Laws, Symmetries, and Reality

It is argued that quantum mechanics follows naturally from the assumptions that there are no fundamental causal laws but only probabilities for physical processes that are constrained by symmetries, and reality is relational in the sense that an object is real only in relation to another object that it is interacting with. The first assumption makes it natural to include in the action for a gauge theory all terms that are allowed by the symmetries, enabling cancellation of infinities, with only the terms in the standard model observable at the energies at which we presently do our experiments. In this approach, it is also natural to have an infinite number of fundamental interactions.     

Laws, symmetries and reality

It is argued that quantum mechanics follows naturally from the assumptions that there are no fundamental causal laws but only probabilities for physical processes that are constrained by symmetries, and reality is relational in the sense that an object is real only in relation to another object that it is interacting with. The first assumption makes it natural to include in the action for a gauge theory all terms that are allowed by the symmetries, enabling cancellation of infinities, with only the terms in the standard model observable at the energies at which we presently do our experiments. In this approach, it is also natural to have an infinite number of fundamental interactions.     

The Symmetrical Foundation of Measure,Probability, and Quantum Theories

Quantification starts with sum and product rules that express combination and partition. These rules rest on elementary symmetries that have wide applicability, which explains why arithmetical adding up and splitting into proportions are ubiquitous. Specifically, measure theory formalizes addition, and probability theory formalizes inference in terms of proportions. Quantum theory rests on the same simple symmetries, but is formalized in two dimensions, not just one, in order to track an object through its binary interactions with other objects. The symmetries still require sum and product rules (here known as the Feynman rules), but they apply to complex numbers instead of real scalars, with observable probabilities being modulus squared (known as the Born rule). The standard quantum formalism follows. There is no mystery or weirdness, just ordinary probabilistic inference.     

Quantum conditional probability in one-dimensional scattering

A result of Wan and McLean on the asymptotic separation of states in quantum mechanics is used to analyze the motion of a particle across a one-dimensional potential of finite range in terms of quantum conditional probabilities. It is shown that probabilities conditional on transmission or reflection, defined according to the Lüders rule, yield the results to be expected by intuitive argument. The theorem of total probabilities, based on the events of transmission and reflection, is shown to hold for a class of observables, and examples are given both of observables which belong to this class and of observables which do not.     

Why Do the Quantum Observables Form a Jordan Operator Algebra?

The Jordan algebra structure of the bounded real quantum observables was recognized already in the early days of quantum mechanics. While there are plausible reasons for most parts of this structure, the existence of the distributive nonassociative multiplication operation is hard to justify from a physical or statistical point of view. Considering the non-Boolean extension of classical probabilities, presented in a recent paper, it is shown in this paper that such a multiplication operation can be derived from certain properties of the conditional probabilities and the observables, i.e., from postulates with a clear statistical interpretation. The well-known close relation between Jordan operator algebras and C*-algebras then provides the connection to the quantum-mechanical Hilbert space formalism, thus resulting in a novel axiomatic approach to general quantum mechanics that includes the types II and III von Neumann algebras.     

Nature Has No Elementary Particles and Makes No Measurements or Predictions: Quantum Measurement and Quantum Theory,from Bohr to Bell and from Bell to Bohr

This article reconsiders the concept of physical reality in quantum theory and the concept of quantum measurement, following Bohr, whose analysis of quantum measurement led him to his concept of a (quantum) “phenomenon,” referring to “the observations obtained under the specified circumstances,” in the interaction between quantum objects and measuring instruments. This situation makes the terms “observation” and “measurement,” as conventionally understood, inapplicable. These terms are remnants of classical physics or still earlier history, from which classical physics inherited it. As defined here, a quantum measurement does not measure any preexisting property of the ultimate constitution of the reality responsible for quantum phenomena. An act of measurement establishes a quantum phenomenon by an interaction between the instrument and the quantum object or in the present view the ultimate constitution of the reality responsible for quantum phenomena and, at the time of measurement, also quantum objects. In the view advanced in this article, in contrast to that of Bohr, quantum objects, such as electrons or photons, are assumed to exist only at the time of measurement and not independently, a view that redefines the concept of quantum object as well. This redefinition becomes especially important in high-energy quantum regimes and quantum field theory and allows this article to define a new concept of quantum field. The article also considers, now following Bohr, the quantum measurement as the entanglement between quantum objects and measurement instruments. The argument of the article is grounded in the concept “reality without realism” (RWR), as underlying quantum measurement thus understood, and the view, the RWR view, of quantum theory defined by this concept. The RWR view places a stratum of physical reality thus designated, here the reality ultimately responsible for quantum phenomena, beyond representation or knowledge, or even conception, and defines the corresponding set of interpretations quantum mechanics or quantum field theory, such as the one assumed in this article, in which, again, not only quantum phenomena but also quantum objects are (idealizations) defined by measurement. As such, the article also offers a broadly conceived response to J. Bell’s argument “against ‘measurement’”.     

Objective Probability and Quantum Fuzziness

This paper offers a critique of the Bayesian interpretation of quantum mechanics with particular focus on a paper by Caves, Fuchs, and Schack containing a critique of the “objective preparations view” or OPV. It also aims to carry the discussion beyond the hardened positions of Bayesians and proponents of the OPV. Several claims made by Caves et al. are rebutted, including the claim that different pure states may legitimately be assigned to the same system at the same time, and the claim that the quantum nature of a preparation device cannot legitimately be ignored. Both Bayesians and proponents of the OPV regard the time dependence of a quantum state as the continuous dependence on time of an evolving state of some kind. This leads to a false dilemma: quantum states are either objective states of nature or subjective states of belief. In reality they are neither. The present paper views the aforesaid dependence as a dependence on the time of the measurement to whose possible outcomes the quantum state serves to assign probabilities. This makes it possible to recognize the full implications of the only testable feature of the theory, viz., the probabilities it assigns to measurement outcomes. Most important among these are the objective fuzziness of all relative positions and momenta and the consequent incomplete spatiotemporal differentiation of the physical world. The latter makes it possible to draw a clear distinction between the macroscopic and the microscopic. This in turn makes it possible to understand the special status of measurements in all standard formulations of the theory. Whereas Bayesians have written contemptuously about the “folly” of conjoining “objective” to “probability,” there are various reasons why quantum-mechanical probabilities can be considered objective, not least the fact that they are needed to quantify an objective fuzziness. But this cannot be appreciated without giving thought to the makeup of the world, which Bayesians refuse to do. Doing this on the basis of how quantum mechanics assigns probabilities, one finds that what constitutes the macroworld is a single Ultimate Reality, about which we know nothing, except that it manifests the macroworld or manifests itself as the macroworld. The so-called microworld is neither a world nor a part of any world but instead is instrumental in the manifestation of the macroworld. Quantum mechanics affords us a glimpse “behind” the manifested world, at stages in the process of manifestation, but it does not allow us to describe what lies “behind” the manifested world except in terms of the finished product—the manifested world, for without the manifested world there is nothing in whose terms we could describe its manifestation.     

A short introduction to quantum symmetry

In quantum theory, symmetries more general than groups are possible. We give a general definition of a quantum symmetry, such that symmetry operations act on the Hilbert space of physical states and notions of unitarity, invariance and covariance are defined. Within this frame, weak quasi quantum groups are described as a natural generalization of group algebras. Consistency with locality distinguishes them from more general quantum symmetries. To find the new kinds of symmetry one should investigate low dimensional quantum systems such as two-dimensional layers.     

广义(3+1)维Zakharov-Kuznetsov方程的对称约化、精确解和守恒律

运用李群分析,得到了广义(3+1)维Zakharov-Kuznetsov(ZK)方程的对称及约化方程,结合齐次平衡原理,试探函数法和指数函数法得到了该方程的群不变解和新精确解,包括冲击波解、孤立波解等.进一步给出了广义(3+1)维ZK方程的伴随方程和守恒律.     

Timeless Configuration Space and the Emergence of Classical Behavior

The inherent difficulty in talking about quantum decoherence in the context of quantum cosmology is that decoherence requires subsystems, and cosmology is the study of the whole Universe. Consistent histories gave a possible answer to this conundrum, by phrasing decoherence as loss of interference between alternative histories of closed systems. When one can apply Boolean logic to a set of histories, it is deemed ‘consistent’. However, the vast majority of the sets of histories that are merely consistent are blatantly nonclassical in other respects, and further constraints than just consistency need to be invoked. In this paper, I attempt to give an alternative answer to the issues faced by consistent histories, by exploring a timeless interpretation of quantum mechanics of closed systems. This is done solely in terms of path integrals in non-relativistic, timeless, configuration space. What prompts a fresh look at such foundational problems in this context is the advent of multiple gravitational models in which Lorentz symmetry is not fundamental, but only emergent. And what allows this approach to overcome previous barriers to a timeless, conditional probabilities interpretation of quantum mechanics is the new notion of records—made possible by an inherent asymmetry of configuration space. I outline and explore consequences of this approach for foundational issues of quantum mechanics, such as the natural emergence of the Born rule, conservation of probabilities, and the Sleeping Beauty paradox.     

The Ithaca Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, and Objective Probabilities

The Ithaca interpretation of quantum mechanics, proposed in 1996 by David Mermin, seeks to reduce the interpretive puzzles of quantum mechanics to the single puzzle of interpreting objective quantum probabilities. Some suggestions are made as to how the numerical values of quantum probabilities could be ontologically based in a world containing all the possible outcomes of all probabilistic processes. It is then shown that Hardy's paradox, discussed by Mermin, can be resolved when probabilities are interpreted in this way.     

Revisiting Born’s Rule through Uhlhorn’s and Gleason’s Theorems

In a previous article we presented an argument to obtain (or rather infer) Born’s rule, based on a simple set of axioms named “Contexts, Systems and Modalities" (CSM). In this approach, there is no “emergence”, but the structure of quantum mechanics can be attributed to an interplay between the quantized number of modalities that is accessible to a quantum system and the continuum of contexts that are required to define these modalities. The strong link of this derivation with Gleason’s theorem was emphasized, with the argument that CSM provides a physical justification for Gleason’s hypotheses. Here, we extend this result by showing that an essential one among these hypotheses—the need of unitary transforms to relate different contexts—can be removed and is better seen as a necessary consequence of Uhlhorn’s theorem.     

Hidden Variables or Positive Probabilities?

Despite claims that Bell's inequalities are based on the Einstein locality condition, or equivalent, all derivations make an identical mathematical assumption that local hidden-variable theories produce a set of positive-definite probabilities for detecting a particle with a given spin orientation. The standard argument is that because quantum mechanics assumes that particles are emitted in a superposition of states the theory cannot produce such a set of probabilites. We examine a paper by Eberhard, and several similar papers, which claim to show that a generalized Bell inequality, the CHSH inequality, can be derived solely on the basis of the locality condition, without recourse to hidden variables. We point out that these authors nonetheless assumes a set of positive-definite probabilities, which supports the claim that hidden variables or locality is not at issue here, positive-definite probabilities are. We demonstrate that quantum mechanics does predict a set of probabilities that violate the CHSH inequality; however these probabilities are not positive-definite. Nevertheless, they are physically meaningful in that they give the usual quantum-mechanical predictions in physical situations. We discuss in what sense our results are related to the Wigner distribution.     

Amplitude phase-space model for quantum mechanics

We show that there is a close relationship between quantum mechanics and ordinary probability theory. The main difference is that in quantum mechanics the probability is computed in terms of an amplitude function, while in probability theory a probability distribution is used. Applying this idea, we then construct an amplitude model for quantum mechanics on phase space. In this model, states are represented by amplitude functions and observables are represented by functions on phase space. If we now postulate a conjugation condition, the model provides the same predictions as conventional quantum mechanics. In particular, we obtain the usual quantum marginal probabilities, conditional probabilities and expectations. The commutation relations and uncertainty principle also follow. Moreover Schrödinger's equation is shown to be an averaged version of Hamilton's equation in classical mechanics.     

Classical Versus Quantum Probability in Sequential Measurements

We demonstrate in this paper that the probabilities for sequential measurements have features very different from those of single-time measurements. First, they cannot be modelled by a classical stochastic process. Second, they are contextual, namely they depend strongly on the specific measurement scheme through which they are determined. We construct Positive-Operator-Valued measures (POVM) that provide such probabilities. For observables with continuous spectrum, the constructed POVMs depend strongly on the resolution of the measurement device, a conclusion that persists even if we consider a quantum mechanical measurement device or the presence of an environment. We then examine the same issues in alternative interpretations of quantum theory. We first show that multi-time probabilities cannot be naturally defined in terms of a frequency operator. We next prove that local hidden variable theories cannot reproduce the predictions of quantum theory for sequential measurements, even when the degrees of freedom of the measuring apparatus are taken into account. Bohmian mechanics, however, does not fall in this category. We finally examine an alternative proposal that sequential measurements can be modeled by a process that does not satisfy the Kolmogorov axioms of probability. This removes contextuality without introducing non-locality, but implies that the empirical probabilities cannot be always defined (the event frequencies do not converge). We argue that the predictions of this hypothesis are not ruled out by existing experimental results (examining in particular the “which way” experiments); they are, however, distinguishable in principle.     

Modified de Broglie--Bohm approach to the Schwarzschild black hole

A modified de Broglie-Bohm approach is generalized to the Schwarzschild black hole. By using this method, the quantum potential and the quantum trajectories of the black hole are investigated. And we find that the linear combination of two particular solutions of the black hole wavefunction is not physical although each of them is physical, if we think that the quantum gravity should reduce into its corresponding classical counterpart in which the gravity vanishes. It seems to confirm the argument, given by Alwis and MacIntire, that a possible resolution on the quantum gravity is to give up the superposition principle.     

Joint probabilities of noncommuting operators and incompleteness of quantum mechanics

We use joint probabilities to analyze the EPR argument in the Bohm's example of spins.⁽¹⁾ The properties of distribution functions for two, three, or more noncommuting spin components are explicitly studied and their limitations are pointed out. Within the statistical ensemble interpretation of quantum theory (where only statements about repeated events can be made), the incompleteness of quantum theory does not follow, as the consistent use of joint probabilities shows. This does not exclude a completion of quantum mechanics, going beyond it, by a more general theory of single events, using hidden variables, for example.