DOCSLIB.ORG

The Minimal Modal Interpretation of Quantum Theory

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Minimal Modal Interpretation of Quantum Theory The Minimal Modal Interpretation of Quantum Theory Jacob A. Barandes1, ∗ and David Kagan2, y 1Jefferson Physical Laboratory, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA 02138 2Department of Physics, University of Massachusetts Dartmouth, North Dartmouth, MA 02747 (Dated: June 6, 2014) We introduce a realist, unextravagant interpretation of quantum theory that builds on the existing physical structure of the theory and allows experiments to have definite outcomes, but leaves the theory's basic dynamical content essentially intact. Much as classical systems have specific states that evolve along definite trajectories through configuration spaces, the traditional formulation of quantum theory asserts that closed quantum systems have specific states that evolve unitarily along definite trajectories through Hilbert spaces, and our interpretation extends this intuitive picture of states and Hilbert-space trajectories to the case of open quantum systems as well. We provide independent justification for the partial-trace operation for density matrices, reformulate wave- function collapse in terms of an underlying interpolating dynamics, derive the Born rule from deeper principles, resolve several open questions regarding ontological stability and dynamics, address a number of familiar no-go theorems, and argue that our interpretation is ultimately compatible with Lorentz invariance. Along the way, we also investigate a number of unexplored features of quantum theory, including an interesting geometrical structure|which we call subsystem space|that we believe merits further study. We include an appendix that briefly reviews the traditional Copenhagen interpretation and the measurement problem of quantum theory, as well as the instrumentalist approach and a collection of foundational theorems not otherwise discussed in the main text. arXiv:1405.6755v3 [quant-ph] 5 Jun 2014 ∗ [email protected] y [email protected] 2 CONTENTS I. Introduction 2 II. Preliminary Concepts 6 III. The Minimal Modal Interpretation 13 IV. The Measurement Process 40 V. Lorentz Invariance and Locality 48 VI. Conclusion 59 Acknowledgments 65 Appendix 66 References 73 I. INTRODUCTION A. Why Do We Need a New Interpretation? 1. The Copenhagen Interpretation Any mathematical-physical theory like quantum theory1 requires an interpretation, by which we mean some asserted connection with the real world. The traditional Copenhagen interpretation, with its axiomatic Born rule for computing empirical outcome probabilities and its notion of wave-function collapse for establishing the persistence of measurement outcomes, works quite well in most practical circumstances.2 At least according to some surveys [254, 287], the Copenhagen interpretation is still the most popular interpretation today. Unfortunately, the Copenhagen interpretation also suffers from a number of serious drawbacks. Most significantly, the definition of a measurement according to the Copenhagen interpretation relies on a questionable demarcation, known as the Heisenberg cut (Heisenbergscher Schnitt)[198, 304], between the large classical systems that carry out measurements and the small quantum systems that they measure; this ill-defined Heisenberg cut has never been identified in any experiment to date and must be put into the interpretation by hand. (See Figure1.) An associated issue is the interpretation's assumption of wave-function collapse|known more formally as the Von Neumann-L¨uders projection postulate [214, 305]|by which we refer to the supposed instantaneous, discontinuous change in a quantum system immediately following a measurement by a classical system, in stark contrast to the smooth time evolution that governs dynamically closed systems. The Copenhagen interpretation is also unclear as to the ultimate meaning of the state vector of a system: Does a system's state vector merely represent the experimenter's knowledge, is it some sort of objective probability dis- tribution,3 or is it an irreducible ingredient of reality like the state of a classical system? For that matter, what constitutes an observer, and can we meaningfully talk about the state of an observer within the formalism of quantum theory? Given that no realistic system is ever perfectly free of quantum entanglements with other systems, and thus no realistic system can ever truly be assigned a specific state vector in the first place, what becomes of the popular depiction of quantum theory in which every particle is supposedly described by a specific wave function propagating in three-dimensional space? The Copenhagen interpretation leads to additional trouble when trying to make sense of thought experiments like Schr¨odinger'scat, Wigner's friend, and the quantum Zeno paradox.4 1 We use the term \quantum theory" here in its broadest sense of referring to the general theoretical framework consisting of Hilbert spaces and state vectors that encompasses models as diverse as nonrelativistic point particles and quantum field theories. We are not referring specifically to the nonrelativistic models of quantum-mechanical point particles that dominated the subject in its early days. 2 See Appendix1 for a detailed definition of the Copenhagen interpretation, as well as a description of the famous measurement problem of quantum theory and a systematic classification of attempts to solve it according to the various prominent interpretations of the theory. 3 Recent work [35, 85, 247] casts considerable doubt on assertions that state vectors are nothing more than probability distributions over more fundamental ingredients of reality. 4 We will discuss all of these thought experiments in SectionIVC. 3 ? ? ? ? Heisenberg Cut ? ? ? ? Ψ Ψ Ψ Figure 1. The Heisenberg cut. 2. An Ideal Interpretation Physicists and philosophers have expended much effort over many decades on the search for an alternative inter- pretation of quantum theory that could resolve these problems. Ideally, such an interpretation would eliminate the need for an ad hoc Heisenberg cut, thereby demoting measurements to an ordinary kind of interaction and allowing quantum theory to be a complete theory that seamlessly encompasses all systems in Nature, including observers as physical systems with quantum states of their own. Moreover, an acceptable interpretation should fundamentally (even if not always superficially) be consistent with all experimental data and other reliably known features of Nature, including relativity, and should be general enough to accommodate the large variety of both presently known and hypothetical physical systems. Such an interpretation should also address the key no-go theorems developed over the years by researchers working on the foundations of quantum theory, should not depend on concepts or quantities whose definitions require a physically unrealistic measure-zero level of sharpness, and should be insensitive to potentially unknowable features of reality, such as whether we can sensibly define \the universe as a whole" as being a closed or open system. 3. Instrumentalism In principle, an alternative to this project is always available: One could instead simply insist upon instrumentalism| known in some quarters as the \shut-up-and-calculate approach" [220, 222]|meaning that one should regard the mathematical formalism of quantum theory merely as a calculational recipe or algorithm for predicting measurement results and empirical outcome probabilities obtained by the kinds of physical systems (agents) that can self-consistently act as observers, and, furthermore, that one should refuse to make definitive metaphysical claims about any underlying reality.5 We provide a more extensive description of the instrumentalist approach in Appendix1d. On the other hand, if the physics community had uniformly accepted instrumentalism from the very beginning of the history of quantum theory, then we might have missed out on the many important spin-offs from the search for a better interpretation: Decoherence, quantum information, quantum computing, quantum cryptography, and the black-hole information paradox are just a few of the far-reaching ideas that ultimately owe their origin to people thinking seriously about the meaning of quantum theory. 5 \Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent." [326] 4 B. Our Interpretation In this paper and in a brief companion letter [34], we present a realist interpretation of quantum theory that hews closely to the basic structure of the theory in its widely accepted current form. Our primary goal is to move beyond instrumentalism and describe an actual reality that lies behind the mathematical formalism of quantum theory. We also intend to provide new hope to those who find themselves disappointed with the pace of progress on making sense of the theory's foundations [314, 317]. Our interpretation is fully quantum in nature. However, for purposes of motivation, consider the basic theoretical structure of classical physics: A classical system has a specific state that evolves in time through the system's configuration space according to some dynamical rule that may or may not be stochastic, and this dynamical rule exists whether or not the system's state lies beneath a nontrivial evolving probability distribution on the system's configuration space; moreover, the dynamical rule for the system's underlying state is consistent with the overall evolution of the system's probability distribution, in the sense that if we consider a probabilistic ensemble over the system's initial underlying state and apply the dynamical rule to each underlying
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Elementary Explanation of the Inexistence of Decoherence at Zero
    Elementary explanation of the inexistence of decoherence at zero temperature for systems with purely elastic scattering Yoseph Imry Dept. of Condensed-Matter Physics, the Weizmann Institute of science, Rehovot 76100, Israel (Dated: October 31, 2018) This note has no new results and is therefore not intended to be submitted to a ”research” journal in the foreseeable future, but to be available to the numerous individuals who are interested in this issue. Several of those have approached the author for his opinion, which is summarized here in a hopefully pedagogical manner, for convenience. It is demonstrated, using essentially only energy conservation and elementary quantum mechanics, that true decoherence by a normal environment approaching the zero-temperature limit is impossible for a test particle which can not give or lose energy. Prime examples are: Bragg scattering, the M¨ossbauer effect and related phenomena at zero temperature, as well as quantum corrections for the transport of conduction electrons in solids. The last example is valid within the scattering formulation for the transport. Similar statements apply also to interference properties in equilibrium. PACS numbers: 73.23.Hk, 73.20.Dx ,72.15.Qm, 73.21.La I. INTRODUCTION cally in the case of the coupling of a conduction-electron in a solid to lattice vibrations (phonons) 14 years ago [5] and immediately refuted vigorously [6]. Interest in this What diminishes the interference of, say, two waves problem has resurfaced due to experiments by Mohanty (see Eq. 1 below) is an interesting fundamental ques- et al [7] which determine the dephasing rate of conduc- tion, some aspects of which are, surprisingly, still being tion electrons by weak-localization magnetoconductance debated.
    [Show full text]
  • Accommodating Retrocausality with Free Will Yakir Aharonov Chapman University, [email protected]
    Chapman University Chapman University Digital Commons Mathematics, Physics, and Computer Science Science and Technology Faculty Articles and Faculty Articles and Research Research 2016 Accommodating Retrocausality with Free Will Yakir Aharonov Chapman University, [email protected] Eliahu Cohen Tel Aviv University Tomer Shushi University of Haifa Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.chapman.edu/scs_articles Part of the Quantum Physics Commons Recommended Citation Aharonov, Y., Cohen, E., & Shushi, T. (2016). Accommodating Retrocausality with Free Will. Quanta, 5(1), 53-60. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.12743/quanta.v5i1.44 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Science and Technology Faculty Articles and Research at Chapman University Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Mathematics, Physics, and Computer Science Faculty Articles and Research by an authorized administrator of Chapman University Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Accommodating Retrocausality with Free Will Comments This article was originally published in Quanta, volume 5, issue 1, in 2016. DOI: 10.12743/quanta.v5i1.44 Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License. This article is available at Chapman University Digital Commons: http://digitalcommons.chapman.edu/scs_articles/334 Accommodating Retrocausality with Free Will Yakir Aharonov 1;2, Eliahu Cohen 1;3 & Tomer Shushi 4 1 School of Physics and Astronomy, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel. E-mail: [email protected] 2 Schmid College of Science, Chapman University, Orange, California, USA. E-mail: [email protected] 3 H. H. Wills Physics Laboratory, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
    [Show full text]
  • International Centre for Theoretical Physics
    XA<? 6 H 0 <! W IC/95/320 INTERNATIONAL CENTRE FOR THEORETICAL PHYSICS BOHM'S THEORY VERSUS DYNAMICAL REDUCTION G.C. Ghirardi and INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY R. Grassi AGENCY UNITED NATIONS EDUCATIONAL, SCIENTIFIC AND CULTURAL ORGANIZATION MIRAMARE-TRIESTE VQL 'l 7 Ha ° 7 IC/95/320 ABSTRACT International Atomic Energy Agency and United Nations Educational scientific and Cultural Organization made that theories which exhibit parameter , INTERNATIONAL CENTRE FOR THEORETICAL PHYSICS BOHM'S THEORY VERSUS DYNAMICAL REDUCTION1 1. Introduction. We share today's widespread opinion that Standard Quantum Mechanics (SQM), in spite of its enormous successes, has failed in giving a G.C. Ghirardi satisfactory picture of the world, as we perceive it. The difficulties about International Centre for Theoretical Physics, Trieste, Italy, the conceptual foundations of the theory arising, as is well known, from and the so-called objectification problem, have stimulated various attempts to Department of Theoretical Physics. University di Trieste, Trieste, Italy overcome them. Among these one should mention the search for a and deterministic completion of the theory, the many worlds and many minds intepretations, the so called environment induced superselection rules, the R. Grassi quantum histories approach and the dynamical reduction program. In this Department of Civil Engineering, University of Udine, Udine, Italy. paper we will focus our attention on the only available and precisely formulated examples of a deterministic completion and of a stochastic and nonlinear modification of SQM, i.e., Bohm's theory and the spontaneous reduction models, respectively. It is useful to stress that while the first theory is fully equivalent, from a predictive point of view, to SQM, the second one qualifies itself as a rival of SQM but with empirical divergence so small that it can claim all the same experimental support.
    [Show full text]
  • Geometric Phase from Aharonov-Bohm to Pancharatnam–Berry and Beyond
    Geometric phase from Aharonov-Bohm to Pancharatnam–Berry and beyond Eliahu Cohen1,2,*, Hugo Larocque1, Frédéric Bouchard1, Farshad Nejadsattari1, Yuval Gefen3, Ebrahim Karimi1,* 1Department of Physics, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, K1N 6N5, Canada 2Faculty of Engineering and the Institute of Nanotechnology and Advanced Materials, Bar Ilan University, Ramat Gan 5290002, Israel 3Department of Condensed Matter Physics, Weizmann Institute of Science, Rehovot 76100, Israel *Corresponding authors: [email protected], [email protected] Abstract: Whenever a quantum system undergoes a cycle governed by a slow change of parameters, it acquires a phase factor: the geometric phase. Its most common formulations are known as the Aharonov-Bohm, Pancharatnam and Berry phases, but both prior and later manifestations exist. Though traditionally attributed to the foundations of quantum mechanics, the geometric phase has been generalized and became increasingly influential in many areas from condensed-matter physics and optics to high energy and particle physics and from fluid mechanics to gravity and cosmology. Interestingly, the geometric phase also offers unique opportunities for quantum information and computation. In this Review we first introduce the Aharonov-Bohm effect as an important realization of the geometric phase. Then we discuss in detail the broader meaning, consequences and realizations of the geometric phase emphasizing the most important mathematical methods and experimental techniques used in the study of geometric phase, in particular those related to recent works in optics and condensed-matter physics. Published in Nature Reviews Physics 1, 437–449 (2019). DOI: 10.1038/s42254-019-0071-1 1. Introduction A charged quantum particle is moving through space.
    [Show full text]
  • Annual Report to Industry Canada Covering The
    Annual Report to Industry Canada Covering the Objectives, Activities and Finances for the period August 1, 2008 to July 31, 2009 and Statement of Objectives for Next Year and the Future Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics 31 Caroline Street North Waterloo, Ontario N2L 2Y5 Table of Contents Pages Period A. August 1, 2008 to July 31, 2009 Objectives, Activities and Finances 2-52 Statement of Objectives, Introduction Objectives 1-12 with Related Activities and Achievements Financial Statements, Expenditures, Criteria and Investment Strategy Period B. August 1, 2009 and Beyond Statement of Objectives for Next Year and Future 53-54 1 Statement of Objectives Introduction In 2008-9, the Institute achieved many important objectives of its mandate, which is to advance pure research in specific areas of theoretical physics, and to provide high quality outreach programs that educate and inspire the Canadian public, particularly young people, about the importance of basic research, discovery and innovation. Full details are provided in the body of the report below, but it is worth highlighting several major milestones. These include: In October 2008, Prof. Neil Turok officially became Director of Perimeter Institute. Dr. Turok brings outstanding credentials both as a scientist and as a visionary leader, with the ability and ambition to position PI among the best theoretical physics research institutes in the world. Throughout the last year, Perimeter Institute‘s growing reputation and targeted recruitment activities led to an increased number of scientific visitors, and rapid growth of its research community. Chart 1. Growth of PI scientific staff and associated researchers since inception, 2001-2009.
    [Show full text]
  • David Bohn, Roger Penrose, and the Search for Non-Local Causality
    David Bohm, Roger Penrose, and the Search for Non-local Causality Before they met, David Bohm and Roger Penrose each puzzled over the paradox of the arrow of time. After they met, the case for projective physical space became clearer. *** A machine makes pairs (I like to think of them as shoes); one of the pair goes into storage before anyone can look at it, and the other is sent down a long, long hallway. At the end of the hallway, a physicist examines the shoe.1 If the physicist finds a left hiking boot, he expects that a right hiking boot must have been placed in the storage bin previously, and upon later examination he finds that to be the case. So far, so good. The problem begins when it is discovered that the machine can make three types of shoes: hiking boots, tennis sneakers, and women’s pumps. Now the physicist at the end of the long hallway can randomly choose one of three templates, a metal sheet with a hole in it shaped like one of the three types of shoes. The physicist rolls dice to determine which of the templates to hold up; he rolls the dice after both shoes are out of the machine, one in storage and the other having started down the long hallway. Amazingly, two out of three times, the random choice is correct, and the shoe passes through the hole in the template. There can 1 This rendition of the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen, 1935, delayed-choice thought experiment is paraphrased from Bernard d’Espagnat, 1981, with modifications via P.
    [Show full text]
  • International Centre for Theoretical Physics
    ... „. •::^i'— IC/94/93 S r- INTERNATIONAL CENTRE FOR THEORETICAL PHYSICS QUANTUM MECHANICS WITH SPONTANEOUS LOCALIZATION AND EXPERIMENTS F. Benatti INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY G.C. Ghirardi AGENCY and R. Grassi UNITED NATIONS EDUCATIONAL, SCIENTIFIC AND CULTURAL ORGANIZATION MIRAMARE-TRIESTE 1 f I \ •» !r 10/94/93 International Atomic Energy Agency and United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization ABSTRACT INTERNATIONAL CENTRE FOR THEORETICAL PHYSICS We examine from an experimental point of v'iew the recently proposed models of spontaneous reduction. We compare their implications about decoherence with those of environmental effects. We discuss the treatment, within the considered models, of the so called quantum telegraph phenomenon and we show that, contrary to what has QUANTUM MECHANICS heen recently stated, no problems are met, Finally, we review recent interesting work WITH SPONTANEOUS LOCALIZATION investigating the implications of dynamical reduction for the proton decay. AND EXPERIMENTS ' F. Heiiatti Dip.irtimento di I-'iska Tcwicii, Univorsita di Trieste. Trieste, July, G.C. (ihirardi 1. INTRODUCTION International Centre for Theoretical Physics, Trieste, Italy One of the most intriguing features of Quantum Mechanics (QM) is that it provides and too good a description of microphenomena to be considered a mere recipe to predict Dipartiniento di Fisica Tc-orica, Univorsita di Trieste, Trieste, Italy probabilities of prospective measurement outcomes from given initial conditions and, and yet, as a fundamental theory of reality, it gives rise to serious conceptual problems, among which the impossibility, in its orthodox interpretation, to think of all physical II. CSrasfli observables of the system under consideration as possessing in all instances definite Dipartiinento di Kisira, Universita di Udinc, Udrne, Italy.
    [Show full text]
  • Quantum Theory Needs No 'Interpretation'
    Quantum Theory Needs No ‘Interpretation’ But ‘Theoretical Formal-Conceptual Unity’ (Or: Escaping Adán Cabello’s “Map of Madness” With the Help of David Deutsch’s Explanations) Christian de Ronde∗ Philosophy Institute Dr. A. Korn, Buenos Aires University - CONICET Engineering Institute - National University Arturo Jauretche, Argentina Federal University of Santa Catarina, Brazil. Center Leo Apostel fot Interdisciplinary Studies, Brussels Free University, Belgium Abstract In the year 2000, in a paper titled Quantum Theory Needs No ‘Interpretation’, Chris Fuchs and Asher Peres presented a series of instrumentalist arguments against the role played by ‘interpretations’ in QM. Since then —quite regardless of the publication of this paper— the number of interpretations has experienced a continuous growth constituting what Adán Cabello has characterized as a “map of madness”. In this work, we discuss the reasons behind this dangerous fragmentation in understanding and provide new arguments against the need of interpretations in QM which —opposite to those of Fuchs and Peres— are derived from a representational realist understanding of theories —grounded in the writings of Einstein, Heisenberg and Pauli. Furthermore, we will argue that there are reasons to believe that the creation of ‘interpretations’ for the theory of quanta has functioned as a trap designed by anti-realists in order to imprison realists in a labyrinth with no exit. Taking as a standpoint the critical analysis by David Deutsch to the anti-realist understanding of physics, we attempt to address the references and roles played by ‘theory’ and ‘observation’. In this respect, we will argue that the key to escape the anti-realist trap of interpretation is to recognize that —as Einstein told Heisenberg almost one century ago— it is only the theory which can tell you what can be observed.
    [Show full text]
  • Black Holes and Qubits
    Subnuclear Physics: Past, Present and Future Pontifical Academy of Sciences, Scripta Varia 119, Vatican City 2014 www.pas.va/content/dam/accademia/pdf/sv119/sv119-duff.pdf Black Holes and Qubits MICHAEL J. D UFF Blackett Labo ratory, Imperial C ollege London Abstract Quantum entanglement lies at the heart of quantum information theory, with applications to quantum computing, teleportation, cryptography and communication. In the apparently separate world of quantum gravity, the Hawking effect of radiating black holes has also occupied centre stage. Despite their apparent differences, it turns out that there is a correspondence between the two. Introduction Whenever two very different areas of theoretical physics are found to share the same mathematics, it frequently leads to new insights on both sides. Here we describe how knowledge of string theory and M-theory leads to new discoveries about Quantum Information Theory (QIT) and vice-versa (Duff 2007; Kallosh and Linde 2006; Levay 2006). Bekenstein-Hawking entropy Every object, such as a star, has a critical size determined by its mass, which is called the Schwarzschild radius. A black hole is any object smaller than this. Once something falls inside the Schwarzschild radius, it can never escape. This boundary in spacetime is called the event horizon. So the classical picture of a black hole is that of a compact object whose gravitational field is so strong that nothing, not even light, can escape. Yet in 1974 Stephen Hawking showed that quantum black holes are not entirely black but may radiate energy, due to quantum mechanical effects in curved spacetime. In that case, they must possess the thermodynamic quantity called entropy.
    [Show full text]
  • 2. Superoscillations.Pdf
    When the Whole Vibrates Faster than Any of its Parts Computational Superoscillation Theory Nicholas Wheeler December 2017 Introduction. The phenomenon/theory of “superoscillations”—brought to my attention by my friend Ahmed Sebbar1—originated in the time-symmetric formulation of quantum mechanics2 that gave rise to the theory of “weak measurements.” Recognition of the role that superoscillations play in that work was brought into explicit focus by Aharonov et al in 1990, and since that date the concept has found application to a remarkable variety of physical subject areas. Yakir Aharonov took his PhD in 1960 from the University of Bristol, where he worked with David Bohm.3 In 1992 a conference was convened at Bristol to celebrate Aharonov’s 60th birthday. It was on that occasion that the superoscillation phenomenon came first to the attention of Michael Berry (of the Bristol faculty), who in an essay “Faster than Fourier” contributed to the proceedings of that conference4 wrote that “He [Aharonov] told me that it is possible for functions to oscillate faster than any of their Fourier components. This seemed unbelievable, even paradoxical; I had heard nothing like it before. ” Berry was inspired to write a series of papers relating to the theory of superoscillation and its potential applications, as also by now have a great many other authors. 1 Private communication, 17 November 2017. 2 Y. Aharonov, P. G. Bergmann & J. L. Libowitz, “Time symmetry in the quantum meassurement process,” Phys. Rev. B 134, 1410–1416 (1964). 3 It was, I suspect, at the invitation of E. P Gross—who had collaborated with Bohm when both were at Princeton—that Aharonov spent 1960–1961 at Brandeis University, from which I had taken the first PhD and departed to Utrecht/CERN in February of 1960, so we never met.
    [Show full text]
  • The Minimal Modal Interpretation of Quantum Theory
    The Minimal Modal Interpretation of Quantum Theory Jacob A. Barandes1, ∗ and David Kagan2, y 1Jefferson Physical Laboratory, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA 02138 2Department of Physics, University of Massachusetts Dartmouth, North Dartmouth, MA 02747 (Dated: May 5, 2017) We introduce a realist, unextravagant interpretation of quantum theory that builds on the existing physical structure of the theory and allows experiments to have definite outcomes but leaves the theory's basic dynamical content essentially intact. Much as classical systems have specific states that evolve along definite trajectories through configuration spaces, the traditional formulation of quantum theory permits assuming that closed quantum systems have specific states that evolve unitarily along definite trajectories through Hilbert spaces, and our interpretation extends this intuitive picture of states and Hilbert-space trajectories to the more realistic case of open quantum systems despite the generic development of entanglement. We provide independent justification for the partial-trace operation for density matrices, reformulate wave-function collapse in terms of an underlying interpolating dynamics, derive the Born rule from deeper principles, resolve several open questions regarding ontological stability and dynamics, address a number of familiar no-go theorems, and argue that our interpretation is ultimately compatible with Lorentz invariance. Along the way, we also investigate a number of unexplored features of quantum theory, including an interesting geometrical structure|which we call subsystem space|that we believe merits further study. We conclude with a summary, a list of criteria for future work on quantum foundations, and further research directions. We include an appendix that briefly reviews the traditional Copenhagen interpretation and the measurement problem of quantum theory, as well as the instrumentalist approach and a collection of foundational theorems not otherwise discussed in the main text.
    [Show full text]
  • Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics: a General Purview
    Mississippi State University Scholars Junction Collge of Arts and Sciences Publications and Scholarship College of Arts and Sciences 10-1-2020 Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics: A General Purview Prajwal Mohanmurthy Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarsjunction.msstate.edu/cas-publications Recommended Citation Mohanmurthy, Prajwal, "Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics: A General Purview" (2020). Collge of Arts and Sciences Publications and Scholarship. 14. https://scholarsjunction.msstate.edu/cas-publications/14 This Preprint is brought to you for free and open access by the College of Arts and Sciences at Scholars Junction. It has been accepted for inclusion in Collge of Arts and Sciences Publications and Scholarship by an authorized administrator of Scholars Junction. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Fall 2020 December 5, 2020 Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics A General Purview Dr. Prajwal MohanMurthy 1 Argonne National Laboratory University of Chicago 9700 S Cass Ave, Lemont, IL 60439, U.S.A Department of Physics and Astronomy Mississippi State University PO Box 5167, Mississippi State, MS 39762, U.S.A Quantum mechanics revolutionized physics in early 20th century and lead to one of the two field theories, the standard model, which is a crowing achievement of our contemporary times. However, paradoxes within the quantum mechanics, were recognized early on. These paradoxes have paved way to multiple interpretations of quantum mechanics over the century. These interpretations do not particularly affect the validity of the empirically established observations and measurements. We will attempt to introduce a few major interpretations of quantum mechanics and present their advantages and disadvantages in a very limited fashion.
    [Show full text]