargmann invariant .
2. The distributions $`\upsilon ^{n,m}`$ do not depend on the values of time $`t`$, only on their ordering. The same is true for $`t^{}`$. More than that, if we consider the following cyclic ordering for the time instants $`t_0t_1t_2\mathrm{}t_nt_m^{}\mathrm{}t_2^{}t_1^{}t_0`$, the distributions are invariant if we consider any time as origin and then proceed cyclically along the arrows. In other words, the kinematic process manifests the symmetry of a closed time path.
3. Unlike stochastic processes, in which the kinematical process is trivial (the hierarchy of distribution functions consists only of products of delta functions), quantum processes manifest all quantum mechanical behaviour (interferences etc) already at the kinematical level. The introduction of dynamics requires only the minor modification of substituting $`z|e^{iH(tt^{})}|z`$ for $`z|z^{}`$ in equation (4.14).
4. Let us consider that the process being defined in the time interval $`[0,\tau ]`$ and consider the distribution function $`\upsilon ^{n,m}`$ for large values of $`n`$ and $`m`$. Take for simplicity $`n=m=N`$. Choose also the time instants such that $`|t_it_{i1}|\delta t=\tau /N`$ for all $`i`$ and similarly for $`t^{}`$. Also, let $`t_n=t_m^{}=\tau `$. Then we have a discretised approximation to a decoherence functional for continuous paths $`z(),z^{}()`$, which for $`N\mathrm{}`$ would converge to

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(z(),z^{}())=e^{i_Cz|d|z}+O(\delta t^2)=e^{i_CA}+O(\delta t^2),$$
(4. 25)
where $`C`$ is the closed path obtained by appending the path $`z^{}()`$ with reverse orientation at the end of $`z()`$. The distribution function for the decoherence functional then converges at the large $`N`$ limit to the holonomy of a $`U(1)`$ connection on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, the same geometrical object that is introduced in the geometric quantisation scheme. Of course, this convergence is to be interpreted with a grain of salt as the support of the decoherence functional is primarily not on differentiable paths, for which the holonomy is rigorously defined.

### 4.5 Quantum differential equations

In any theory that is based on histories, one can sharply distinguish between two different aspects of temporal symmetries. This has been pointed out by Savvidou  and forms one of the basic features of the histories quantisation programme. We can define a purely kinematical time translation, by which the time translation is effected as

$$F_tF_{t+s},$$
(4. 26)
and there exists the dynamical time-translation generated by the Hamiltonian. These are completely distinct and correspond to the different functions of the notion of time in the physical theory (causal ordering/kinematics vs change/ dynamics).

As we showed earlier, the characteristic quantum mechanical behaviour exists already at the kinematical level and the decoherence functional depend only on the causal ordering of the events constituting the histories. We are, therefore, tempted to take the kinematical process as basic and seek to write a general quantum process in terms of it. In effect, we want to view the kinematical process as the analogue of the Wiener process in classical probability theory: a general object through which any other process can be defined.

In classical stochastic processes the relation between a process $`x`$ and the Wiener process $`W`$ 555 Denoting the Wiener process as $`W`$ is a shorthand: the Wiener process refers to the underlying sample space, the particular probability measure and the basic variables $`W^a`$. is expressed in terms of stochastic differential equations, known in physics as Langevin equations. They are, in general, of the form

$$dx^a+f^a(x)dt=dW^a(t).$$
(4. 27)
In effect the Wiener term acts as a random driving force on a deterministic equation. Can we do the same for the case of the quantum processes?

It turns out that we can. Using explicitly the distinction between the kinematical and dynamical time translations, we referred to earlier we can write an analogous quantum differential equation:

$$dz^a+f^a(z)dt=d\xi ^a(t),$$
(4. 28)
where $`z^a`$ are variables (coordinates on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$) undergoing a quantum process with a given Hamiltonian $`H`$, $`f^a`$ are some particular functions on phase space depending on the Hamiltonian  and $`\xi ^a`$ are variables on the phase space (the same functions as $`z^a`$) but corresponding to a kinematical process. As in the classical case, the differentials have t be interpreted with care as in general the sample paths $`z_t^a`$ are not differentiable. This equation is written at the same level of rigor as the standard stochastic differential equations.

In line with Einstein’s remark we gave in section one, we want to remark on the appealing possibility that equation (4.18) can be interpreted as referring to an individual system in analogy to the classical Langevin equations. That is, we can consider that equation (4.18) refers to an individual system (a particle), which is found within a “fluctuating environment”, that induces the “random forces” $`\dot{\xi }^a(t)`$. However, these forces are not distributed according to a classical probability distribution, but according to the kinematic processes (and are possibly geometrical in origin).

We are not in a position to argue, whether this interpretation of equation (4.18) should be taken seriously or not. The reasons are partly mathematical and partly physical: from the mathematical side we need to verify that such equations are more than empty symbols: is it actually a type of equation that can admit solutions? We hope to justify such equations by adopting the theory of stochastic integrals (of Ito) in the quantum context. From a physical point of view, even though we are committed to finding a description for the individual quantum system, the picture of a particle moving under random forces is not necessarily our first choice: it is too classical and there is no geometric naturality (the functions $`f`$ in (4.18) have no apparent geometric interpretation).

Nonetheless, equation (4.18) has large theoretical interest: it demonstrates that it is possible in principle to unravel the statistical description of quantum theory into a description of individual system. The description in terms of quantum differential equations may not be fundamental, it probably is not the physically correct way to approach individual system, but it proves a point: a description of individual quantum systems that fully agrees in the ensemble statistics with standard quantum theory is not impossible.

Moreover, we would like to see, whether it would be possible to simulate its solutions numerically as we can do with stochastic processes. This would provide a way of generating actual trajectories for individual quantum systems.

## 5 Reconstruction theorem

In the previous section, we showed how to obtain quantum processes starting from quantum theory. Now, we want to invert this procedure and ask how one can obtain standard quantum theory starting from a generic quantum process, that satisfies the axioms stated in section .

Our result is simpler than we expected. We essentially found that we can uniquely determine the quantum mechanical Hilbert space, the observables and the evolution equations from the ingredients of a quantum process, if this process satisfies the (analogue of) the Markov property. The Markov property roughly states that if the state of the system (i.e the restricted decoherence functional at a moment of time) is completely specified, then it contains sufficient information to determine the state of the system at any subsequent moment of time.

The Markov property implies (this is often taken as its defining property) that the distribution functions that define decoherence functional can be written as

$`\upsilon ^{N+1,N+1}(z_0,t_0;z_1,t_1;\mathrm{};z_N,t_{N1}|z_0^{},t_0;z_1,t_1;\mathrm{};z_{N1}^{},t_{N1})=`$
$`\upsilon (z_N,z_N^{};t_N|z_{N1},z_{N1}^{};t_{N1})\mathrm{}\upsilon (z_1,z_1^{};t_1|z_0,z_0^{};t_0)\rho _0(z_0,z_0^{}),`$ (5. 29)
in terms of a propagator $`\upsilon (z_1,z_2;t|z_1^{},z_2^{};t^{})`$ and an initial “state” at $`t=0`$ 666 Note that we have written only the diagonal elements of the hierarchy of functions. But it can be easily shown that they can be used to construct the full hierarchy $`\upsilon ^{n,m}`$ by virtue of the Kolmogorov additivity condition..

The propagator $`\upsilon `$ needs to satisfy the quantum Chapman-Kolmogorov equation:

$$\upsilon (z_1,z_1^{};t|z_0,z_0^{};s)=𝑑z𝑑z^{}\upsilon (z_1,z_1^{};t|z,z^{};s^{})\upsilon (z,z^{};s^{}|z_0,z_0^{};s).$$
(5. 30)
Now, what we have proven is a reconstruction theorem, which can loosely be stated as follows.
Reconstruction theorem: Assume we have a stochastic process $`(\mathrm{\Omega },\mathrm{\Phi },F_t^a)`$ that satisfies the Markov property. If in addition
i. the propagator is a smooth function of its arguments and the time entries,
ii. the process is time-homogeneous,
iii. the process is time-reversible ,
then we can reconstruct the quantum mechanical Hilbert space and the Heisenberg evolution equations.
Sketch of the proof: Time homogeneity means that the propagator depends only on the time difference $`tt^{}`$, hence can be written as $`\upsilon _t(z_1,z_2|z_1^{},z_2^{})`$. Time-reversibility is defined as $`\upsilon _t^{}(z_1,z_2|z_1^{},z_2^{})=\upsilon _t(z_1,z_2|z_1^{},z_2^{})`$. It is easy to show, that this implies that $`\upsilon `$ is factorised as $`\upsilon _t(z_1,z_2|z_1^{},z_2^{})=\psi _t(z_1|z_1^{})\psi _t^{}(z_2|z_2^{})`$, in terms of another kernel that also satisfies a version of the Chapman-Kolmogorov equality

$$\psi _t(z|z^{})=𝑑z^{\prime \prime }\psi _{ts}(z|z^{\prime \prime })\psi _s(z^{\prime \prime }|z^{}).$$
(5. 31)
The condition (i) is important. It ensures that when $`t0`$, $`\psi `$ remains a nice (i.e. differentiable) function (not a distribution), say $`\chi (z|z^{}):=\psi _0(z|z^{})`$, hence the kinematical process will not be trivial. In this case the Chapman-Kolmogorov identity states that

$$\chi (z|z^{})=𝑑z^{\prime \prime }\chi (z|z^{\prime \prime })\chi (z^{\prime \prime }|z^{}),$$
(5. 32)
hence $`\chi `$ defines a projection operator $`E`$ on $`^2(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$. The range of $`E`$ is the quantum mechanical Hilbert space $`H`$. Moreover, the dynamics encoded in $`\psi _t`$ correspond to an one-parameter group of unitary transformations that commutes with $`E`$ and can thus be projected on $`H`$ giving rise to Hamiltonian evolution.

One can also use a standard $`GNS`$ construction  to construct a family of coherent states $`|z`$ on $`H`$ such that

$$z|z^{}=\chi (z|z^{}).$$
(5. 33)
In this case a function $`f`$ on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is mapped into an operator $`A=𝑑z|zz|`$. In particular, a phase space cell $`C`$ is mapped to a positive operator $`P_C=_C𝑑z|zz|`$.
One remark needs to be made at this point. Our procedure so far is axiomatic and not constructive. If one wants to explicitly construct the quantum process one needs to write the coherent states propagator. This can be rigorously defined by a phase space path integral, in which the Planck’s constant enters through a Riemannian metric on the phase space that is employed for regularisation .

## 6 Interpretational issues

The difference between quantum processes and standard quantum theory lies only in the determination of which object correspond to sharp events. Quantum mechanics admits projection operators, while the theory of quantum processes admits phase space cells. These are represented by a positive operator-valued-measure $`C\widehat{C}=_C𝑑z|zz|`$, for any measurable subset $`C`$ of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$.

The question then arises, which of the basic principles of quantum theory is (are ) violated by this change and whether this violation has empirical consequences.

It can be shown  that the only difference between the theory of quantum processes and standard quantum mechanics is (what we shall call) the spectral principle
The possible values for an observable correspond to the points of the spectrum of the corresponding operator.
It is a corollary of this postulate, that a proposition about possible values of an observable is represented by a projection operator.

Now, in a quantum process the spectrum of an operator is simply not relevant to the values of the corresponding observable, because at the fundamental level observables are functions on the history space $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. Clearly there is little difference as far as observables with continuous spectrum are concerned (position, momentum etc). The difference lies, of course, in the case of observables with discrete spectrum.

The case of discrete spectrum is, in fact, what has given quantum phenomena their name, as it is this through the discrete spectrum of operators that the paradigmatic quantum behaviour is manifested: historically it was the black body radiation, the photoelectric effect and the Bohr’s atom transitions that put discreteness as a basic feature of the new mechanics. For this reason the spectral postulate was highlighted in all early work of quantum theory: it provided a simple solution to the problems that had faced a generation of physicists. Later mathematical development -namely the spectral theorem - offered this postulate the additional justification of mathematical elegance.

It would seem that this is one of the most solid postulates of quantum mechanics, the last one to be taken away from any possible modification of the theory. After all it provides the solution to the physical puzzles that led to quantum mechanics. However, as we are going to argue it is the postulate of quantum theory that is least justified empirically, when taken by itself.

To see this we shall consider the case of atom spectroscopy, which has been historically the main arena justifying the spectral postulate. When we study the electromagnetic radiation emitted from atoms, we see that the intensity of the electromagnetic field has peaks in particular discrete values of the frequency. Then assuming energy conservation, the photons are viewed as arising from a transition between two ”states” of an atom , each of which is characterised by a sharp value of energy. The fact that we measure a number of sharp peaks rather than a smoother distribution of field intensity plotted versus frequency, leads to the conclusion that the possible values of atom’s energy are discrete. If we take that this experiment measures the energy of the atom, then we have discrete values for the energy, something that is naturally explained in terms of the spectral postulate: in any individual measurement only points of the spectrum of the operator are obtained.

We believe that this is a fair summary of the argument that leads to the acceptance of the spectral postulate in this particular context. We shall now see, that the conclusions of the argument is by no means necessary. Let us first make the too obvious remark, that the measurement of the intensity peaks never yields sharp values, rather only peaks with finite width. The width is due not only to experimental errors, but comes fundamentally from the time-energy uncertainty relation. Hence, it is only in an idealisation that the atom’s energy values are discrete.

However, the most important argument is that the description in terms of atom transitions is semiclassical rather than quantum. What we measure in spectroscopy is the energy/frequency of the electromagnetic field. We typically assumed that the emitted photons are incoherent (both in the classical and the quantum sense), so that the emitted electromagnetic field can be considered as an ensemble of photons. Then, we can idealise the experiments as setting filters that allow only very narrow frequency (energy) range to pass and measure the intensities. The whole experiment is then fully described by energy measurements of the photons. One can give an equivalent description in terms of the electromagnetic fields. So the actual observables that correspond to the set-up of the experiment is photon energies or fluxes, not atomic energies. And these energies can be described by continuous variables in either quantum theory or in the quantum process description.

The attribution of discrete energy values to the atom comes from a semiclassical picture of the atom/field interaction; it involves a mixture of old quantum theory concepts (orbitals, transitions), with the framework of mature quantum theory. This picture is helpful for calculations, it provides an intuitive picture of the interaction, but it is not fundamentally quantum mechanical. A precise treatment ought to consider the combined system field-atom, interacting perhaps through QED and then consider energy measurements of the electromagnetic field at particular spatial locations. In such a description all information about the process (including the atom’s eigenvalues) would be found in the correlation functions of the electromagnetic field: but these are predicted by quantum processes in full agreement with standard quantum theory.

What we imply by this argument, is that historically the discrete values of observables actually refer to the spectrum of the Hamiltonian, rather than any arbitrary observable. The information about its eigenvalues is fully contained in the correlation functions: once these are provided, we can read off any discretised behaviour. In other words, the discrete behaviour in quantum theory is not fundamental or ontological, but arises due to particular forms of the dynamics. This is true even for spin systems: the ”discrete” spin values are always measured in conjunction with its coupling to some magnetic field.

## 7 Conclusions

Let conclude in the form of a summary:
1. We argued that complex numbers (or a U(1) invariance of probabilities) is an inherent and irreducible component of quantum probability. Their effect is the existence of statistical quantities that can be determined by experiment that have no analogue in quantum probability: these are the geometric phases that can be determined by comparing two  distinct histories of the system. Compared to classical probability these phases correspond to novel operational concepts.
2. The consistent histories approach provides the best formalism to take the phase information into account: there exists an 1-1 map between observable quantities (including phases) and mathematical objects. This comes from the relation of the values of the decoherence functional to the Pancharatnam phase. We do not need, however, to subscribe to the standard interpretation of consistent histories. Throughout this paper we prefer to keep an operational perspective.
3. Taking phases as primitive objects of the formalism necessitates the use of non-additive probabilities. Theories with non-additive probabilities can be described by commutative observables (or classical logic or hidden variables) without violating Bell’s theorem or Kochen-Specker’s theorem.
4. We can write a theory of quantum processes in analogy with the theory of stochastic processes. This theory has a well-defined sample space 777 In a recent paper, Kent makes the very accurate remark that the quantum measurement problem should be more accurately phrased as what is exactly the sample space of the quantum system . Our answer could have come out of Bohr: the sample space is identical to the one of the corresponding classical system. (we choose the classical phase space). The only difference is that in the quantum case the relevant object is a “density matrix” in the space of paths. In this picture, the Schrödinger equation is an exact analogue of the Fokker-Planck equation. Moreover, we can unravel the statistical description to write (at least formally) quantum equations. They can be thought of, as corresponding to individual systems; whether they correspond to real physics is doubtful, but they prove that Einstein’s suggestion that quantum theory is a statistical theory arising out of yet unknown physics for the individual system is possible and not in conflict with any predictions of quantum theory.

5. Its physical implications aside, it would be very interesting to see if the solutions to quantum differential equations can be found numerically. We would be, then, able to simulate the evolution of individual quantum systems.
6. Starting from quantum processes we get standard quantum theory, by assuming the Markov property, time homogeneity, time-reversibility and the non-triviality of the kinematical process. Hence, the structure of the Hilbert space necessitates the Markov condition, which presupposes a background causal structure. In absence of this the Hilbert space is not necessary or even natural. This could be the case in quantum gravity.
7. Finally, we want to identify, how the spacetime symmetries are implemented in the theory of stochastic processes: the relation with the histories quantisation programme guided our choice of sample space. After all, our motivation is to find a covariant description of quantum systems, that would allow us to tackle the quantisation of gravity. What we would like to see is that the complex phases of quantum theory, would be deeply intertwined with the spacetime structure (perhaps in a fashion analogous to an old conjecture by Penrose?).

## Acknowledgments

I would like to thank the organisers of the conference and Edgard Gunzig, in particular, for their invitation and the very gracious hospitality.

I would also like to thank N. Savvidou for long discussions and a fruitful interaction in many aspects of this project.

The research was supported by a Marie Curie Fellowship of the European Commission. The Commission is not responsible for any views expressed here.


format: text

text:
# Chandra High Resolution Camera Imaging of GRS 1758–258

## 1. Introduction

GRS 1758–258 and its sister source,  1E 1740.7–2942, were the first objects dubbed “micro-quasars” (Mirabel et al., 1992; Mirabel, 1994). Their X-ray spectra are typical of Galactic black hole candidates (BHCs), and they are apparently associated with the time variable cores of arcminute scale double-lobed radio sources, reminiscent of extra-Galactic radio sources. This morphology, seen on a parsec scale within the Milky Way, earned them their nickname.  GRS 1758–258 and  1E 1740.7–2942 are the brightest persistent sources in the Galactic bulge above $``$50 keV (Sunyaev et al., 1991). Their timing characteristics are typical of the black hole low/hard state (Main et al., 1999; Smith et al., 1997; Heindl et al., 1993; Sunyaev et al., 1991), and they consistently emit near their brightest observed levels, although they vary over times of days to years. Their X-ray emission properties are readily likened to the canonical BHC, Cyg X-1. In fact, together with Cyg X-1, they are the only known persistent, low-state BHCs, and all three sources have maximum luminosities around $`3\times 10^{37}`$ergs s-1. Radio jets have now been observed in Cyg X-1, furthering the similarity (Fender, 2000).

GRS 1758–258 and  1E 1740.7–2942 are, however, quite different from the Galactic superluminal radio sources (e.g. GRS 1915+105 and GRO J1655-40) more typically thought of as micro-quasars. The X-ray emission from these objects is much brighter and more spectacularly variable. Their radio jets, too, are brighter and are highly variable, being unresolved or absent except during exceptional ejection events which last only weeks. In contrast, the radio lobes of  GRS 1758–258 and  1E 1740.7–2942 are quite stable (Martí et al., 2002).

The association of  GRS 1758–258 and  1E 1740.7–2942 with their corresponding radio counterparts has been based primarily on relatively coarse ($``$10 ′′) X-ray positions and the very unusual (and yet nearly identical) nature of the radio sources. Some hint of correlated radio and hard X-ray emission was found for  1E 1740.7–2942 (Mirabel et al., 1993), and recently Cui et al. (2001) confirmed the X-ray/radio association for  1E 1740.7–2942 by using Chandra to obtain a precise X-ray position. In this *Letter* we do the same for  GRS 1758–258, and using the fine resolution of the High Resolution Camera (HRC) place limits on emission from any arcsecond scale jets.

## 2. Observations

We observed  GRS 1758–258 four times with Chandra. Table 1 lists the observation dates and durations. Two HRC-I observations were made in 2000 September-October spanning an intermediate-to-hard spectral transition (identified with  RXTE, Smith, Markwardt & Heindl, 2001; Smith et al., 2001). Another HRC-I and an ACIS/HETG observation were made back-to-back in 2001 March following a dramatic hard-to-soft transition to a *very* low flux state (Smith et al., 2001). Figure 1 shows the  RXTE/PCA light curve with our Chandra observations indicated. In each observation, a highly significant point source was detected at a location consistent with the known  GRS 1758–258 position. In this paper we discuss the accurate X-ray position and morphology of  GRS 1758–258 as observed with the HRC and in the HETG zero order image. Preliminary results, both spatial and spectral, from these observations were reported in Heindl & Smith (2001).

## 3. Analysis and Results

The HRC observations were processed with ASCDS version R4CU5UPD14.1, and the ACIS-S observation with version R4CU5UPD14.5. All four datasets were processed with CALDB version 2.4. This is particularly important for the HRC data, as CALDB versions 2.2 and later incorporate up to date “degapping” coefficients necessary to provide artifact free images (Kenter, 2001). For this work, we applied the absolute pointing corrections available as of 2002 May 2
(http://cxc.harvard.edu/cal/ASPECT/celmon)
which accounts for slight differences with the results reported in Heindl & Smith (2001). We used CIAO 2.2 (Chandra Interactive Analysis of Observations) tools throughout these analyses.

### 3.1. Source Location

To determine the position of  GRS 1758–258, we extracted an image of the central region of the field for each observation, binned at the full level 2 events file resolution ($``$0′′.13 per pixel for the HRC and $``$0′′.49 for ACIS-S). We then applied the CIAO tool “wavdetect” to find the coordinates of the source. The uncertainty in the location of the source within the image is small compared to the overall Chandra aspect uncertainties. According to Chandra X-ray Observatory Center documents (see http://asc.harvard.edu/cal/ASPECT), the RMS uncertainty in absolute position determinations at the time of our observations was 0′′.6, corresponding to a 90% confidence radius of $`\mathrm{R}_{90}=`$ 0′′.9 for a single pointing. The measured deviation of our four positions is 0′′.41 RMS, consistent with these calibrations. We averaged the four measurements (applying equal weights to each and assuming the advertised 0′′.6 RMS uncertainty) to derive $`𝐑_{\mathrm{𝟗𝟎}}=\mathrm{𝟎}{}_{}{}^{\prime \prime }\mathbf{.45}`$. This assumes that the positions are Gaussian distributed and that no systematic error causes an offset in the resulting mean position. We note that two observations were made with spacecraft roll angles near 90(see Table 1), while the others had roll angles near 270. This would tend to cancel any roll angle dependent systematic offsets.

Figure 2 shows the measured source locations from our four Chandra observations as well as the estimated confidence region. The ACIS-S/HETG position (400163) was based on the zeroth-order image. While the image was significantly piled up, we expect a negligible effect on the position (Marshall, 2001). The Chandra 0′′.45 radius error circle is centered at (J2000)  *RA $`=`$ 18h 01m 12s.39, Dec $`=`$ $``$25 44 36′′.1*.

We note that a second source (designated
CXOU J180106.1$``$253903; RA $`=`$ 18h 01m 06s.1, Dec $`=`$ $``$25 39 03′′.0, $`\mathrm{R}_{90}=0{}_{}{}^{\prime \prime }.9`$) was detected in all three HRC pointings, and a third (CXOU J180031.0$``$254154; RA $`=`$ 18h 00m 31s.0, Dec $`=`$ $``$25 41 53′′.9, $`\mathrm{R}_{90}=1{}_{}{}^{\prime \prime }.7`$) was marginally detected in a single pointing (see Table 2). The Chandra position for CXOU J180106.1$``$253903 is 0.76′′ from a USNO-A2 star with red and blue magnitudes of 14.7 and 15.9 respectively. While this star may be the optical counterpart of CXOU J180106.1$``$253903, no astrometric reference lies within 5′′ of CXOU J180031.0$``$254154. A single precision frame tie, particularly 6 off axis, is inadequate to improve dead-reckoning astrometry. Therefore, we have not applied any aspect correction based on the possible identification of CXOU J180106.1$``$253903.

### 3.2. Image Analysis

To search for extended emission (e.g. jets) which would appear as asymmetries in the image peak, we performed Gaussian fits to slices through the peak taken over a range of position angles. We performed the same analysis on an HRC observation of the RS CVn binary, AR Lac. AR Lac is expected to be a point source, and given its very low column density ($`N_H<2\times 10^{18}`$$`\mathrm{cm}^2`$ Kaastra et al., 1996), should also lack any significant scattering halo. Figure 3 shows the resulting Gaussian sigmas plotted as a function of slice position angle in detector coordinates for all three  GRS 1758–258 and the AR Lac HRC observations. In all cases, a roughly sinusoidal variation is seen with an amplitude of $``$0′′.06. The phase of the variation is the same in all observations. We note that observation 400164 has a slightly higher amplitude (0′′.08), but because the phase is unchanged and the overall size of the effect is so small, we conclude that this is not indicative of source structure. We therefore attribute these variations to instrumental effects, and conclude that  GRS 1758–258 is consistent with a point source.

## 4. Discussion

Goldwurm et al. (2001) recently used *XMM* data to derive a 5′′ error radius for  GRS 1758–258. This work, which is consistent with their result, reduces the area of the error region by two orders of magnitude. The coincidence of the sub-arcsecond VLA and Chandra error circles seals the association of  GRS 1758–258, the X-ray source, with the variable radio source (“VLA-C”, Martí et al., 1998). From radio source counts (Condon, 1984), we estimate a chance probability of $``$$`10^5`$ for a radio source brighter than VLA-C (0.2 mJy) to fall in the Chandra error circle. Martí et al. (1998) identified two candidate counterparts to VLA-C in I and K band images. The brighter and closer candidate was found through multi-band photometry and near infrared spectroscopy most likely to be an early K giant. Revised astrometry (Rothstein et al., 2002) of infrared observations by Eikenberry et al. (2001) confirm that this star (labeled ‘A’) is consistent with VLA-C at the 3$`\sigma `$ level. The second candidate of Martí et al. (1998) is likely a main sequence F star, but is inconsistent with the astrometry of Rothstein et al. (2002). Furthermore, Smith, Heindl & Swank (2002) have found a low amplitude ($``$4%), $`18.45\pm 0.10`$ dy periodic modulation of the  GRS 1758–258 X-ray emission observed with  RXTE. This period fits well with the orbit of a Roche lobe filling K giant companion (Rothstein et al., 2002), and so a more complete picture of  GRS 1758–258 is emerging. With the X-ray/radio association confirmed and periodic X-ray emission pointing to a K giant,  GRS 1758–258 appears to be a black hole with an intermediate mass giant companion.

GRS 1915$`+`$105 (Greiner, Cuby & McCaughrean, 2001), GRO J1655$``$40 (Shahbaz et al., 1999), XTE J1550$``$564 (Orosz et al., 2002), and now  GRS 1758–258 – all four of the black hole microquasars in low mass systems – have evolved companions. Meanwhile, jets have not been observed in the more common black hole soft X-ray transients (SXTs) with main sequence companions. This prompts us to examine the connection between giant companions and jet activity. Perhaps an evolved companion overflows its Roche lobe by a large factor, providing a higher typical accretion rate. These four objects are persistent or quasi-persistent, having very different time histories from the standard SXT “fast rise and exponential decay” light curve. The SXT outbursts are driven by an accretion instability following long periods of relatively low accretion rates (see for example, Cannizzo, 1998). Possibly steady, high rate accretion provides an environment conducive to jet formation.

Finally, we note that the present lack of X-ray jets is completely consistent with the energetics of the radio lobes. Rodríguez, Mirabel & Martí (1992), assuming a distance of 8.5 kpc, estimated the luminosity of the radio lobes to be $``$$`10^{30}`$$`\mathrm{ergs}\mathrm{s}^1`$and their energy content to be roughly $`10^{44}`$ ergs. With a typical X-ray luminosity of a few$`\times 10^{37}`$$`\mathrm{ergs}\mathrm{s}^1`$, the present lobes could have been energized by a small fraction of the X-ray power over a period as short as a few years. In fact, given the long lifetime ($``$$`3\times 10^6`$ yr) of the radio lobes, this indicates that either the duty cycle for or efficiency of feeding the jets (or both) is very low.

This work was supported by Chandra General Observer Project awards GO0-1116A and GO1-2035X.