Skip to main content
Log in

Decompositional Equivalence: A Fundamental Symmetry Underlying Quantum Theory

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Axiomathes Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Nature is relentless and unchangeable, and it is indifferent as to whether its hidden reasons and actions are understandable to man or not.

–Galileo Galilie.

Abstract

Decompositional equivalence is the principle that there is no preferred decomposition of the universe into subsystems. It is shown here, by using a simple thought experiment, that quantum theory follows from decompositional equivalence together with Landauer’s principle. This demonstration raises within physics a question previously left to psychology: how do human—or any—observers identify or agree about what constitutes a “system of interest”?

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

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The mathematical formalism of quantum theory has been subjected to physical and philosophical interpretation since its inception. Bacciagaluppi and Valentini (2009) discuss the interpretative positions advanced by the theory’s founders at the 1927 Solvay Conference and reproduce their original papers. Bunge (1956) reviews the largely-unchanged interpretative landscape 30 years later. Bastin (1971) provides a revealing glimpse of interpretative discussions following the introduction of Everett’s (1957) relative-state interpretation, but prior to both the reformulation of Everett’s interpretation in terms of “multiple worlds” by DeWitt (1970) and the introduction of decoherence by Zeh (1970). Landsman (2007) and Wallace (2008) provide more recent synoptic reviews, the former with an emphasis on decoherence and the latter with an emphasis on multiple worlds. The diversity of opinions on basic questions of interpretation remains large, as documented by Norsen and Nelson (2013), Schlosshauer et al. (2013) and Sommer (2013) by surveying participants at relevant conferences. Both physicists and philosophers have found the seemingly irresolvable differences between interpretative stances disturbing. Fuchs (2002) parodies interpretative “camps” as fundamentalist churches. Cabello (2015) titles a recent, fairly exhaustive overview of the diversity of interpretative assumptions a “map of madness”.

References

  • Aerts D, Gabora L, Sozzo S (2013) Concepts and their dynamics: a quantum-theoretic modeling of human thought. Top Cogn Sci 5:737–772

    Google Scholar 

  • Anders J, Shabbir S, Hilt S, Lutz E (2006) Landauer’s principle in the quantum domain. Electron Proc Theor Comput Sci 26:13–18

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arndt M, Nairz O, Vos-Andreae J, Keller C, van der Zouw G, Zeilinger A (1999) Wave-particle duality of C\(_{60}\) molecules. Nature 401:680–682

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ashby WR (1956) An introduction to cybernetics. Chapman and Hall, London

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bacciagaluppi G, Valentini A (2009) Quantum theory at the crossroads: reconsidering the 1927 Solvay conference. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bastin T (ed) (1971) Quantum theory and beyond. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (re-published by Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, p 2009)

  • Bennett CH (2003) Notes on Landauer’s principle, reversible computation, and Maxwell’s Demon. Stud Hist Philos Modern Phys 34:501–510

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bub J, Pitowsky I (2010) Two dogmas about quantum mechanics. In: Saunders S, Barrett J, Kent A, Wallace D (eds) Many worlds? Everett, quantum theory and reality. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 433–459

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Bunge M (1956) Survey of the interpretations of quantum mechanics. Am J Phys 24:272–286

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Butterfield J (2011) Emergence, reduction and supervenience: a varied landscape. Found Phys 41:920–959

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cabello A (2015) Interpretations of quantum theory: a map of madness. Preprint arXiv:1509.04711v1 [quant-ph]

  • DeWitt BS (1970) Quantum mechanics and reality: could the solution to the dilemma of indeterminism be a universe in which all possible outcomes of an experiment actually occur? Phys Today 23(9):30–40

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eibenberger S, Gerlich S, Arndt M, Mayor M, Tüxen J (2013) Matter-wave interference of particles selected from a molecular library with masses exceeding 10,000 amu. Phys Chem Chem Phys 15:14696–14700

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Everett H III (1957) “Relative state” formulation of quantum mechanics. Rev Mod Phys 29:454–462

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feynman RP, Leighton RB, Sands M (1965) Feynman lectures on physics. Addison-Wesley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Fields C (2011) Classical system boundaries cannot be determined within quantum Darwinism. Phys Essays 24:518–522

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fields C (2012) The very same thing: extending the object-token concept to incorporate causal constraints on individual identity. Adv Cogn Psychol 8:234–247

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fields C (2013a) Bell’s theorem from Moore’s theorem. Int J Gen Syst 42:376–385

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fields C (2013b) The principle of persistence, Leibniz’s Law and the computational task of object identification. Hum Dev 56:147–166

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fields C (2014a) On the Ollivier–Poulin–Zurek definition of objectivity. Axiomathes 24:137–156

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fields C (2014b) Motion, identity and the bias toward agency. Front Human Neurosci 8:Article # 597

  • Fuchs CA (2002) Quantum mechanics as quantum information (and only a little more). Preprint arXiv:quant-ph/0205039v1

  • Fuchs CA (2010) QBism: the perimeter of quantum Bayesianism. Preprint arXiv:1003.5209v1 [quant-ph]

  • Grinbaum A (2015) How device-independent approaches change the meaning of physics. Preprint arXiv:1512.01035v1

  • Ghirardi GC, Rimini A, Weber T (1986) Unified dynamics for microscopic and macroscopic systems. Phys Rev D 34:470–491

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hartle JB (2011) The quasiclassical realms of this quantum universe. Found Phys 41:982–1006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Healey R (2012) Quantum theory: a pragmatist approach. Br J Philos Sci 63:729–771

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jauch JM (1968) Foundations of quantum mechanics. Addison-Wesley, Reading

    Google Scholar 

  • Jennings D, Leifer M (2016) No return to classical reality. Contemp Phys 57(1):60–82

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kastner R (2014) ‘Einselection’ of pointer observables: the new H-theorem? Stud Hist Philos Modern Phys 48:56–58

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koenderink J (2014) The all-seeing eye? Perception 43(1):1–6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Landauer R (1961) Irreversibility and heat generation in the computing process. IBM J Res Dev 5(3):183–195

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Landauer R (1999) Information is a physical entity. Phys A 263:63–67

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Landsman NP (2007) Between classical and quantum. In: Butterfield J, Earman J (eds) Handbook of the philosophy of science: philosophy of physics. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 417–553

    Google Scholar 

  • Leifer MS (2014) Is the quantum state real? An extended review of \(\psi\)-ontology theorems. Quanta 3:67–155

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moore EF (1956) Gedankenexperiments on sequential machines. In: Shannon CW, McCarthy J (eds) Automata Stud. Princeton University Press, Princeton, pp 129–155

    Google Scholar 

  • Nagel E (1961) The structure of science: problems in the logic of scientific explanation. Harcourt, Brace & World, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Nielsen MA, Chaung IL (2000) Quantum information and quantum computation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Norsen T, Nelson S (2013) Yet another snapshot of foundational attitudes toward quantum mechanics. Preprint arXiv:1306.4646v2 [quant-ph]

  • Ollivier H, Poulin D, Zurek WH (2004) Objective properties from subjective quantum states: environment as a witness. Phys Rev Lett 93:220401

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ollivier H, Poulin D, Zurek WH (2005) Environment as a witness: selective proliferation of information and emergence of objectivity in a quantum universe. Phys Rev A 72:042113

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Penrose R (1996) On gravity’s role in quantum state reduction. Gen Relativ Gravit 28:581–600

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peres A, Fuchs C (2000) Quantum theory needs no “interpretation”. Phys Today 53(3):70–73

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peres A, Terno DR (2004) Quantum information and relativity theory. Rev Mod Phys 76:93–123

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pothos EM, Busemeyer JM (2013) Can quantum probability provide a new direction for cognitive modeling? Behav Brain Sci 36:255–327

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rovelli C (1996) Relational quantum mechanics. Int J Theor Phys 35:1637–1678

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rovelli C (2014) Why do we remember the past and not the future? The ‘time oriented coarse graining’ hypothesis. Preprint arXiv:1407.3384v2

  • Shannon CE (1948) A mathematical theory of communication. Bell Syst Tech J 27:379–423

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schlosshauer M (2007) Decoherence and the quantum to classical transition. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Schlosshauer M, Kofler J, Zeilinger A (2013) A snapshot of foundational attitudes toward quantum mechanics. Stud Hist Philos Modern Phys 44:222–230

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spekkens RW (2007) Evidence for the epistemic view of quantum states: a toy theory. Phys Rev A 75:032110

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sommer C (2013) Another survey of foundational attitudes towards quantum mechanics. Preprint arXiv:1303.2719v1 [quant-ph]

  • Tegmark M (2000) Importance of quantum decoherence in brain processes. Phys Rev E 61:4194–4206

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tegmark M (2012) How unitary cosmology generalizes thermodynamics and solves the inflationary entropy problem. Phys Rev D 85:123517

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • von Neumann J (1932) Mathematical foundations of quantum theory. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Wallace D (2008) Philosophy of quantum mechanics. In: Rickles D (ed) The Ashgate companion to contemporary philosophy of physics. Ashgate, Aldershot, pp 16–98

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang Q, Schoenlein RW, Peteanu LA, Mathies RA, Shank CV (1994) Vibrationally coherent photochemistry in the femtosecond primary event of vision. Science 266:422–424

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weinberg S (2012) Collapse of the state vector. Phys Rev A 85:062116

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wigner EP (1962) Remarks on the mind-body question. In: Good IJ (ed) The scientist speculates. Basic Books, New York, pp 284–301

    Google Scholar 

  • Zeh D (1970) On the interpretation of measurement in quantum theory. Found Phys 1:69–76

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zurek WH (2003) Decoherence, einselection, and the quantum origins of the classical. Rev Mod Phys 75:715–775

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Thanks to Don Hoffman for encouraging me to think about 1-bit information transfers, to The Federico and Elvia Faggin Foundation for financial support during the final stages of this work, and to an anonymous referee for suggestions and an additional reference.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Chris Fields.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Fields, C. Decompositional Equivalence: A Fundamental Symmetry Underlying Quantum Theory. Axiomathes 26, 279–311 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10516-016-9289-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10516-016-9289-z

Keywords

Navigation