The interpretation of quantum theory is one of the longest-standing debates in physics. Type I interpretations see quantum probabilities as determined by intrinsic properties of the observed system. Type II see them as relational experiences between an observer and the system. It is usually believed that a decision between these two options cannot be made simply on purely physical grounds but requires an act of metaphysical judgment. Here we show that, under some assumptions, the problem is decidable using thermodynamics. We prove that type I interpretations are incompatible with the following assumptions: (i) The choice of which measurement is performed can be made randomly and independently of the system under observation, (ii) the system has limited memory, and (iii) Landauer's erasure principle holds.
The interpretation of quantum theory is one of the longest-standing debates in physics. Type I interpretations see quantum probabilities as determined by intrinsic properties of the observed system. Type II see them as relational experiences between an observer and the system. It is usually believed that a decision between these two options cannot be made simply on purely physical grounds but requires an act of metaphysical judgment. Here we show that, under some assumptions, the problem is decidable using thermodynamics. We prove that type I interpretations are incompatible with the following assumptions: (i) The choice of which measurement is performed can be made randomly and independently of the system under observation, (ii) the system has limited memory, and (iii) Landauer's erasure principle holds.
Here we clarify the assumptions made and conclusions reached in our paper "The thermodynamical cost of some interpretations of quantum theory" [Phys. Rev. A 94, 052127 (2016)], at the light of the criticisms of Prunkl and Timpson [Stud. Hist. Philos. Sci. Part B 63, 114 (2018)], and Davidsson (Master thesis, Stockholm University, 2018). We point out some misunderstandings and some weaknesses of the counterexample Prunkl and Timpson present to challenge our conclusion. We thus conclude, once more, that interpretations of quantum theory which consider the probabilities of measurement outcomes to be determined by objective properties of the measured system and satisfy the assumption that the measured system only has finite memory have a thermodynamical cost.
A restricted form of Landauer’s principle, independent of computational considerations, is shown to hold for thermal systems by reference to the joint entropy associated with conjugate observables. It is shown that the source of the compensating entropy for irreversible physical processes is due to the ontological uncertainty attending values of such mutually incompatible observables, rather than due to epistemic uncertainty, as traditionally assumed in the information-theoretic approach. In particular, it is explicitly shown that erasure of logical (epistemic) information via reset operations is not equivalent to erasure of thermodynamic entropy, so that the traditional, information-theoretic form of Landauer’s principle is not supported by the physics. A further implication of the analysis is that, in principle, there can be no Maxwell’s Demon in the real world.
The Landauer's principle, a cornerstone of information thermodynamics, provides a fundamental lower bound on the energetic cost of information erasure in terms of the information content change. However, its traditional formulation is largely confined to systems exchanging solely energy with an ideal thermal bath. In this work, we derive general information-cost trade-off relations that go beyond the scope of Landauer's principle by developing a thermodynamic inference approach based on the maximum entropy principle. These relations require only information about the system and are applicable to complex quantum scenarios involving multiple conserved charges and non-thermal environments. Specifically, we present two key results: (i) In scenarios where only the mean values of observables are accessible, we derive an information-content-informed upper bound on the thermodynamic cost which complements an existing generalized Landauer lower bound. (ii) When second-order fluctuations can also be measured, we obtain an information-content-informed lower bound on the change in variances of observables, thereby extending the Landauer's principle to constrain higher-order fluctuation costs. We numerically validate our information-cost trade-off relations using a coupled-qubit system exchanging energy and excitations, a driven qubit implementing an information erasure process, and a driven double quantum dot system that can operate as an inelastic heat engine. Our results underscore the broad utility of maximum-entropy inference in constraining thermodynamic costs for generic finite-time quantum processes, with direct relevance to quantum information processing and quantum thermodynamic applications.
The Thermodynamic Cost of Knowing: Observation as Irreversible Payment This preprint is a formal technical note establishing a rigorous, machine-verified bridge between Quantum Information Theory (Englert-Greenberger duality) and Classical Thermodynamics (Landauer's Principle). Abstract The UMST/DUMSTO Thermodynamic Gate has been extended to enforce physical quantum boundary conditions. Every mathematical proposition presented in this note is mechanically verified in Lean 4 with Mathlib. Across 53 core modules (58 .lean files), the underlying formalization contains 515 theorems, 33 lemmas, 6 explicit axioms, and 0 sorry gaps. We formally prove that every fraction of a bit of which-path information causes a proportional destruction of interference, and this destruction carries an exact Landauer thermodynamic cost. The Core Result: The Principle of Maximal Information Collapse The central theorem of this framework demonstrates that information extraction cannot be decoupled from thermodynamic dissipation. Specifically, the acquisition of which-path information strictly binds the residual coherence capacity of the quantum state, forcing a minimum Landauer erasure cost when the environment is reset. When an observer extracts which-path information from a quantum system, the residual coherence capacity is strictly bounded by: Residual Coherence = 1 − [ MI_extracted / (k_B T ln 2) ] ∈ [0, 1] This formally verifies that observation is an irreversible thermodynamic payment, anchoring the abstract axioms of quantum measurement (collapse) to the physical constraints of heat generation. Formally Proved Englert Complementarity: V² + I² ≤ 1 Which-Path Collapse: V → 0 after projection (Lüders channel) Cost-Coherence Identity: Q = k_B T ln(2) · (1 − Residual Capacity) Landauer Bound: Erasure cost matches thermodynamic heat dissipation Quantum Mutual Information: I(A:B) = S(A) + S(B) − S(AB) ≥ 0 General Residual Coherence: measurement-update coherence bound for arbitrary bases Erasure Channel: complete depolarization entropy bound Verification Stack & Source Availability While this document details the theoretical and mathematical framework, the complete proof source code is publicly available via the associated tytolabs GitHub Repository. Formal Proof: Lean 4 + Mathlib (53 modules, 515 theorems, 33 lemmas, 6 explicit axioms, 0 sorry). Property Testing: Haskell/QuickCheck (14 physical admissibility properties). Numerical Simulation: Python (stdlib + QuTiP) — 87 unit tests, 4 simulations. Cross-Language Specs: Coq/Rocq (9 modules, 0 Admitted) and Agda (11 modules) parity translations.
This paper argues that the formation of a definite record in any physical system—whether a quantum measurement outcome or a neural decision—carries an unavoidable thermodynamic cost given by the Bennett-Landauer erasure bound: at least k_B T \ln 2 per bit of discarded branch information. The authors define a definite record operationally, without reference to observers, as a state in which a system selects one alternative from a set and renders the others inaccessible to itself, making the transition a many-to-one map on its state space. They address the central objection that decoherence is reversible by distinguishing the reversible entanglement step from the irreversible erasure step, arguing that the bound applies to the reset of the record system relative to its own accessible correlations. The framework is applied to quantum measurement and neural commitment as structural analogues rather than identical mechanisms, and the authors explicitly limit their claims: they do not derive the Second Law, explain the arrow of time, or require consciousness.
In this paper, we shall show how the theory of measurements is to be understood from the point of view of a physical interpretation of the quantum theory in terms of "hidden" variables, developed in a previous paper. We find that in principle, these "hidden" variables determine the precise results of each individual measurement process. In practice, however, in measurements that we now know how to carry out, the observing apparatus disturbs the observed system in an unpredictable and uncontrollable way, so that the uncertainty principle is obtained as a practical limitation on the possible precision of measurements. This limitation is not, however, inherent in the conceptual structure of our interpretation. We shall see, for example, that simultaneous measurements of position and momentum having unlimited precision would in principle be possible if, as suggested in the previous paper, the mathematical formulation of the quantum theory needs to be modified at very short distances in certain ways that are consistent with our interpretation but not with the usual interpretation.We give a simple explanation of the origin of quantum-mechanical correlations of distant objects in the hypothetical experiment of Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen, which was suggested by these authors as a criticism of the usual interpretation.Finally, we show that von Neumann's proof that quantum theory is not consistent with hidden variables does not apply to our interpretation, because the hidden variables contemplated here depend both on the state of the measuring apparatus and the observed system and therefore go beyond certain of von Neumann's assumptions.In two appendixes, we treat the problem of the electromagnetic field in our interpretation and answer certain additional objections which have arisen in the attempt to give a precise description for an individual system at the quantum level.