3D-Space and the preferred basis cannot uniquely emerge from the quantum structure Ovidiu Cristinel Stoica Dept. of Theoretical Physics, NIPNE|HH, Bucharest, Romania. Email: [email protected], [email protected] (Dated: August 11, 2021) Is it possible that only the state vector exists, and the 3D-space, a preferred basis, a preferred factorization of the Hilbert space, and everything else, emerge uniquely from the Hamiltonian and the state vector? In this article no-go theorems are given, showing that whenever such a candidate preferred struc- ture exists and can distinguish among physically distinct states, physically distinct structures of the same kind exist. The idea of the proof is very simple: it is always possible to make a unitary transformation of the candidate structure into another one of the same kind, but with respect to which the state of the system at a given time appears identical to a physically distinct state (which may be the state at any other time, or even a state from an \alternative reality"). Therefore, such minimalist approaches lead to strange consequences like \passive" travel in time and in alternative realities, realized simply by passive transformations of the Hilbert space. These theorems affect all minimalist theories in which the only fundamental structures are the state vector and the Hamiltonian (so-called \Hilbert space fundamentalism"), whether they assume branching or state vector reduction, in particular, the version of Everett's Interpretation coined by Carroll and Singh \Mad-dog Everettianism", various proposals based on decoherence, proposals that aim to describe everything by the quantum structure, and proposals that spacetime emerges from a purely quantum theory of gravity. Keywords: Emergent space, Decoherence, Preferred basis problem, Preferred factorization problem I. INTRODUCTION key that solves the preferred basis problem and leads to the emergence of the classical world. Therefore, claims The Quantum Mechanics (QM) of a closed system is that the preferred basis problem is solved became very defined in terms of a Hilbert space H, a Hamiltonian common cf. Wallace [4, 21], Tegmark [22], Brown and Wallace [23], Zurek [16], Schlosshauer [20, 24], Saunders operator Hb, and a state vector j (t)i 2 H which depends on time, according to the Schr¨odingerequation [3, 25] etc. Such claims were criticized, at least for MWI, by Kent [26] for seeming to require a preferred choice of d a basis to start with. Some authors stated clearly that i j (t)i = Hbj (t)i: (1) ~d t at least the configuration space and even the 3D-space, and a pre-existent factorization, are prerequisites of the Definition: MQS. In the following, the triple theory [4, 27]. The \weak version" of such programs assumes the rep- (H; H;b j i) (2) resentation of the state vector j i as a wavefunction (x) = hxj i on the configuration space, and maybe a together with the Schr¨odingerequation (1), will be called special role played by the 3D-space. If we include the minimalist quantum structure (MQS). configuration space along with the MQS, then, at least in The unitary symmetry of the Hilbert space in the MQS nonrelativistic QM, the factorization and the distances seems to be broken only by the Hamiltonian operator can be decoded from the potential term of the Hamilto- nian, as explained e.g. in [28, 29]. Hb. But to connect the Hilbert space formalism with arXiv:2102.08620v6 [quant-ph] 10 Aug 2021 the empirical observations, one needs Hermitian opera- But there is a view that, if we take the unitary sym- tors that represent positions and momenta, a particular metry seriously, we should interpret (x) = hxj i as just factorization of the Hilbert space is required to represent a particular representation favored only if we pick a pre- particles, and, in general, a much richer structure than 3n ferred basis (jxi)x2R of the Hilbert space, while the the MQS seems to be needed. Given that the postulates only real structure is the state vector j i. Taking j i as of various formulations of QM are perfectly symmetric a vector is often seen as making more sense, since a pre- to the unitary symmetry, it makes sense to expect that ferred representation of the Hilbert space would be akin such formulations lead somehow to the rich structure that to the notion of an absolute reference frame of space. And describes our physical world. And indeed, it is often be- indeed this is sometimes the stated position in the dis- lieved that these structures can be uniquely recovered. cussions about a preferred basis, emergent space, or pre- This is sometimes expected to be true in particular ferred factorization (position sometimes named Hilbert in Everett's Interpretation and its Many-Worlds variants space fundamentalism). The proofs given in this arti- (MWI) [1{5], but also in the Consistent Histories ap- cle concern this strong version. A brief discussion of the proaches [6{11]. Presumably, decoherence [12{20] is the weak version is contained in the last section, and another 2 paper will give more details. In Sec. §II we show that there are infinitely many phys- When it is said that a preferred structure emerges, it ically distinct 3D-spaces in nonrelativistic QM. This case is assumed that it satisfies very strict constraints, which is used to illustrate the main idea of the proof, which will define what is understood by \preferred". Otherwise, be given in full generality in Sec. §III. The main theo- simple arguments can be used to show that there are rem shows that, if a candidate preferred structure is able multiple choices of the factorization, exhibiting different to distinguish physically distinct states, then there are physical interactions [30, 31], which can even be reduced more (in fact, infinitely many) physically distinct such to simply changing the phase of the other systems [32]. structures. The idea of the proof is very simple (Fig.1). Claims that a preferred position basis and a preferred factorization emerge uniquely are not to be understood as applying to all possible Hamiltonian operators. Ilja a) Schmelzer gave simple counterexamples [33, 34]. He used a Hamiltonian whose potential is a solution of the Korteweg-de Vries equation, depending on a parameter s 2 R, and applied a result connecting the solutions given by different values of s [35] to obtain different choices of the 1D-space for q. Schmelzer combined such Hamil- tonians to build Hamiltonians on larger Hilbert spaces and obtained physically distinct factorizations. But does this non-uniqueness hold in general, or it is an exception b) based on a very special Hamiltonian? Could the Hamil- tonian of QM, which is different, be sophisticated enough to allow unique preferred structures? Apparently, Carroll and Singh showed that this is in- deed the case, and the Hamiltonian is sufficient, more precisely, that its spectrum is enough to determine an essentially unique space structure ([36], p. 99) FIG. 1. Schematic representation of the idea of the proof. 0 a generic Hamiltonian will not be local with a) The candidate preferred structures Sj i and Sj i are sym- Hb Hb respect to any decomposition, and for the bolized as solid blue triangles. The dashed blue lines sym- special Hamiltonians that can be written in a bolize their relations with the corresponding vectors j i and local form, the decomposition in which that j 0i = Sbj i, where [S;b Hb] = 0. For 3D-space and the other works is essentially unique. structures expected to emerge, for any state vector j i there are state vectors j 0i 6= j i for which these relations are dif- In [36], p. 95, they wrote about the MQS that ferent. An obvious example is obtained by taking Sb to be a time evolution operator, because we expect that j i changes Everything else{including space and fields with respect to space, preferred bases, and preferred factor- propagating on it{is emergent from these izations. But there are infinitely many other choices for Sb. minimal elements. b) The structure Sj i being a tensor object, it is invari- Hb Carroll and Singh based their reconstruction of space ant to any unitary transformation Sb that commutes with Hb. Sj i on the results obtained by Cotler et al. [37] regarding Then Sb−1 transforms S b into another structure for j i, Hb the uniqueness of factorization of the Hilbert space, so 0j i h Sj ii j i S = Sb−1 S b , which is of the same type as S . Since Hb Hb Hb that the interaction encoded in the Hamiltonian is \lo- 0 cal" in a certain sense. The result obtained by Cotler et the relations between S j i and j i are different from those Hb al. states in fact that such a factorization is \almost al- between Sj i and j i, we conclude that Sj i is not unique. ways" unique ([37], p. 1267). We will see that both this Hb Hb factorization and the additional construction by Carroll In Sec. §IV we apply the main theorem from Sec. and Singh either are not unique, or they fail to distinguish §III to prove the non-uniqueness of generalized \pre- physically distinct states. In addition, the resulting posi- ferred" bases (in §IV A), of factorizations into subsys- tion operators commute with the Hamiltonian, violating tems (in §IV B), of 3D-space structures, both as in the the position-momentum Uncertainty Principle. approach by Carroll and Singh (in §IV C), and in general In this article we will give proofs that, whenever the (in §IV D), of generalized bases based on coherent states Hamiltonian leads to a tensor product decomposition of (in §IV E), of environmental decoherence (in §IV F), and the Hilbert space, a 3D-space structure (for simplicity of emergent macro classicality (in §IV G).