• Register
PhysicsOverflow is a next-generation academic platform for physicists and astronomers, including a community peer review system and a postgraduate-level discussion forum analogous to MathOverflow.

Welcome to PhysicsOverflow! PhysicsOverflow is an open platform for community peer review and graduate-level Physics discussion.

Please help promote PhysicsOverflow ads elsewhere if you like it.


PO is now at the Physics Department of Bielefeld University!

New printer friendly PO pages!

Migration to Bielefeld University was successful!

Please vote for this year's PhysicsOverflow ads!

Please do help out in categorising submissions. Submit a paper to PhysicsOverflow!

... see more

Tools for paper authors

Submit paper
Claim Paper Authorship

Tools for SE users

Search User
Reclaim SE Account
Request Account Merger
Nativise imported posts
Claim post (deleted users)
Import SE post

Users whose questions have been imported from Physics Stack Exchange, Theoretical Physics Stack Exchange, or any other Stack Exchange site are kindly requested to reclaim their account and not to register as a new user.

Public \(\beta\) tools

Report a bug with a feature
Request a new functionality
404 page design
Send feedback


(propose a free ad)

Site Statistics

205 submissions , 163 unreviewed
5,047 questions , 2,200 unanswered
5,345 answers , 22,709 comments
1,470 users with positive rep
816 active unimported users
More ...

  Negative probabilities in quantum physics

+ 19 like - 0 dislike

Negative probabilities are naturally found in the Wigner function (both the original one and its discrete variants), the Klein paradox (where it is an artifact of using a one-particle theory) and the Klein-Gordon equation.

The question is if there is a general treatment of quasi-probability distributions, besides naively using 'legit' probabilistic formulas? For example, is there a theory saying which measurements are allowed, so to screen negative probabilities?

Additionally, is there an intuition behind negative probabilities? (Providing other examples than ones mentioned in the question can illuminate the issue.)

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)
asked Oct 11, 2011 in Theoretical Physics by Piotr Migdal (1,260 points) [ no revision ]
retagged Apr 19, 2014 by dimension10
Feynman introduced ghosts as "negative probability" in pertubative gauge theories. The main purpose of the ghosts is to cancel the contributions from unphysical polatisations of gauge fields in loops. After Faddeev-Popov we understand them in a different way, but the original idea was just that: "negative probability".

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)
@José: Was not that a negative norm instead?

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)
@Vladimir: Sure, but negative norm implies negative probability. Feynman actually introduced them in the context of gravity and he introduced them by hand to "soak up excess probability" in his own words, I believe.

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)
It is known in QED as indefinite metric and is used to cancel contributions of non physical degrees of freedom (longitudinal and scalar photons). In QED it is the formalism of Gupta-Bleuler. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gupta-Bleuler

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)

5 Answers

+ 14 like - 0 dislike

One never obtains "negative probability" densities when one discusses single observables. One obtains "negative probability" densities only when one discusses joint distributions of incompatible observables, for which the commutator is non-zero (because they take negative values, they are not probability densities). So, to avoid negative probability densities entirely, only discuss joint probability densities of compatible observables.

There are some states in which some pairs of incompatible observables nonetheless result in positive-valued distributions. The best-known examples are coherent states, for which the Wigner function is positive-definite. This, however, does not extend to all possible observables, so that in a coherent state not all pairs of incompatible observables result in positive-definite joint probability densities.

The failure of joint probabilities to exist for all states means that even though positive-definite densities may exist for particular observables in particular states, it is generally taken to be too much to call any positive-definite joint density that might happen in a special class of states to be a probability density just because it is positive-definite.

There is one quite general way to construct an object that is always positive-definite from a Wigner function, which is by averaging it over a large enough region of phase space. Many attempts to do this in a mathematically general way have been constructed over the years. I personally like Paul Busch's approach (with various co-workers), whose web-site lists two monographs that do this quite nicely:

The Quantum Theory of Measurement
Paul Busch, Pekka Lahti, Peter Mittelstaedt. Springer-Verlag, Berlin
Lecture Notes in Physics, Vol. m2, 1991; 2nd ed. 1996
Operational Quantum Physics
Paul Busch, Marian Grabowski, Pekka Lahti. Springer-Verlag, Berlin
Lecture Notes in Physics, Vol. m31, 1995; corr. printing 1997

I'm certain that other people have other preferences, however. For some, this is a way to reconcile quantum with classical, for others it is not.

There is a quick and dirty way of seeing the relationship between incompatibility and positive-definiteness of putatively positive joint probability densities, which can be found in a paper by Leon Cohen, "Rules of Probability in Quantum Mechanics", Foundations of Physics 18, 983(1988). I trot this out quite regularly, even though it's rarely cited in the literature because it's not very nice mathematics, because it's such elementary mathematics and it influenced my understanding of QM a lot a long time ago (I cited it here, for example, for a not very related Question).

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)
answered Oct 11, 2011 by Peter Morgan (1,230 points) [ no revision ]
+ 11 like - 0 dislike

As Ernesto pointed out in his comment, I've answered your first question here (which was updated on the arXiv and published very recently.

As for the question about the intuition behind negative probabilities, here is my warning if you don't already have tenure: don't go there. As Feynman pointed out (and Dirac much earlier) negative probabilities are a means to an end. What end? Well, regular probability, of course.

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)
answered Oct 19, 2011 by Chris Ferrie (660 points) [ no revision ]
+ 10 like - 0 dislike

A little bit left-field this but may be of interest. If you want to consider a more abstract setting, then the following paper is of interest from a foundations point-of-view:

R. W. Spekkens, ''Negativity and contextuality are equivalent notions of nonclassicality''

It relates a generalisation of the Wigner function to a generalisation of non-contextual hidden variable theories. It shows that even structure at the more black-box, operational level results in quasi-probability distributions.

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)
answered Oct 11, 2011 by Matty Hoban (435 points) [ no revision ]
Some recent articles by Chris Ferrie et al. prove the necessity of either negative probabilities or a deformed probability calculus, check out: http://arxiv.org/abs/0711.2658 and http://arxiv.org/abs/1010.2701 . If I may point to a paper of mine, demanding positivity from a particular definition of discrete Wigner function (due to Wootters) results in states and operations which are easy to simulate classically: http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0506222

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)
+ 5 like - 0 dislike

There are two works of Feynman about negative probabilities. It is hard to add something to that, if to look for introduction to the subject.

R. P. Feynman, Negative probability in Quantum implications: Essays in honor of David Bohm, edited by B. J. Hiley and F. D. Peat (Routledge and Kegan Paul, London, 1987), Chap. 13, pp 235 – 248.

R. P. Feynman, Simulating physics with computers (Chapter 6), Int. J. Theor. Phys., 21, 467 – 488 (1982).

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)
answered Oct 11, 2011 by Alex V (300 points) [ no revision ]
As a collector of Feynman works, thanks. I had never even heard of your first reference, which sounds fascinating (Feynman on Bohm?? Intriguing.)

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)
Feynman wrote in this essay: "Trying to think of negative probabilities gave me a cultural shock at first, but when I finally got easy with the concept I wrote myself a note so I wouldn't forget my thoughts."

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)
Alex, thanks. I found a nearly-complete piece of it in an online book sample. Very Feynman in style, with a clearly stated anchor point around which he builds his analysis. And since this just a note, maybe I can get away with a for-dicussion-only observation on @PiotrMigdal's original question?: The simplest self-consistent way to enable negative probabilities is let them represent negative mass-energy states that _erase_ rather than annihilate the positive mass-energy states. Lots of issues, but also lots of fun. Wave packets e.g. become dissolving clouds of +/- pairs with a slight + excess.

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)
+ 0 like - 4 dislike

Intuition behind negative probabilities

"As for the question about the intuition behind negative probabilities, here is my warning if you don't already have tenure: don't go there. As Feynman pointed out (and Dirac much earlier) negative probabilities are a means to an end. What end? Well, regular probability, of course."

Take the case of Quantum Tunneling,

Quantum Tunneling

As Feynnam said, "An electron is a positron moving backward in time"

What's the probability of that?

Are you familiar with the Dirac Sea, Virtual Particles and Electron Holes.

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)
answered Oct 22, 2011 by Terry Giblin (-60 points) [ no revision ]
What on earth are you talking about?

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)
Feynman also said: "What I cannot create, I do not understand." So apparently he understood neither things moving backward in time nor negative probability.

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)
Feynman also (probably) said: "When's lunch?"

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)
I'm imagining a shirt with WWFS (What Would Feynman Say?) written across it.

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)

Your answer

Please use answers only to (at least partly) answer questions. To comment, discuss, or ask for clarification, leave a comment instead.
To mask links under text, please type your text, highlight it, and click the "link" button. You can then enter your link URL.
Please consult the FAQ for as to how to format your post.
This is the answer box; if you want to write a comment instead, please use the 'add comment' button.
Live preview (may slow down editor)   Preview
Your name to display (optional):
Privacy: Your email address will only be used for sending these notifications.
Anti-spam verification:
If you are a human please identify the position of the character covered by the symbol $\varnothing$ in the following word:
Then drag the red bullet below over the corresponding character of our banner. When you drop it there, the bullet changes to green (on slow internet connections after a few seconds).
Please complete the anti-spam verification

user contributions licensed under cc by-sa 3.0 with attribution required

Your rights