Jos Uffink

Can the maximum entropy principle be explained as a consistency requirement

The principle of maximum entropy is a general method to assign values to probability distributions on the basis of partial information. This principle, introduced by Jaynes in 1957, forms an extension of the classical principle of insufficient reason. It has been further generalized, both in mathematical formulation and in intended scope, into the principle of maximum relative entropy or of minimum information. It has been claimed that these principles are singled out as unique methods of statistical inference that agree with certain compelling consistency requirements. This paper reviews these consistency arguments and the surrounding controversy. It is shown that the uniqueness proofs are flawed, or rest on unreasonably strong assumptions. A more general class of inference rules, maximizing the so-called Renyi entropies, is exhibited which also fulfill the reasonable part of the consistency assumptions.

The Origins of Time-Asymmetry in Thermodynamics: The Minus First Law

This paper investigates what the source of time-asymmetry is in thermodynamics, and comments on the question whether a time-symmetric formulation of the Second Law is possible.

The constraint rule of the maximum entropy principle

Abstract The principle of maximum entropy is a method for assigning values to probability distributions on the basis of partial information. In usual formulations of this and related methods of inference one assumes that this partial information takes the form of a constraint on allowed probability distributions. In practical applications, however, the information consists of empirical data. A constraint rule is then employed to construct constraints on probability distributions out of these data. Usually one adopts the rule that equates the expectation values of certain functions with their empirical averages. There are, however, various other ways in which one can construct constraints from empirical data, which makes the maximum entropy principle lead to very different probability assignments. This paper shows that an argument by Jaynes to justify the usual constraint rule is unsatisfactory and investigates several alternative choices. The choice of a constraint rule is also shown to be of crucial importance to the debate on the question whether there is a conflict between the methods of inference based on maximum entropy and Bayesian conditionalization.

Thermodynamic Uncertainty Relations

Bohr and Heisenberg suggested that the thermodynamical quantities of temperature and energy are complementary in the same way as position and momentum in quantum mechanics. Roughly speaking their idea was that a definite temperature can be attributed to a system only if it is submerged in a heat bath, in which case energy fluctuations are unavoidable. On the other hand, a definite energy can be assigned only to systems in thermal isolation, thus excluding the simultaneous determination of its temperature. Rosenfeld extended this analogy with quantum mechanics and obtained a quantitative uncertainty relation in the form ΔU Δ(1/T) ≥ k, where k is Boltzmanns constant. The two “extreme” cases of this relation would then characterize this complementarity between isolation (U definite) and contact with a heat bath (T definite). Other formulations of the thermodynamical uncertainty relations were proposed by Mandelbrot (1956, 1989), Lindhard (1986), and Lavenda (1987, 1991). This work, however, has not led to a consensus in the literature. It is shown here that the uncertainty relation for temperature and energy in the version of Mandelbrot is indeed exactly analogous to modern formulations of the quantum mechanical uncertainty relations. However, his relation holds only for the canonical distribution, describing a system in contact with a heat bath. There is, therefore, no complementarily between this situation and a thermally isolated system.

Quadratic bell inequalities as tests for multipartite entanglement.

This Letter presents quantum mechanical inequalities which distinguish, for systems of n spin- 1 / 2 particles ( n>2), between fully entangled states and states in which at most n-1 particles are entangled. These inequalities are stronger than those obtained by Gisin and Bechmann-Pasquinucci [Phys. Lett. A 246, 1 (1998)] and by Seevinck and Svetlichny [quant-ph/0201046].

How to protect the interpretation of the wave function against protective measurements

A new type of procedures, called protective measurements, has been proposed by Aharonov, Anandan and Vaidman. These authors argue that a protective measurement allows the determination of arbitrary observables of a single quantum system and claim that this favors a realistic interpretation of the quantum state. This paper proves that only observables that commute with the systems Hamiltonian can be measured protectively. It is argued that this restriction saves the coherence of alternative interpretations.

The Principle of the Common Cause Faces the Bernstein Paradox

I consider the problem of extending Reichenbachs principle of the common cause to more than two events, vis-a-vis an example posed by Bernstein. It is argued that the only reasonable extension of Reichenbachs principle stands in conflict with a recent proposal due to Horwich. I also discuss prospects of the principle of the common cause in the light of these and other difficulties known in the literature and argue that a more viable version of the principle is the one provided by Penrose and Percival (1962).

Not throwing out the baby with the bathwater: Bell's condition of local causality mathematically 'sharp and clean'

The starting point of the present paper is Bell’s notion of local causality and his own sharpening of it so as to provide for mathematical formalisation. Starting with Norsen’s (2007 [15], 2009 [16]) analysis of this formalisation, it is subjected to a critique that reveals two crucial aspects that have so far not been properly taken into account. These are (i) the correct understanding of the notions of sufficiency, completeness and redundancy involved; and (ii) the fact that the apparatus settings and measurement outcomes have very different theoretical roles in the candidate theories under study. Both aspects are not adequately incorporated in the standard formalisation, and we will therefore do so. The upshot of our analysis is a more detailed, sharp and clean mathematical expression of the condition of local causality. A preliminary analysis of the repercussions of our proposal shows that it is able to locate exactly where and how the notions of locality and causality are involved in formalising Bell’s condition of local causality.

Sufficient conditions for three-particle entanglement and their tests in recent experiments

We point out a loophole problem in some recent experimental claims to produce three-particle entanglement. The problem consists in the question whether mixtures of two-particle entangled states might suffice to explain the experimental data. In an attempt to close this loophole, we review two sufficient conditions that distinguish between N-particle states in which all N particles are entangled to each other and states in which only M particles are entangled (with

Partial separability and entanglement criteria for multiqubit quantum states

MlN).