State transformations in quantum mechanics are described by completely positive maps which are constructed from quantum channels. We call a finest sharp quantum channel a context. The result of a measurement depends on the context under which it is performed. Each context provides a viewpoint of the quantum system being measured. This gives only a partial picture of the system which may be distorted and in order to obtain a total accurate picture, various contexts need to be employed. We first discuss some basic definitions and results concerning quantum channels. We briefly describe the relationship between this work and ontological models that form the basis for contextuality studies. We then consider properties of channels and contexts. For example, we show that the set of sharp channels can be given a natural partial order in which contexts are the smallest elements. We also study properties of channel maps. The last section considers mutually unbiased contexts. These are related to mutually unbiased bases which have a large current literature. Finally, we connect them to completely random channel maps.


Contexts Quantum measurements Observables 



  1. 1.
    Bandyopadhyay, S., Boykin, P., Roychowdhury, V., Vatan, F.: A new proof for the existence of mutually unbiased bases, vol. 3. arXiv:quant-ph/0103162 (2001)
  2. 2.
    Busch, P., Cassinelli, G., Lahti, P.: Probability structures for quantum state spaces. Rev. Math. Phys. 7, 1105–1121 (1995)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Busch, P., Lahti, P., Mittlestaedt, P.: The Quantum Theory of Measurement. Springer, Berlin (1996)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Busch, P., Grabowski, M., Lahti, P.: Operational Quantum Physics. Springer, Berlin (1997)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Carmeli, C., Heinonen, T., Toigo, A.: Intrinsic unsharpness and approximate repeatability of quantum measurements. J. Phys. A 40, 1303–1323 (2007)ADSMathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Choi, M.: Completely positive linear maps on complex matrices. Linear Algebra Appl. 10, 285–290 (1975)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Durt, T., Englert, B.-G., Bengtsson, I., Zyczkowski, K.: On mutually unbiased bases. Int. J. Quant. Inf. 8, 535–640 (2010)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gudder, S.: Fuzzy probability theory. Demonstr. Math. 31, 235–254 (1998)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gudder, S.: Sharp and unsharp quantum effects. Adv. Appl. Math. 20, 169–187 (1998)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gudder, S.: Convex and sequential effect algebras. arXiv:1802.01265 [phys-gen] (2018)
  11. 11.
    Gudder, S.: Contexts in convex and sequential effect algebras (to appear)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Heinosaari, T., Ziman, M.: The Mathematical Language of Quantum Theory. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2012)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kraus, K.: States, effects and operations: fundamental notions of quantum theory. In: Lecture Notes in Physics, vol. 190, Springer, Berlin (1983)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lillystone, P., Wallman, J., Emerson, J.: Contextuality and the single-qubit stabilizer subtheory, vol. 1. arXiv:1802.06121 [quant-phys] (2018)
  15. 15.
    Nielson, M., Chuang, I.: Quantum Computation and Quantum Information. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2000)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Wootters, W., Fields, B.: Optimal state-determination by mutually unbiased measurements. Ann. Phys. 191, 363–381 (1989)ADSMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of MathematicsUniversity of DenverDenverUSA

Personalised recommendations