Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Time, quantum mechanics, and decoherence

  • Published:
Synthese Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

State-reduction and the notion of “actuality” are compared to “passage” through time and the notion of “the present”; already in classical relativity the latter give rise to difficulties. The solution proposed here is to treat both tense and value-definiteness as relational properties or “facts as relations”; likewise the notions of change and probability. In both cases “essential” characteristics are absent: temporal relations are tenselessly true; probabilistic relations are deterministically true.

The basic ideas go back to Everett, although the technical development makes use of the decoherent histories theory of Griffiths, Omnès, and Gell-Mann and Hartle. Alternative interpretations of the decoherent histories framework are also considered.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Albert, D.: 1992,Quantum Mechanics and Experience, Harvard University Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Albert, D. and B. Loewer: 1988, ‘Interpreting the Many-Worlds Interpretation’,Synthese 77, 195–213.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bell, J.: 1987,Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Belnap, N.: 1992, ‘Branching Space-Time’,Synthese 92, 385–434.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bohr, N.: 1934,Atomic Theory and the Description of Nature, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bohr, N.: 1935, ‘Can Quantum Mechanical Description of Reality be Considered Incomplete?’,Physical Review 48, 697–702.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bohr, N.: 1949, ‘Discussion with Einstein on Epistemological Problems in Atomic Physics’, in Schilpp (1949, pp. 201–41).

  • Daneri, A., A. Loinger, and G. Prosperi: 1962, ‘Quantum Theory of Measurement and Ergodicity Conditions’,Nuclear Physics 33, 297–319.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davies, P. C. W.: 1981, ‘Time and Reality’, in R. Healey (ed.),Reduction, Time and Reality, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 63–78.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, M.: 1977, ‘A Relativity Principle in Quantum Mechanics’,International Journal of Theoretical Physics 16, 867–74.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deutsch, D.: 1985, ‘Quantum Theory as a Universal Physical Theory’,International Journal of Theoretical Physics 24, 1–41

    Google Scholar 

  • Deutsch, D.: 1986, ‘Three Connections between Everett's Interpretation and Experiment’ in R. Penrose and C. Isham (eds.),Quantum Concepts in Space and Time, Clarendon Press, Oxford, pp. 215–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • DeWitt, B.: 1970,Physics Today 23(9); reprinted in DeWitt and Graham, 1973, pp. 155–67.

    Google Scholar 

  • DeWitt, B.: 1993, ‘How Does the Classical World Emerge from the Wave Function?’, in F. Mansouri and J. J. Scanio (eds.),Topics on Quantum Gravity and Beyond, World Scientific, Singapore.

    Google Scholar 

  • DeWitt, B. and N. Graham: 1973,The Many-Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, Princeton University Press, Princeton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dieks, D.: 1989, ‘Quantum Mechanics without the Projection Postulate and its Realistic Interpretation’,Foundations of Physics,19, 1397–423.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dowker, H. F. and J. J. Halliwell: 1992, ‘Quantum Mechanics of History: The Decoherence Functional in Quantum Mechanics’,Physical Review D46, 1580–609.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dowrick, N. J.: 1993, ‘Path Integrals and the GRW Model’, preprint, Department of Nuclear Physics, Oxford University.

  • Dummett, M.: 1969, ‘The Reality of the Past’, inTruth and Other Enigmas, pp. 358–74, Harvard University Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Everett III, H.: 1957, ‘Relative State Formulation of Quantum Mechanics’,Reviews of Modern Physics 29, 454–62, reprinted in DeWitt and Graham, 1973, pp. 141–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fahri E., J. Goldstone and S. Gutman: 1989, ‘How Probability Arises in Quantum Mechanics’,Annals of Physics 192, 368–82.

    Google Scholar 

  • Finkelstein, D.: 1963, ‘The Logic of Quantum Physics’,Transactions of the New York Academy of Science 25, 621–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Finkelstein, J.: 1993, ‘Definition of Decoherence’,Physical Review D47, 5430–3.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gell-Mann, M. and J. B. Hartle: 1990, ‘Quantum Mechanics in the Light of Quantum Cosmology’, in W. H. Zurek (ed.),Complexity, Entropy, and the Physics of Information, Reading, Addison-Wesley, pp. 425–59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gell-Mann, M. and J. B. Hartle: 1993, ‘Classical Equations for Quantum Systems’,Physical Review D47, 3345–82.

    Google Scholar 

  • Geroch, R.: 1984, ‘The Everett Interpretation’,Noûs 18, 617–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gödel, K.: 1949, ‘A Remark about the Relationship between Relativity Theory and Idealistic Philosophy’, in Schilpp (1949, pp. 555–63).

  • Graham, N.: 1973, ‘The Measurement of Relative Frequency’, in DeWitt and Graham (1973, pp. 229–553).

  • Griffiths, R.: 1984, ‘Consistent Histories and the Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics’,Journal of Statistical Physics 36, 219–72.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grünbaum, A.: 1971, ‘The Meaning of Time’, in E. Freeman and W. Sellers (eds.),Basic Issues in the Philosophy of Time, Open Court, La Salle, pp. 195–228.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grünbaum, A.: 1973,Philosophical Problems of Space and Time, Chap. 10, Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Vol. XII, D. Reidel, Dordrecht.

    Google Scholar 

  • Halliwell, J. J.: 1994, ‘Aspects of the Decoherent Histories Approach to Quantum Mechanics’, in L. Diósi (ed.),Stochastic Evolution of Quantum States in Open Systems and in Measurement Processes, World Scientific, Singapore, pp. 54–68.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hartle, J. B.: 1968, ‘Quantum Mechanics of Individual Systems’,American Journal of Physics 36, 704–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hartle, J. B.: 1993, ‘Reduction of the State Vector and Limitations on Measurement in the Quantum Mechanics of Closed Systems’, preprint UCSBTH-92-16.

  • Healey, R.: 1984, ‘How Many Worlds?’,Noûs 18, 591–616.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heisenberg, W.: 1959,Physics and Philosophy: The Revolution in Modern Science, Allen and Unwin, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hepp, K.: 1972, ‘Quantum Theory of Measurement and Macroscopic Observables’,Helvatica Physica Acta 45, 237–48.

    Google Scholar 

  • Isham, C. J. and N. Linden, 1994: ‘Quantum Temporal Logic and Decoherence Functionals in the Histories Approach to Generalized Quantum Theory’, Imperial College Preprint, Imperial /TP/93–94/35.

  • Jammer, M.: 1974,The Philosophy of Quantum Mechanics, Wiley, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Joos, E. and H. D. Zeh: 1985, ‘The Emergence of Classical Properties through Interaction with the Environment’,Zeitschrift für Physik B59, 223.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kent, A.: 1990, ‘Against Many-Worlds Interpretations’,International Journal of Modern Physics A5, 1745–62.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuchař, K. V.: 1992, ‘Time and Interpretations of Quantum Gravity’, in G. Kunstatter, D. Vincent and J. Williams (eds.),Proceedings of the 4th Canadian Conference on General Relativity and Relativistic Astrophysics, World Scientific, Singapore.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lockwood, M.: 1989, ‘Mind, Brain, and the Quantum, Basil Blackwell, Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lockwood, M.: 1992, ‘What Schrödinger Should have Learnt from his Cat’, in M. Bitbol and O. Darrigol (eds.), Erwin Schrödinger: Philosophy and the Birth of Quantum Mechanics, Editions Frontières, Cedex, pp. 363–84.

    Google Scholar 

  • London F. and E. Bauer: 1939,La théorie de l'observation en mécanique quantique, No. 775 ofActualités sceintifiques et industrielles, P. Langevin (ed.), Hermann, Paris; translated in Wheeler and Zurek, 1983, pp. 217–59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maudlin, T.: 1994,Quantum Non-Locality and Relativity, Blackwell, Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maxwell, N.: 1985, ‘Are Probabilism and Special Relativity Incompatible?’,Philosophy of Science 52, 23–43.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCall, S.: 1976, ‘Objective Time-Flow’,Philosophy of Science 43, 337–62.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murdoch, D.: 1987, ‘Neils Bohr's Philosophy of Physics, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ochs, W.: 1977, ‘On the Strong Law of Large Numbers in Quantum Probability Theory’,Journal of Philosophical Logic 6, 473–80.

    Google Scholar 

  • Omnès, R.: 1988,Journal of Statistical Physics 53, 933.

    Google Scholar 

  • Omnès, R.: 1990, ‘From Hilbert Space to Common Sense: A Synthesis of Recent Progress in the Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics’,Annals of Physics (N.Y.)20(1), 354–447.

    Google Scholar 

  • Omnès, R.: 1992, ‘Consistent Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics’,Reviews of Modern Physics 64, 339–82.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parfit, D.: 1984,Reasons and Persons, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pearle, P.: 1990, ‘Towards a Relativistic Theory of Statevector Reduction’, in A. Miller (ed.),Sixty-Two Years of Uncertainty, Plenum Press, New York, pp. 193–214.

    Google Scholar 

  • Putnam, H.: 1967, ‘Time and Physical Geometry’,Journal of Philosophy 64, 240–47, reprinted inPhilosophical Papers. Vol. 1, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1975, pp. 198–205.

    Google Scholar 

  • Putnam, H.: 1981, ‘Answer to a Question from Nancy Cartwright’,Erkenntnis 16, 407–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rimini, A.: 1992, ‘A Framework for a Relativistic Theory of State Reduction’,Foundations of Physics Letters 5, 499–515.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saunders, S.: 1993a, ‘Decoherence, Relative States, and Evolutionary Adaptation’,Foundations of Physics 23, 1553–85.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saunders, S.: 1993b, ‘Decoherence and Evolutionary Adaptation’,Physics Letters A 184, 1–5.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saunders, S.: 1994, ‘Remarks on Decoherent Histories Theory and the Problem of Measurement’, in L. Diósi (ed.),Stochastic Evolution of Quantum States in Open Systems and in Measurement Processes, World Scientific, Singapore, pp. 94–105.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schilpp, A. (ed.): 1949,Albert Einstein, Philosopher-Scientist, Open Court, La Salle.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schrödinger, E.: 1935, ‘Die Gegenwärtige Situation in der Quantenmechanik’,Die Naturwissenschaften 23, 807–12, 823–28, 844–49; translated in Wheeler and Zurek (1983, pp. 152–67).

    Google Scholar 

  • Shimony, A.: 1993, ‘The Transient Now’, inSearch for a Naturalistic World View, Vol. 2, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 271–87.

    Google Scholar 

  • Squires, E.: 1990,Conscious Mind in the Physical World, Adam Hilger, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stein, H.: 1968, ‘On Einstein-Minkowski Space-Time’,Journal of Philosophy 65, 5–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stein, H.: 1984, ‘The Everett Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics: Many Worlds or None?’,Noûs 18, 635–52.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stein, H.: 1991, ‘On Relativity Theory and the Openness of the Future’,Philosophy of Science 58, 147–67.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wheeler, J. A. and W. H. Zurek (eds.): 1983,Quantum Theory and Measurement, Princeton University Press, Princeton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wright, C.: 1993,Realism, Meaning, and Truth, 2nd. Ed., Blackwells, Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yourgrau, P.: 1991,The Disappearance of Time; Kurt Gödel and the Idealistic Tradition in Philosophy, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zeh, H. D.: 1992,The Physical Basis for the Direction of Time, 2nd. Ed., Springer-Verlag, Berlin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zeh, H. D.: 1993, ‘There are No Quantum Jumps, Nor are there Particles’,Physics Letters A172, 189–92.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zelicovici, D.: 1986, ‘A (Dis)Solution of McTaggart's Paradox’,Ratio 28, 175–95.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zurek, W. H. (ed.): 1990,Complexity, Entropy, and the Physics of Information, Addison-Wesley, Reading.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zurek, W. H.: 1991, ‘Decoherence and the Transition from Quantum to Classical’,Physics Today 44(10), 36–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zurek, W. H.: 1993, ‘Negotiating the Tricky Border Between Quantum and Classical’,Physics Today 46(4), 13–15, 81–90.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zurek, W. H.: 1994, ‘Preferred States, Predictability, Classicality, and the Environment-Induced Decoherence’, to appear in J. J. Halliwell, J. Perez-Mercader, and W. H. Zurek (eds.),The Physical Origins of Time Asymmetry, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Philosoph, Harvard University, 02138, Cambridge, MA, USA

    Simon Saunders

Authors
  1. Simon Saunders
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Additional information

I would like to thank Abner Shimony for valuable criticism.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Saunders, S. Time, quantum mechanics, and decoherence. Synthese 102, 235–266 (1995). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01089802

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01089802

Keywords

Search

Navigation