Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Log inSign up
Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Blog
Job Board
Q3AS

© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

TermsPrivacyLegal Notice

arXiv:1405.1961 · Reports on Progress in Physics

Compatible quantum theory

Richard M. Friedberg, Pierre C. Hohenberg

Published Aug 22, 2014• 6 citations
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

Formulations of quantum mechanics (QM) can be characterized as realistic, operationalist, or a combination of the two. In this paper a realistic theory is defined as describing a closed system entirely by means of entities and concepts pertaining to the system. An operationalist theory, on the other hand, requires in addition entities external to the system. A realistic formulation comprises an ontology, the set of (mathematical) entities that describe the system, and assertions, the set of correct statements (predictions) the theory makes about the objects in the ontology. Classical mechanics is the prime example of a realistic physical theory. A straightforward generalization of classical mechanics to QM is hampered by the inconsistency of quantum properties with classical logic, a circumstance that was noted many years ago by Birkhoff and von Neumann. The present realistic formulation of the histories approach originally introduced by Griffiths, which we call 'compatible quantum theory (CQT)', consists of a 'microscopic' part (MIQM), which applies to a closed quantum system of any size, and a 'macroscopic' part (MAQM), which requires the participation of a large (ideally, an infinite) system. The first (MIQM) can be fully formulated based solely on the assumption of a Hilbert space ontology and the noncontextuality of probability values, relying in an essential way on Gleason's theorem and on an application to dynamics due in large part to Nistico. Thus, the present formulation, in contrast to earlier ones, derives the Born probability formulas and the consistency (decoherence) conditions for frameworks. The microscopic theory does not, however, possess a unique corpus of assertions, but rather a multiplicity of contextual truths ('c-truths'), each one associated with a different framework. This circumstance leads us to consider the microscopic theory to be physically indeterminate and therefore incomplete, though logically coherent. The completion of the theory requires a macroscopic mechanism for selecting a physical framework, which is part of the macroscopic theory (MAQM). The selection of a physical framework involves the breaking of the microscopic 'framework symmetry', which can proceed either phenomenologically as in the standard quantum measurement theory, or more fundamentally by considering the quantum system under study to be a subsystem of a macroscopic quantum system. The decoherent histories formulation of Gell-Mann and Hartle, as well as that of Omnès, are theories of this fundamental type, where the physical framework is selected by a coarse-graining procedure in which the physical phenomenon of decoherence plays an essential role. Various well-known interpretations of QM are described from the perspective of CQT. Detailed definitions and proofs are presented in the appendices.

DOI
10.1088/0034-4885/77/9/092001

Related papers

A Consistent Quantum Ontology

Robert B. Griffiths

The (consistent or decoherent) histories interpretation provides a consistent realistic ontology for quantum mechanics, based on two main ideas. First, a logic (system of reasoning) is employed which is compatible with the Hilbert-space structure of quantum mechanics as understood by von Neumann: quantum properties and their negations correspond to subspaces and their orthogonal complements. It employs a special (single framework) syntactical rule to construct meaningful quantum expressions, quite different from the quantum logic of Birkhoff and von Neumann. Second, quantum time development is treated as an inherently stochastic process under all circumstances, not just when measurements take place. The time-dependent Schrödinger equation provides probabilities, not a deterministic time development of the world. The resulting interpretive framework has no measurement problem and can be used to analyze in quantum terms what is going on before, after, and during physical preparation and measurement processes. In particular, appropriate measurements can reveal quantum properties possessed by the measured system before the measurement took place. There are no mysterious superluminal influences: quantum systems satisfy an appropriate form of Einstein locality. This ontology provides a satisfactory foundation for quantum information theory, since it supplies definite answers as to what the information is about. The formalism of classical (Shannon) information theory applies without change in suitable quantum contexts, and this suggests the way in which quantum information theory extends beyond its classical counterpart.

arXiv:1105.3932•May 19, 2011•18 citations

Colloquium: An introduction to consistent quantum theory

Pierre C. Hohenberg

This paper presents an elementary introduction to consistent quantum theory, as developed by Griffiths and others over the past $25\phantom{\rule{0.3em}{0ex}}\text{years}$. The theory is a version of orthodox (Copenhagen) quantum mechanics based on the notion that the unique and mysterious feature of quantum, as opposed to classical systems, is the simultaneous existence of multiple incompatible representations of reality, referred to as ``frameworks.'' A framework is a maximal set of properties of a system for which probabilities can be consistently defined. This notion is expressed by stating that a framework provides an exhaustive set of exclusive alternatives, but no single framework suffices to fully characterize a quantum system. Any prediction of the theory must be confined to a single framework and combining elements from different frameworks leads to quantum mechanically meaningless statements. This ``single-framework rule'' is the precise mathematical statement of Bohr's complementarity. It is shown that if the microscopic description is assumed to incorporate these elements in a local setting, then distant entanglements, macroscopic measurements, wave-function collapse, and other features of quantum behavior follow in a logical manner. The essential elements of the theory are first explained using the simplest quantum system, a single spin-$\frac{1}{2}$ degree of freedom at one time.

arXiv:0909.2359•Reviews of Modern Physics•Oct 5, 2010•95 citations

The regular histories formulation of quantum theory

Roman Priebe

A measurement-independent formulation of quantum mechanics called ‘regular histories’ (RH) is presented, able to reproduce the predictions of the standard formalism without the need to for a quantum-classical divide or the presence of an observer. It applies to closed systems and features no wave-function collapse. Weights are assigned only to histories satisfying a criterion called ‘regularity’. As the set of regular histories is not closed under the Boolean operations this requires a new con- cept of weight, called ‘likelihood’. Remarkably, this single change is enough to overcome many of the well-known obstacles to a sensible interpretation of quantum mechanics. For example, Bell’s theorem, which makes essential use of probabilities, places no constraints on the locality properties of a theory based on likelihoods. Indeed, RH is both counter- factually definite and free from action-at-a-distance. Moreover, in RH the meaningful histories are exactly those that can be witnessed at least in principle. Since it is especially difficult to make sense of the concept of probability for histories whose occurrence is intrinsically indeterminable, this makes likelihoods easier to justify than probabilities. Interaction with the environment causes the kinds of histories relevant at the macroscopic scale of human experience to be witnessable and indeed to generate Boolean algebras of witnessable histories, on which likelihoods reduce to ordinary probabilities. Further- more, a formal notion of inference defined on regular histories satisfies, when restricted to such Boolean algebras, the classical axioms of implication, explaining our perception of a largely classical world. Even in the context of general quantum histories the rules of reasoning in RH are remark- ably intuitive. Classical logic must only be amended to reflect the fundamental premise that one cannot meaningfully talk about the occurrence of unwitnessable histories. Crucially, different histories with the same ‘physical content’ can be interpreted in the same way and independently of the family in which they are expressed. RH thereby rectifies a critical flaw of its inspiration, the consistent histories (CH) approach, which requires either an as yet unknown set selection rule or a paradigm shift towards an un- conventional picture of reality whose elements are histories-with-respect-to-a-framework. It can be argued that RH compares favourably with other proposed interpretations of quantum mechanics in that it resolves the measurement problem while retaining an essentially classical worldview without parallel universes, a framework-dependent reality or action-at-a-distance.

•Jan 1, 2012•0 citations

Consistent quantum theory as a realistic formulation of quantum mechanics

Pierre C. Hohenberg

The foundations of quantum mechanics have been plagued by controversy throughout the 85 year history of the field. It is argued that lack of clarity in the formulation of basic philosophical questions leads to unnecessary obscurity and controversy and an attempt is made to identify the main forks in the road that separate the most important interpretations of quantum theory. The consistent histories formulation, also known as "consistent quantum theory", is described as one particular way (favored by the author) to answer the essential questions of interpretation. The theory is shown to be a realistic formulation of quantum mechanics, in contrast to the orthodox or Copenhagen formulation which will be referred to as an operationalist theory.

arXiv:1101.2635•Jan 13, 2011•1 citation

A Consistent Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics

Roland L. Omnes

Some mostly recent theoretical and mathematical advances can be linked together to yield a new consistent interpretation of quantum mechanics. It relies upon a unique and universal interpretative rule of a logical character which is based upon Griffiths consistent historie. Some new results in semi-classical physics allow to derive classical physics from this rule, including its logical aspects, and to prove accordingly the existence of determinism within the quantum framework. Together with decoherence, this can be used to retrieve the existence of facts, despite the probabilistic character of the theory. Measurement theory can then be made entirely deductive. It is accordingly found that wave packet reduction is a logical property, whereas one can always choose to avoid using it. The practical consequences of this interpretation are most often in agreement with the Copenhagen formulation but they can be proved never to give rise to any logical inconsistency or paradox.

CRC Press eBooks•Oct 19, 2017•1 citation

The Quantum Mechanics of Closed Systems

James B. Hartle

A pedagogical introduction is given to the quantum mechanics of closed systems, most generally the universe as a whole. Quantum mechanics aims at predicting the probabilities of alternative coarse-grained time histories of a closed system. Not every set of alternative coarse-grained histories that can be described may be consistently assigned probabilities because of quantum mechanical interference between individual histories of the set. In “Copenhagen ” quantum mechanics, probabilities can be assigned to histories of a subsystem that have been “measured”. In the quantum mechanics of closed systems, containing both observer and observed, probabilities are assigned to those sets of alternative histories for which there is negligible interference between individual histories as a consequence of the system’s initial condition and dynamics. Such sets of histories are said to decohere. We define decoherence for closed systems in the simplified case when quantum gravity can be neglected and the initial state is pure. Typical mechanisms of decoherence that are widespread in our universe are illustrated. Copenhagen quantum mechanics is an approximation to the more general quantum framework of closed subsystems. It is appropriate when there is an approximately isolated subsystem that is a participant in a measurement situation in which (among other things) the decoherence of alternative registrations of the apparatus can be idealized as exact. Since the quantum mechanics of closed systems does not posit the existence of the quasiclassical domain of everyday experience, the domain of the approximate aplicability of classical physics must be explained. We describe how a quasiclassical domain described by averages of densities of approximately conserved quantities could be an emergent feature of an initial condition of the universe that implies the approximate classical behavior of spacetime on accessible scales.

WORLD SCIENTIFIC eBooks•Dec 9, 2020•12 citations
Formulations of quantum mechanics (QM) can be characterized as realistic, operationalist, or a combination of the two. In this paper a realistic theory is defined as describing a closed system entirely by means of entities and concepts pertaining to the system. An operationalist theory, on the other hand, requires in addition entities external to the system. A realistic formulation comprises an ontology, the set of (mathematical) entities that describe the system, and assertions, the set of correct statements (predictions) the theory makes about the objects in the ontology. Classical mechanics is the prime example of a realistic physical theory. A straightforward generalization of classical mechanics to QM is hampered by the inconsistency of quantum properties with classical logic, a circumstance that was noted many years ago by Birkhoff and von Neumann. The present realistic formulation of the histories approach originally introduced by Griffiths, which we call 'compatible quantum theory (CQT)', consists of a 'microscopic' part (MIQM), which applies to a closed quantum system of any size, and a 'macroscopic' part (MAQM), which requires the participation of a large (ideally, an infinite) system. The first (MIQM) can be fully formulated based solely on the assumption of a Hilbert space ontology and the noncontextuality of probability values, relying in an essential way on Gleason's theorem and on an application to dynamics due in large part to Nistico. Thus, the present formulation, in contrast to earlier ones, derives the Born probability formulas and the consistency (decoherence) conditions for frameworks. The microscopic theory does not, however, possess a unique corpus of assertions, but rather a multiplicity of contextual truths ('c-truths'), each one associated with a different framework. This circumstance leads us to consider the microscopic theory to be physically indeterminate and therefore incomplete, though logically coherent. The completion of the theory requires a macroscopic mechanism for selecting a physical framework, which is part of the macroscopic theory (MAQM). The selection of a physical framework involves the breaking of the microscopic 'framework symmetry', which can proceed either phenomenologically as in the standard quantum measurement theory, or more fundamentally by considering the quantum system under study to be a subsystem of a macroscopic quantum system. The decoherent histories formulation of Gell-Mann and Hartle, as well as that of Omnès, are theories of this fundamental type, where the physical framework is selected by a coarse-graining procedure in which the physical phenomenon of decoherence plays an essential role. Various well-known interpretations of QM are described from the perspective of CQT. Detailed definitions and proofs are presented in the appendices.
The (consistent or decoherent) histories interpretation provides a consistent realistic ontology for quantum mechanics, based on two main ideas. First, a logic (system of reasoning) is employed which is compatible with the Hilbert-space structure of quantum mechanics as understood by von Neumann: quantum properties and their negations correspond to subspaces and their orthogonal complements. It employs a special (single framework) syntactical rule to construct meaningful quantum expressions, quite different from the quantum logic of Birkhoff and von Neumann. Second, quantum time development is treated as an inherently stochastic process under all circumstances, not just when measurements take place. The time-dependent Schrödinger equation provides probabilities, not a deterministic time development of the world. The resulting interpretive framework has no measurement problem and can be used to analyze in quantum terms what is going on before, after, and during physical preparation and measurement processes. In particular, appropriate measurements can reveal quantum properties possessed by the measured system before the measurement took place. There are no mysterious superluminal influences: quantum systems satisfy an appropriate form of Einstein locality. This ontology provides a satisfactory foundation for quantum information theory, since it supplies definite answers as to what the information is about. The formalism of classical (Shannon) information theory applies without change in suitable quantum contexts, and this suggests the way in which quantum information theory extends beyond its classical counterpart.
This paper presents an elementary introduction to consistent quantum theory, as developed by Griffiths and others over the past 25years25\phantom{\rule{0.3em}{0ex}}\text{years}25years. The theory is a version of orthodox (Copenhagen) quantum mechanics based on the notion that the unique and mysterious feature of quantum, as opposed to classical systems, is the simultaneous existence of multiple incompatible representations of reality, referred to as ``frameworks.'' A framework is a maximal set of properties of a system for which probabilities can be consistently defined. This notion is expressed by stating that a framework provides an exhaustive set of exclusive alternatives, but no single framework suffices to fully characterize a quantum system. Any prediction of the theory must be confined to a single framework and combining elements from different frameworks leads to quantum mechanically meaningless statements. This ``single-framework rule'' is the precise mathematical statement of Bohr's complementarity. It is shown that if the microscopic description is assumed to incorporate these elements in a local setting, then distant entanglements, macroscopic measurements, wave-function collapse, and other features of quantum behavior follow in a logical manner. The essential elements of the theory are first explained using the simplest quantum system, a single spin-12\frac{1}{2}21​ degree of freedom at one time.
A measurement-independent formulation of quantum mechanics called ‘regular histories’ (RH) is presented, able to reproduce the predictions of the standard formalism without the need to for a quantum-classical divide or the presence of an observer. It applies to closed systems and features no wave-function collapse. Weights are assigned only to histories satisfying a criterion called ‘regularity’. As the set of regular histories is not closed under the Boolean operations this requires a new con- cept of weight, called ‘likelihood’. Remarkably, this single change is enough to overcome many of the well-known obstacles to a sensible interpretation of quantum mechanics. For example, Bell’s theorem, which makes essential use of probabilities, places no constraints on the locality properties of a theory based on likelihoods. Indeed, RH is both counter- factually definite and free from action-at-a-distance. Moreover, in RH the meaningful histories are exactly those that can be witnessed at least in principle. Since it is especially difficult to make sense of the concept of probability for histories whose occurrence is intrinsically indeterminable, this makes likelihoods easier to justify than probabilities. Interaction with the environment causes the kinds of histories relevant at the macroscopic scale of human experience to be witnessable and indeed to generate Boolean algebras of witnessable histories, on which likelihoods reduce to ordinary probabilities. Further- more, a formal notion of inference defined on regular histories satisfies, when restricted to such Boolean algebras, the classical axioms of implication, explaining our perception of a largely classical world. Even in the context of general quantum histories the rules of reasoning in RH are remark- ably intuitive. Classical logic must only be amended to reflect the fundamental premise that one cannot meaningfully talk about the occurrence of unwitnessable histories. Crucially, different histories with the same ‘physical content’ can be interpreted in the same way and independently of the family in which they are expressed. RH thereby rectifies a critical flaw of its inspiration, the consistent histories (CH) approach, which requires either an as yet unknown set selection rule or a paradigm shift towards an un- conventional picture of reality whose elements are histories-with-respect-to-a-framework. It can be argued that RH compares favourably with other proposed interpretations of quantum mechanics in that it resolves the measurement problem while retaining an essentially classical worldview without parallel universes, a framework-dependent reality or action-at-a-distance.
The foundations of quantum mechanics have been plagued by controversy throughout the 85 year history of the field. It is argued that lack of clarity in the formulation of basic philosophical questions leads to unnecessary obscurity and controversy and an attempt is made to identify the main forks in the road that separate the most important interpretations of quantum theory. The consistent histories formulation, also known as "consistent quantum theory", is described as one particular way (favored by the author) to answer the essential questions of interpretation. The theory is shown to be a realistic formulation of quantum mechanics, in contrast to the orthodox or Copenhagen formulation which will be referred to as an operationalist theory.
Some mostly recent theoretical and mathematical advances can be linked together to yield a new consistent interpretation of quantum mechanics. It relies upon a unique and universal interpretative rule of a logical character which is based upon Griffiths consistent historie. Some new results in semi-classical physics allow to derive classical physics from this rule, including its logical aspects, and to prove accordingly the existence of determinism within the quantum framework. Together with decoherence, this can be used to retrieve the existence of facts, despite the probabilistic character of the theory. Measurement theory can then be made entirely deductive. It is accordingly found that wave packet reduction is a logical property, whereas one can always choose to avoid using it. The practical consequences of this interpretation are most often in agreement with the Copenhagen formulation but they can be proved never to give rise to any logical inconsistency or paradox.
A pedagogical introduction is given to the quantum mechanics of closed systems, most generally the universe as a whole. Quantum mechanics aims at predicting the probabilities of alternative coarse-grained time histories of a closed system. Not every set of alternative coarse-grained histories that can be described may be consistently assigned probabilities because of quantum mechanical interference between individual histories of the set. In “Copenhagen ” quantum mechanics, probabilities can be assigned to histories of a subsystem that have been “measured”. In the quantum mechanics of closed systems, containing both observer and observed, probabilities are assigned to those sets of alternative histories for which there is negligible interference between individual histories as a consequence of the system’s initial condition and dynamics. Such sets of histories are said to decohere. We define decoherence for closed systems in the simplified case when quantum gravity can be neglected and the initial state is pure. Typical mechanisms of decoherence that are widespread in our universe are illustrated. Copenhagen quantum mechanics is an approximation to the more general quantum framework of closed subsystems. It is appropriate when there is an approximately isolated subsystem that is a participant in a measurement situation in which (among other things) the decoherence of alternative registrations of the apparatus can be idealized as exact. Since the quantum mechanics of closed systems does not posit the existence of the quasiclassical domain of everyday experience, the domain of the approximate aplicability of classical physics must be explained. We describe how a quasiclassical domain described by averages of densities of approximately conserved quantities could be an emergent feature of an initial condition of the universe that implies the approximate classical behavior of spacetime on accessible scales.