Skip to main content
Log in

Is the Past Determined?

  • Published:
Foundations of Physics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In a recent paper (Zwirn in Phys Essays 30: 3, 2017), I argued against backward in time effects used by several authors to explain delayed choice experiments. I gave an explanation showing that there is no physical influence propagating from the present to the past and modifying the state of the system at a time previous to the measurement. However, though the solution is straightforward in the case of delayed choice experiments involving only one particle, it is subtler in the case of experiments involving two entangled particles because they give rise to EPR-like situations. Considering that a measurement is not an actual change of the physical state of a system and is relative to the observer allows to understand that there is neither backward in time effects nor instantaneous collapse of the second system when the first one is measured, as is often postulated. This allows also to get rid of any non-locality (Zwirn in Found Phys 50:1–26, 2020). In this paper, I want to go further into the consequences of this way of considering the measurement, that I have called Convivial Solipsism, and show that even if, in the usual sense, there is no physical effect of the present or of the future on the past, we must nevertheless consider that the observer’s past is sometimes not entirely determined and that it becomes determined only when certain measurements are done latter. This apparent contradiction disappears if one understand that each observer builds, through her own measurements, her own world (that I call the phenomenal world in Convivial Solipsism) which is different from what we are used to consider as the common world shared by everybody.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. See [3] where the authors explain that is seems that the present has influenced the past (‘we have a strange inversion of the normal order of time’) and that the strange predictions of quantum mechanics are once more verified, without analysing further this sentence.

  2. In spite of the many attempts to save the probabilities inside Everett’s interpretation, it remains doubtful that any of them succeeds.

  3. See more detailed explanations of the reasons why the observer can see only one branch in [2, 7, 8].

  4. Actually there is a co-emergence of each observer and her empirical world from a more abstract third level. But this is not the place here to develop this point and it has no impact on what we want to say in this paper. A more complete philosophical description will be given in a next paper.

  5. In some way, it is reminiscent of the consistent histories approach of Griffiths[17] and Omnes [18].

  6. Of course the global entangled wave function describing one observer’s empirical world contains everything that could be the subject of a measurement for this observer and it is extremely complex. It is an abstract tool that the observer knows only very partially.

  7. For a detailed discussion of this point see [2].

  8. We will analyze later more precisely that kind of events especially in the more interesting case where Alice’s first measurement does not determine unequivocally the result she gets for the second measurement (when she talks to Bob to know which result he got). In this case, it will no more be possible to make the confusion letting believe that “Bob got such and such result” was already true for Alice at T0.

  9. I give a detailed computation in [1].

  10. See [24] for a recent review.

  11. To be more precise, if there is no beam splitter when Bob does his measurements on signal photons he will be hung-on to one of the components of the wave function (12). If the decision is made latter to put the beam splitter, this will change the branch Bob is hung-on to. This is normal since adding a beam splitter is a physical change of the experimental device used for the last measurement.

  12. The real sentence is: "No elementary phenomenon is a phenomenon until it is a registered (observed) phenomenon” [22].

  13. For the sake of simplicity, we don’t mention here the decoherence which is analysed carefully in the context of ConSol in [7].

  14. As we already noticed above, it is reminiscent of the consistent histories approach of Griffiths [17] and Omnes [18].

  15. Bitbol [26] made a similar assumption about the violation of the retrodiction principle to avoid non-locality but he stated it inside the many-worlds Everett’s interpretation.

References

  1. Zwirn, H.: Delayed choice, complementarity, entanglement and measurement. Phys. Essays. 30, 3 (2017)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Zwirn, H. Non Locality versus modified realism. Found. Phys. 2020, Vol. 50, pp. 1–26, DOI. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10701-019-00314-7..

  3. Jacques, V., Wu, E., Grosshans, F., Treussart, F., Grangier, P., Aspect, A., Roch, J.-F.: Science 315, 966 (2007)

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  4. Werbos, P. J. ; Dolmatova, L. The backward-time interpretation of quantum mechanics – revisited with experiments. Preprint http://arXiv.org/0008036, 2000.

  5. Fearn, H.: A Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser Explained by the Transactional Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. Found. Phys. 46, 44 (2016)

    Article  ADS  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  6. Zwirn, H. Les limites de la connaissance. Odile Jacob (Ed), 2000.

  7. Zwirn, H. The Measurement Problem: Decoherence and Convivial Solipsism. Found. Phys. 2016, Vol. 46, p.635. http://arXiv.org/1505.05029.

  8. Zwirn, H. L’observateur, un défi pour la physique quantique, Pour la science, mars 2020.

  9. Bohm, D.: Quantum Theory. Prentice Hall, New York (1951)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  10. Ghirardi, G.C., Rimini, A., Weber, T.: Phys. Rev. D 34, 470 (1986)

    Article  ADS  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  11. Wigner, E.P.: Symetries and Reflections. Indiana University Press, Bloomington (1967)

    Google Scholar 

  12. London, F. ; Bauer, E. La théorie de l’observation en mécanique quantique. Hermann, 1939.

  13. Everett, H.: Relative State Formulation of Quantum Mechanics. Rev. Mod. Phys. 29, 454–462 (1957)

    Article  ADS  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  14. Rovelli, C.: Relational Quantum Mechanics. Int. J. Theor. Phys. 35, 1637–1678 (1996)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  15. Fuchs, C.A., Schack, R.: Quantum-Bayesian coherence. Rev. Mod. Phys. 85, 1693 (2013)

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  16. Zwirn, H. Is QBism a Possible Solution to the Conceptual Problems of Quantum Mechanics?. ArXiv 1912–11636, 2019. To appear in The Oxford Handbook of the History of Interpretations of Quantum Physics. 2021.

  17. Griffiths, R.B. Consistent histories and the interpretation of quantum mechanics. Journal of Statistical Physics. 1984, Springer Science and Business Media LLC. 36 (1–2): 219–272.

  18. Omnes, R. Quantum Philosophy. Princeton University Press, 1999.

  19. Einstein, A., Podolsky, B., Rosen, N.: Can quantum-mechanical description of physical reality be considered complete? Phys. Rev. 47, 777–780 (1935)

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  20. Bell, J.S. On the Einstein-Podolski-Rosen Paradox. Physics, 1964, vol. 1.

  21. Wheeler, J. A.; The past and the delayed-choice double slit experiment. in Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Theory; Marlow, A.R., Ed.; Academic Press, 1978.

  22. Wheeler, J. A.; Law without law. in Quantum Theory and Measurement; Wheeler, J. A.; Zurek, W. H. Ed.; Princeton University Press, 1983.

  23. Feynman, R. P.; Leighton, R. B.; Sands, M. L. The Feynman Lectures on Physics, 1965, Vol. 3, Addison-Wesley.

  24. Ma, X.; Kofler, J.; Zeilinger, A. Delayed-choice gedanken experiments and their realizations. ArXiv 1407.2930, 2016.

  25. Kim, Y.H., Yu, R., Kulik, S.P., Shih, Y., Scully, M.O.: A Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser. Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 001 (2000)

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  26. Bitbol, M. An analysis of the Einstein-Podolski-Rosen correlations in terms of events. Phys. Lett. 1983, Vol. 96A, N. 2.

Download references

Acknowledgements

I want to thank two anonymous referees for useful comments having helped to improve the paper.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Herve Zwirn.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Zwirn, H. Is the Past Determined?. Found Phys 51, 57 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10701-021-00459-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10701-021-00459-4

Keywords

Navigation