Quantum Histories and Their Implications

  • Adrian Kent
Conference paper
First Online:
Part of the Lecture Notes in Physics book series (LNP, volume 559)

Abstract

Classical mechanics and standard Copenhagen quantum mechanics respect subspace implications. For example, if a particle is confined in a particular region R of space, then in these theories we can deduce that it is confined in regions containing R. However, subspace implications are generally violated by versions of quantum theory that assign probabilities to histories, such as the consistent histories approach. I define here a new criterion, ordered consistency, which refines the criterion of consistency and has the property that inferences made by ordered consistent sets do not violate subspace relations. This raises the question: do the operators defining our observations form an ordered consistent history? If so, ordered consistency defines a version of quantum theory with greater predictive power than the consistent histories formalism. If not, andour observations are defined by a non-ordered consistent quantum history, then subspace implications are not generally valid.

Keywords

Quantum Theory Consistent Extension Consistent History Contrary Inference Standard Quantum Theory 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Griffiths R. B. (1984): J. Stat. Phys. 36, 219.MATHCrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Griffiths R. B. (1993): Found. Phys. 23, 1601.CrossRefMathSciNetADSGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Omnès R. (1988): J. Stat. Phys. 53, 893.CrossRefMATHADSGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gell-Mann M., Hartle J. B. (1990): In: Zurek W. (Ed.). Complexity, Entropy, and the Physics of Information, SFI Studies in the Sciences of Complexity, Vol. VIII, Addison Wesley, Reading.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Isham C. J. (1994): J. Math. Phys. 23, 2157.CrossRefADSMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bohm D. (1952): Phys. Rev. 85, 166.CrossRefADSMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ghirardi G., Rimini A. and Weber T. (1986): Phys. Rev. D34, 470.ADSMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Sorkin R. D. (1994): Mod. Phys. Lett. A9, 3119.ADSMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dowker F., Kent A. (1996): J. Stat. Phys. 82, 1575.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetADSGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kent A. (1998): In: Modern Studies of Basic Quantum Concepts and Phenomena, Proceedings of the 104th Nobel Symposium, Gimo, June 1997, Physica Scripta T76, 78–84.CrossRefADSMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Rudolph O. (1996): Int. J. Theor. Phys. 35, 1581.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Rudolph O. (1996): J. Math. Phys. 37, 5368.MATHCrossRefADSMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hartle J. B. (1991): In: Coleman S., Hartle J., Piran T., Weinberg S. (Eds.), Quantum Cosmology and Baby Universes, Proceedings of the 1989 Jerusalem Winter School on Theoretical Physics, World Scientific, Singapore.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Isham C. J., Linden N. (1994): J. Math. Phys. 35, 5452.MATHCrossRefADSMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Isham C. J., Linden N., Schreckenberg S. (1994): J. Math. Phys. 35, 6360.MATHCrossRefADSMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Omnès R. (1994): The Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, Princeton University Press, Princeton.MATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Griffiths R. B. (1996): Phys. Rev. A54, 2759.ADSGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kent A. (1996): Phys. Rev. A54, 4670.ADSMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kent A. (1997): Phys. Rev. Lett. 78, 2874.MATHCrossRefADSMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Dowker F., Kent A. (1995): Phys. Rev. Lett. 75, 3038.CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Paz J., Zurek W. (1993): Phys. Rev. D48, 2728.ADSMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Giardina I., Rimini A. (1996): Found. Phys. 26, 973.CrossRefMathSciNetADSGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kent A. (1996): In: Cushing J., Fine A., Goldstein S. (Eds.), Bohmian Mechanics and Quantum Theory: An Appraisal, Kluwer Academic Press, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Omnès R. (1994): Phys. Lett. A 187, 26.ADSGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kent A., McElwaine J. (1997): Phys. Rev. A55, 1703.ADSMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Gell-Mann M., Hartle J. B. (1995): University of California, Santa Barbara preprint UCSBTH-95-28; gr-qc/9509054.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Griffiths R., Hartle J. (1998): Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 1981.MATHCrossRefADSMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Kent A. (1998): Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 1982.MATHCrossRefADSMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Cohen O. (1995): Phys. Rev. A51, 4373.ADSGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Aharonov Y., Vaidman L. (1991): J. Phys. A 24), 2315.ADSMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Gell-Mann M., Hartle J. B. (1994): University of California, Santa Barbara preprint UCSBTH-94-09; gr-qc/9404013.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Gell-Mann M., Hartle J. B. (1993): Phys. Rev. D47, 3345.ADSMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    McElwaine J. (1997): Phys. Rev. A56, 1756.ADSMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Goldstein S., Page D. (1995): Phys. Rev. Lett. 74, 3715.MATHCrossRefADSMathSciNetGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Adrian Kent
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical PhysicsUniversity of CambridgeCambridgeUK

Personalised recommendations