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:1609.03654

Subsystems and time in quantum mechanics

Bradley A. Foreman

Published Sep 13, 2016• 0 citations
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

This paper investigates the relationship between subsystems and time in a closed nonrelativistic system of interacting bosons and fermions. It is possible to write any state vector in such a system as an unentangled tensor product of subsystem vectors, and to do so in infinitely many ways. This requires the superposition of different numbers of particles, but the theory can describe in full the equivalence relation that leads to a particle-number superselection rule in conventionally defined subsystems. Time is defined as a functional of subsystem changes, thus eliminating the need for any reference to an external time variable. The dynamics of the unentangled subsystem decomposition is derived from a variational principle of dynamical stability, which requires the decomposition to change as little as possible in any given infinitesimal time interval, subject to the constraint that the state of the total system satisfy the Schroedinger equation. The resulting subsystem dynamics is deterministic. This determinism is regarded as a conceptual tool that observers can use to make inferences about the outside world, not as a law of nature. The experiences of each observer define some properties of that observer's subsystem during an infinitesimal interval of time (i.e., the present moment); everything else must be inferred from this information. The overall structure of the theory has some features in common with quantum Bayesianism, the Everett interpretation, and dynamical reduction models, but it differs significantly from all of these. The theory of information described here is largely qualitative, as the most important equations have not yet been solved. The quantitative level of agreement between theory and experiment thus remains an open question.

DOI
10.48550/arxiv.1609.03654

Related papers

Agents, Subsystems, and the Conservation of Information

Giulio Chiribella

Dividing the world into subsystems is an important component of the scientific method. The choice of subsystems, however, is not defined a priori. Typically, it is dictated by experimental capabilities, which may be different for different agents. Here, we propose a way to define subsystems in general physical theories, including theories beyond quantum and classical mechanics. Our construction associates every agent A with a subsystem S A , equipped with its set of states and its set of transformations. In quantum theory, this construction accommodates the notion of subsystems as factors of a tensor product, as well as the notion of subsystems associated with a subalgebra of operators. Classical systems can be interpreted as subsystems of quantum systems in different ways, by applying our construction to agents who have access to different sets of operations, including multiphase covariant channels and certain sets of free operations arising in the resource theory of quantum coherence. After illustrating the basic definitions, we restrict our attention to closed systems, that is, systems where all physical transformations act invertibly and where all states can be generated from a fixed initial state. For closed systems, we show that all the states of all subsystems admit a canonical purification. This result extends the purification principle to a broader setting, in which coherent superpositions can be interpreted as purifications of incoherent mixtures.

arXiv:1804.01943•Entropy•May 10, 2018•14 citations

Clocks And Dynamics In Quantum Mechanics

Michael J. York

We argue that (1) our perception of time through change and (2) the gap between reality and our observation of it are at the heart of both quantum mechanics and the dynamical mechanism of physical systems. We suggest that the origin of quantum uncertainty lies with the absence of infinities or infinitesimals in observational data and that our concept of time derives from observing changing data (events). We argue that the fundamentally important content of the Superposition Principle is not the "probability amplitude" of posterior state observation but future state availability conditional only on prior information. Since event detection also implies posterior conditions (e.g. a specific type of detectable event occurred) as well as prior conditions, the probabilities of detected outcomes are also conditional on properties of the posterior properties of the observation. Such posterior conditions cannot affect the prior state availabilities and this implies violation of counter-factual definiteness. A component of a quantum system may be chosen to represent a clock and changes in other components can then be expected to be correlated with clocks with which they are entangled. Instead of traditional time-dependent equations of motion we provide a specific mechanism whereby evolution of data is instead quasi-causally related to the relative \availability\ of states and equations of motion are expressed in terms of quantized clock variables. We also suggest that time-reversal symmetry-breaking in weak interactions is an artifice of a conventional choice of co-ordinate time-function. Analysis of a "free" particle suggests that conventional co-ordinate space-time emerges from how we measure the separation of objects and events.

arXiv:1405.1098•May 5, 2014•1 citation

From Entropic Dynamics to Quantum Theory

Ariel Caticha, Paul M. Goggans, Chun-Yong Chan

Non-relativistic quantum theory is derived from information codified into an appropriate statistical model. The basic assumption is that there is an irreducible uncertainty in the location of particles: positions constitute a configuration space and the corresponding probability distributions constitute a statistical manifold. The dynamics follows from a principle of inference, the method of Maximum Entropy. The concept of time is introduced as a convenient way to keep track of change. A welcome feature is that the entropic dynamics notion of time incorporates a natural distinction between past and future. The statistical manifold is assumed to be a dynamical entity: its curved and evolving geometry determines the evolution of the particles which, in their turn, react back and determine the evolution of the geometry. Imposing that the dynamics conserve energy leads to the Schroedinger equation and to a natural explanation of its linearity, its unitarity, and of the role of complex numbers. The phase of the wave function is explained as a feature of purely statistical origin. There is a quantum analogue to the gravitational equivalence principle.

arXiv:0907.4335•AIP conference proceedings•Jan 1, 2009•3 citations

Bohr’s quantum postulate and time in quantum mechanics

Mário Bacelar Valente

In this paper I shall consider the concept of time used in the quantum theory from the perspective of Bohr’s ideas as presented in what he called the quantum postulate and some of its consequences. In particular, Bohr’s views on the role of the experimental arrangement that defines the context in which we can consider the state of the quantum system to be defined – and the related interpretation of the quantum wave function –, enables a view on the time concept being used in the theory that makes compatible the discontinuous changes in individual physical systems with a continuous description in time of the behavior of an ensemble of systems. A crucial aspect will be to show that Bohr’s ideas are coherent with the use of an external classical time.

•Mar 17, 2010•0 citations

The Quantum Mechanical Frame of Reference Part 1: QBism and Psi-Ontology

Soltau, Andrew

QBism explicitly takes the subjective view: probabilities of events are defined solely by past experiences, i.e. the record of observations. As shown by the authors (Fuchs et al, 2013), this: “... removes the paradoxes, conundra, and pseudo-problems that have plagued quantum foundations for the past nine decades”. It is criticised for its lack of ontology and anthropocentric nature. However, if Everett's (1957) formulation is taken at face value, exactly the features of QBism are the result, and the ontology is inherent. The anthropocentric nature of the solution is simply an indication that the quantum state is relative, as is central to Everett. Problems of measurement and locality do not arise. As described by Tegmark (1997), Everett defines the relationship between two fundamentally different views of the world, different types of frame of reference. The outside view is defined by the unitary wave function, the inside view by the record of observations. As Lockwood (1989) states, the preferred basis problem is fully resolved if the latter is taken as the basis. Taken literally, only that defined by the record of observations is determinate in the physical world of this inside view. The reality of QBism is the result. The same can be derived from first principles in the no-collapse universe. Taking the outside view to define all possible decoherent quasi-classical worlds, the physical world of the inside view is the superposition of all such worlds in which it is instantiated. In this quantum mechanical frame of reference only that observed is determinate. The quantum state as ontology is questioned because it defines only the linear dynamics and cannot account for collapse. No deeper reality is required, however: the inside view, and the collapse dynamics that operates in this type of frame of reference, are emergent properties of the system, and operate at a different level of logical type. The world operates as described by QBism, but is nonetheless defined by the quantum state.

•Dec 31, 2015•0 citations

Entanglement in systems of indistinguishable fermions

Mari Carmen Bañuls, J. I. Cirac, Michael M. Wolf

The characterization of entanglement is a fundamental issue for Quantum Information Theory. But the definition of entanglement depends on the notion of locality, and thus on the tensor product structure of the state space of the composite system. This notion is affected by the presence of superselection rules that restrict the accessible Hilbert space to a direct sum of subspaces. Indistinguishability of particles imposes one such restriction, namely to totally symmetric or totally antisymmetric states. The entanglement can in this case be defined with respect to partitions of modes in the second quantization formalism. For fermionic systems the Fock space of m modes is isomorphic to the space of m qubits, but the action of creation and annihilation operators is not local, due to their anticommutation. Conservation of the parity of fermion number imposes another relevant superselection rule. It requires that local physical observables commute with the local parity operator. Taking into account the considerations above, it is possible to define the set of separable states or equivalently the concept of entanglement for fermionic systems in a number of ways. Here we analyze systematically these possibilities and the relation among the various sets of separable states. We also discuss the behavior of the different classes when taking several copies of the state, as well as the characterization of the sets in terms of the usual criteria regarding the tensor product.

Journal of Physics Conference Series•Jun 1, 2009•17 citations
This paper investigates the relationship between subsystems and time in a closed nonrelativistic system of interacting bosons and fermions. It is possible to write any state vector in such a system as an unentangled tensor product of subsystem vectors, and to do so in infinitely many ways. This requires the superposition of different numbers of particles, but the theory can describe in full the equivalence relation that leads to a particle-number superselection rule in conventionally defined subsystems. Time is defined as a functional of subsystem changes, thus eliminating the need for any reference to an external time variable. The dynamics of the unentangled subsystem decomposition is derived from a variational principle of dynamical stability, which requires the decomposition to change as little as possible in any given infinitesimal time interval, subject to the constraint that the state of the total system satisfy the Schroedinger equation. The resulting subsystem dynamics is deterministic. This determinism is regarded as a conceptual tool that observers can use to make inferences about the outside world, not as a law of nature. The experiences of each observer define some properties of that observer's subsystem during an infinitesimal interval of time (i.e., the present moment); everything else must be inferred from this information. The overall structure of the theory has some features in common with quantum Bayesianism, the Everett interpretation, and dynamical reduction models, but it differs significantly from all of these. The theory of information described here is largely qualitative, as the most important equations have not yet been solved. The quantitative level of agreement between theory and experiment thus remains an open question.
Dividing the world into subsystems is an important component of the scientific method. The choice of subsystems, however, is not defined a priori. Typically, it is dictated by experimental capabilities, which may be different for different agents. Here, we propose a way to define subsystems in general physical theories, including theories beyond quantum and classical mechanics. Our construction associates every agent A with a subsystem S A , equipped with its set of states and its set of transformations. In quantum theory, this construction accommodates the notion of subsystems as factors of a tensor product, as well as the notion of subsystems associated with a subalgebra of operators. Classical systems can be interpreted as subsystems of quantum systems in different ways, by applying our construction to agents who have access to different sets of operations, including multiphase covariant channels and certain sets of free operations arising in the resource theory of quantum coherence. After illustrating the basic definitions, we restrict our attention to closed systems, that is, systems where all physical transformations act invertibly and where all states can be generated from a fixed initial state. For closed systems, we show that all the states of all subsystems admit a canonical purification. This result extends the purification principle to a broader setting, in which coherent superpositions can be interpreted as purifications of incoherent mixtures.
We argue that (1) our perception of time through change and (2) the gap between reality and our observation of it are at the heart of both quantum mechanics and the dynamical mechanism of physical systems. We suggest that the origin of quantum uncertainty lies with the absence of infinities or infinitesimals in observational data and that our concept of time derives from observing changing data (events). We argue that the fundamentally important content of the Superposition Principle is not the "probability amplitude" of posterior state observation but future state availability conditional only on prior information. Since event detection also implies posterior conditions (e.g. a specific type of detectable event occurred) as well as prior conditions, the probabilities of detected outcomes are also conditional on properties of the posterior properties of the observation. Such posterior conditions cannot affect the prior state availabilities and this implies violation of counter-factual definiteness. A component of a quantum system may be chosen to represent a clock and changes in other components can then be expected to be correlated with clocks with which they are entangled. Instead of traditional time-dependent equations of motion we provide a specific mechanism whereby evolution of data is instead quasi-causally related to the relative \availability\ of states and equations of motion are expressed in terms of quantized clock variables. We also suggest that time-reversal symmetry-breaking in weak interactions is an artifice of a conventional choice of co-ordinate time-function. Analysis of a "free" particle suggests that conventional co-ordinate space-time emerges from how we measure the separation of objects and events.
Non-relativistic quantum theory is derived from information codified into an appropriate statistical model. The basic assumption is that there is an irreducible uncertainty in the location of particles: positions constitute a configuration space and the corresponding probability distributions constitute a statistical manifold. The dynamics follows from a principle of inference, the method of Maximum Entropy. The concept of time is introduced as a convenient way to keep track of change. A welcome feature is that the entropic dynamics notion of time incorporates a natural distinction between past and future. The statistical manifold is assumed to be a dynamical entity: its curved and evolving geometry determines the evolution of the particles which, in their turn, react back and determine the evolution of the geometry. Imposing that the dynamics conserve energy leads to the Schroedinger equation and to a natural explanation of its linearity, its unitarity, and of the role of complex numbers. The phase of the wave function is explained as a feature of purely statistical origin. There is a quantum analogue to the gravitational equivalence principle.
In this paper I shall consider the concept of time used in the quantum theory from the perspective of Bohr’s ideas as presented in what he called the quantum postulate and some of its consequences. In particular, Bohr’s views on the role of the experimental arrangement that defines the context in which we can consider the state of the quantum system to be defined – and the related interpretation of the quantum wave function –, enables a view on the time concept being used in the theory that makes compatible the discontinuous changes in individual physical systems with a continuous description in time of the behavior of an ensemble of systems. A crucial aspect will be to show that Bohr’s ideas are coherent with the use of an external classical time.
QBism explicitly takes the subjective view: probabilities of events are defined solely by past experiences, i.e. the record of observations. As shown by the authors (Fuchs et al, 2013), this: “... removes the paradoxes, conundra, and pseudo-problems that have plagued quantum foundations for the past nine decades”. It is criticised for its lack of ontology and anthropocentric nature. However, if Everett's (1957) formulation is taken at face value, exactly the features of QBism are the result, and the ontology is inherent. The anthropocentric nature of the solution is simply an indication that the quantum state is relative, as is central to Everett. Problems of measurement and locality do not arise. As described by Tegmark (1997), Everett defines the relationship between two fundamentally different views of the world, different types of frame of reference. The outside view is defined by the unitary wave function, the inside view by the record of observations. As Lockwood (1989) states, the preferred basis problem is fully resolved if the latter is taken as the basis. Taken literally, only that defined by the record of observations is determinate in the physical world of this inside view. The reality of QBism is the result. The same can be derived from first principles in the no-collapse universe. Taking the outside view to define all possible decoherent quasi-classical worlds, the physical world of the inside view is the superposition of all such worlds in which it is instantiated. In this quantum mechanical frame of reference only that observed is determinate. The quantum state as ontology is questioned because it defines only the linear dynamics and cannot account for collapse. No deeper reality is required, however: the inside view, and the collapse dynamics that operates in this type of frame of reference, are emergent properties of the system, and operate at a different level of logical type. The world operates as described by QBism, but is nonetheless defined by the quantum state.
The characterization of entanglement is a fundamental issue for Quantum Information Theory. But the definition of entanglement depends on the notion of locality, and thus on the tensor product structure of the state space of the composite system. This notion is affected by the presence of superselection rules that restrict the accessible Hilbert space to a direct sum of subspaces. Indistinguishability of particles imposes one such restriction, namely to totally symmetric or totally antisymmetric states. The entanglement can in this case be defined with respect to partitions of modes in the second quantization formalism. For fermionic systems the Fock space of m modes is isomorphic to the space of m qubits, but the action of creation and annihilation operators is not local, due to their anticommutation. Conservation of the parity of fermion number imposes another relevant superselection rule. It requires that local physical observables commute with the local parity operator. Taking into account the considerations above, it is possible to define the set of separable states or equivalently the concept of entanglement for fermionic systems in a number of ways. Here we analyze systematically these possibilities and the relation among the various sets of separable states. We also discuss the behavior of the different classes when taking several copies of the state, as well as the characterization of the sets in terms of the usual criteria regarding the tensor product.