Abstract
This paper is a comparison of two theories of the probability of a history in quantum mechanics. One is derived from Copenhagen quantum mechanics using the projection postulate and is the basis of the “consistent histories” interpretation; the other is based on a proposal by Bell, originally for the “pilot state” theory but here applied to pure unitary quantum mechanics. The first can be used for a wider class of histories but depends on the projection postulate, or “collapse”, which is widely held to be an unsatisfactory feature of the theory; the second can be used in a theory of the universal state vector without collapse. We examine a simple model based on Wigner’s friend, in which Bell’s model and the projection postulate give different probabilities for the histories of a sentient system. We also examine the Frauchiger-Renner extension of this model, in which comparison of the two calculations of histories throws light on the contradiction found by Frauchiger and Renner. By extending the model to equip the observer with a memory, we reduce the probability of histories to the use of the Born rule at a single time, and show that the Born rule, with the memory, gives the same result as applying projection in the course of the history, because of entanglement with the memory. Entanglement implements collapse. We discuss the implications of this for the use of histories in quantum cosmology.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Code Availability
There is no relevant code.
Notes
Confusingly, this would normally be called an “event space.”
References
Bacciagaluppi, G., Dickson, M.: Dynamics for density operator interpretations of quantum theory. Found. Phys. 29, 1165 (1999). arXiv:https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9711048
Baumann, V., Del Santo, F., Smith, A.R.H., Giacomini, F., Castro-Ruiz, E., Brukner, C: Generalized probability rules from a timeless formulation of Wigner’s friend scenarios. arXiv:https://arxiv.org/abs/1911 (2019)
Bell, J.S.: Beables for quantum field theory. In: Hiley, B.J., Peat, F.D. (eds.) Quantum Implications. Reprinted in [4], pp 227–234. Routledge and Kegan Paul, London (1984)
Bell, J.S.: Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics. Cambridge University Press (1987)
Bell, J.S.: Against “measurement”. Phys. World 3(8), 33–40 (1990)
Brukner, C.: On the quantum measurement problem. In: Quantum [Un]Speakables II: 50 Years of Bell’s Theorem, pp. 95–117. Springer (2017)
Di Biagio, A, Donà, P, Rovelli, C: The arrow of time in operational formulations of quantum theory. arXiv:https://arxiv.org/pdf/2010.05734.pdf (2021)
Dolby, CE: The conditional probability interpretation of the Hamiltonian constraint. arXiv:https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc.0406034 (2004)
Everett, H III: “Relative state” formulation of quantum mechanics. Rev. Mod. Phys. 29, 141–153 (1957)
Frauchiger, D., Renner, R.: Quantum theory cannot consistently describe the use of itself. Nat. Commun. 9, 3711 (2018)
Giovannetti, V., Lloyd, S., Maccone, L.: Quantum time. Phys. Rev. D 92, 045033 (2015). arXiv:https://arxiv.org/abs/1504.04215
Griffiths, R.B.: Consistent Quantum Theory. Cambridge University Press (2002)
Hollowood, TJ: Classical from quantum. arXiv:https://arxiv.org/abs/1803.04700(2018)
Losada, M., Laura, R., Lombardi, O.: Frauchiger-Renner argument and quantum histories. Phys. Rev. A 100, 052114–052119 (2019). arXiv:https://arxiv.org/abs/1907.10095
Sokolovski, D.: A minimalist’s view of quantum mechanics. Euro. Phys. Lett. 128, 50001 (2019). arXiv:https://arxiv.org/abs/2005.12674
Sudbery, A.: Diese verdammte Quantenspringerei. Stud. Hist. Phil. Mod. Phys. 33B, 387–411 (2002). arXiv:https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0011082
Sudbery, A.: Quantum Mechanics and the Particles of Nature. Cambridge University Press (1986)
Sudbery, A.: The logic of the future in quantum theory. Synthese 194, 4429–4453 (2017). arXiv:https://arxiv.org/pdf/1409.0755.pdf
Sudbery, A.: Single-world theory of the extended Wigner’s friend experiment. Found. Phys. 47, 658–669 (2017). arXiv:https://arxiv.org/pdf/1608.05873.pdf
Sudbery, A.: John Bell and the great enterprise. Quanta 7, 68–73 (2018). arXiv:https://arxiv.org/abs/1808.06845
Vedral, V.: Local quantum reality. arXiv:https://arxiv.org/pdf/2011.01039.pdf(2020)
Wheeler, J.A.: Assessment of Everett’s “relative state” formulation of quantum theory. Rev. Mod. Phys. 29, 463–465 (1957)
Zwirn, H.: Non locality versus modified realism. Found. Phys. 50, 1–26 (2020). arXiv:https://arxiv.org/abs/1812.06451
Acknowledgements
I am grateful to Flavio del Santo and his co-workers for a valuable discussion, and to an anonymous referee for suggestions which have greatly improved the presentation of these ideas.
Funding
This research was not supported by any funding.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of Interests
I am not aware of any conflict of interest.
Additional information
Availability of data and material
There is no data or material to be made available.
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Sudbery, A. Histories Without Collapse. Int J Theor Phys 61, 39 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10773-022-05046-5
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10773-022-05046-5