Quantum Information & Computation
Volume 25, Issue 6
RESEARCH ARTICLE Open access

Bit Symmetry Entails the Symmetry of the Quantum Transition Probability

Gerd Niestegge

Author affiliations
  1. Freelance Researcher, Ahaus, Germany

pp. 633-639 · 10.2478/qic-2025-0034

Read PDF View on Reference Global
On this page

Abstract

It is quite common to use the generalized probabilistic theories (GPTs) as generic models to reconstruct quantum theory from a few basic principles and to gain a better understanding of the probabilistic or information theoretic foundations of quantum physics and quantum computing. A variety of symmetry postulates was introduced and studied in this framework, including the transitivity of the automorphism group (1) on the pure states, (2) on the pairs of orthogonal pure states [these pairs are called 2-frames] and (3) on any frames of the same size. The second postulate is Müller and Ududec’s bit symmetry, which they motivate by quantum computational needs. Here we explore these three postulates in the transition probability framework, which is more specific than the GPTs since the existence of the transition probabilities for the quantum logical atoms is presupposed either directly or indirectly via a certain geometric property of the state space. This property for compact convex sets was introduced by the author in a recent paper. We show that bit symmetry implicates the symmetry of the transition probabilities between the atoms. Using a result by Barnum and Hilgert, we can then conclude that the third rather strong symmetry postulate rules out all models but the classical cases and the simple Euclidean Jordan algebras.
Open accessCC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Keywords

  • quantum transition probability
  • convex sets
  • state spaces
  • quantum information
  • self-dual cones
  • Euclidean Jordan algebras
  • quantum logicss

Suggested citation

Gerd Niestegge (2025). Bit Symmetry Entails the Symmetry of the Quantum Transition Probability. Quantum Information & Computation, 25(6), 633-639. https://doi.org/10.2478/qic-2025-0034

Download BibTeX

References (18)

  1. H. Barnum, M. A. Graydon and A. Wilce (2020). Composites and categories of Euclidean Jordan algebras. Quantum, 4:359. (doi:10.22331/q-2020-11-08-359).DOI: 10.22331/q-2020-11-08-359Google Scholar
  2. J. Barrett (2007). Information processing in generalized probabilistic theories. Physical Review A, 75(3):032304. (doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.75.032304).DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevA.75.032304Google Scholar
  3. M. Müller (2021). Probabilistic theories and reconstructions of quantum theory. SciPost Physics Lecture Notes, page 028. (doi:10.21468/SciPostPhysLectNotes.28).DOI: 10.21468/SciPostPhysLectNotes.28Google Scholar
  4. M. P. Müller and C. Ududec (2012). Structure of reversible computation determines the self-duality of quantum theory. Physical Review Letters, 108(13):130401. (doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.108.130401).DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.108.130401Google Scholar
  5. A. Wilce (2019). Conjugates, filters and quantum mechanics. Quantum, 3:158. (doi:10.22331/q-2019-07-08-158).DOI: 10.22331/q-2019-07-08-158Google Scholar
  6. G. Niestegge (2020). Quantum probability’s algebraic origin. Entropy, 22(11):1196 (doi:10.3390/e22111196).DOI: 10.3390/e22111196Google Scholar
  7. G. Niestegge (2022). A generic approach to the quantum mechanical transition probability. Proceedings Royal Society A, 478:20210821. (doi:10.1098/rspa.2021.0821).DOI: 10.1098/rspa.2021.0821Google Scholar
  8. G. Niestegge (2024). Non-symmetric transition probability in generalized qubit models. Foundations of Physics, 54(9). (doi:10.1007/s10701-023-00744-4).DOI: 10.1007/s10701-023-00744-4Google Scholar
  9. G. Niestegge (2024). Quantum transition probability in convex sets and self-dual cones. Proceedings Royal Society A, 480:20230941. (doi:10.1098/rspa.2023.0941).DOI: 10.1098/rspa.2023.0941Google Scholar
  10. H. Barnum and J. Hilgert (2020). Spectral properties of convex bodies. Journal of Lie Theory, 30:315–344. (doi:10.48550/arXiv.1904.03753).DOI: 10.5802/jolt.1118Google Scholar
  11. E. M. Alfsen and F. W. Shultz (2003). Geometry of state spaces of operator algebras. Birkhäuser, Basel, Switzerland.DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4612-0019-2Google Scholar
  12. H. Hanche-Olsen and E. Størmer (1984). Jordan operator algebras. Pitman, Boston, MA.Google Scholar
  13. J. Horne (1978). On the automorphism group of a cone. Linear Algebra and its Applications, 21(2):111–121. (doi:10.1016/0024-3795(78)90035-6).DOI: 10.1016/0024-3795(78)90035-6Google Scholar
  14. G. Kimura and K. Nuida (2014). On affine maps on non-compact convex sets and some characterizations of finitedimensional solid ellipsoids. Journal of Geometry and Physics, 86:1–18. (doi:10.1016/j.geomphys.2014.06.004).DOI: 10.1016/j.geomphys.2014.06.004Google Scholar
  15. R. Sanyal, F. Sottile and B. Sturmfels (2011). Orbitobes. Mathematika, 57(2):275–314. (doi:10.1112/S002557931100132X).DOI: 10.1112/S002557931100132XGoogle Scholar
  16. A. Wilce (2012). Four and a half axioms for finite-dimensional quantum probability. In Probability in Physics, pages 281–298. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, Germany. (doi:10.1007/978-3-642-21329-8).DOI: 10.1007/978-3-642-21329-8_17Google Scholar
  17. G. Niestegge (2017). Quantum teleportation and Grover’s algorithm without the wavefunction. Foundations of Physics, 47(2):274–293. (doi: 10.1007/s10701-016-0060-5).DOI: 10.1007/s10701-016-0060-5Google Scholar
  18. G. Niestegge (2017). Quantum key distribution without the wavefunction. International Journal of Quantum Information, 15(06):1750048. (doi: 10.1142/S0219749917500484).DOI: 10.1142/S0219749917500484Google Scholar