The Quantum Mechanical Frame of Reference

Andrew Soltau

Published Jan 1, 2010• 0 citations

Abstract

Abstract: Everett demonstrates the appearance of collapse, within the context of the unitary linear dynamics. However, he does not state clearly how observers are to have determinate measurement records, hence 50 years of debate. This, however, is inherent. He defines the observer as the record of observations, which, naturally, is the record of correlations established with the physical environment. As in Rovelli's Relational Quantum Mechanics, the correlations record is the sole determinant of the effective physical environment, here the quantum mechanical frame of reference: due to multiple realisation of the functional identity of the observer, the physical environment is a simultaneity of all the physical environments in which it is instantiated, a 'universe superposition', in which only the environment correlated with the observer by observations is determinate. This effects a discrete and idiosyncratic physical environment for each version of an observer, in which determinate measurement records are recorded. Quantum mechanics is on this view fully relational, demonstrated as not only viable but necessary by Rovelli & Laudisa. The quantum mechanical frame of reference is Everett's 'Relative State', and on Tegmark's 'inside view', the time evolution follows the standard von NeumannDirac formulation. Thus observers get precisely the measurement records predicted by the standard formulation, but since objectively there is only the appearance of collapse, there is neither a measurement problem nor a disparity with relativity. The linear dynamics and the collapse dynamics are directly experienced, as the passage of time and the making of observations, respectively. 1

Related papers

Universe Superposition, Relational Quantum Mechanics, and The Reality of the No-Collapse Universe

Andrew Soltau

A perspective on Everett's relative state formulation is proposed leading to a relational quantum mechanics. There are inevitably a large number of different versions of the universe in which a specific observer could exist, and in the universe of the unitary wave function they are all existing and coincident. If these different versions of the universe are superposed the result is a universe in which the superposition of all of the identical copies sums to a single observer. The effective universe in the functional frame of reference of this observer would be highly indeterminate but determinate where observed by this observer. This would naturally relativise the universe of the conventional view since each observer would inhabit an effective universe in which different aspects were determinate. Although the identity of the observer as a physical body does not readily fit this concept, it appears to apply inevitably to the functional identity of an observer as depicted by Everett. In this relational quantum mechanics a collapse dynamics applies only to the functional frame of reference of the observer and raises no incompatibility with the linear dynamics.

Jan 1, 20081 citation

The World Hologram

Andrew Soltau

As shown in The Quantum Mechanical Frame of Reference, Everett's formulation inherently defines idiosyncratic effective physical environments for each version of the functional identity of the observer, defined solely by observations, in the manner of Rovelli's Relational Quantum Mechanics. This accounts for determinate measurement records, and completes his resolution of the measurement problem. The remaining task is to make everyday sense of Everett's concept. He defines the functional identity as the record of sensory observations and machine configuration, which seems merely an epiphenomenon of the body-mind of the observer. This functional identity is intensely familiar to each observer. It is simply the subjective reality, the known world, here the 'world hologram'. In Everett's formulation, the cut in the von Neumann chain is implicitly made at the level of conscious sensory awareness. Thus, not only is the effective physical environment defined solely by the record of observations, the self-identity synthesised from observations defines the sole determinacy of the body-mind of the observer. Everett's formulation is not addressing obscure issues of brain state, but the determinant of the effective physical reality of the observer, including the body-mind. Although highly counter-intuitive, it is nonetheless empirically coherent. On the 'inside view', as defined by Tegmark, Everett's relative state corresponds, directly and precisely, to human experience.

Jan 1, 20102 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, 20150 citations

Physical Relations or Functional Relations ? A non-metaphysical construal of Rovelli’s Relational Quantum Mechanics

Michel Bitbol

Rovelli’s RQM is first characterized by contrast with both Everett’s and Bohr’s interpretations of quantum mechanics. Then, it is shown that a basic difficulty arises from the choice of formulating RQM in a naturalistic framework. Even though, according to Rovelli’s interpretation, statements about the world only make sense relative to certain naturalized observers described by means of quantum mechanics, this very meta-statement seems to make sense relative to a sort of super-observer which does not partake of the naturalized status of ordinary observers. The difficulty is solved by substituting functional reference frames for physical (or naturalized) observers throughout. Instead of being relative to physical observers, statements about the state vector of physical systems are here relative to well-defined projects of probabilistic prediction which may be embodied by several physical observers.

Sep 1, 200710 citations

Measurement Without Collapse: Outcomes as Physical Records

Jorge Roig

Abstract The measurement problem in quantum mechanics is commonly framed as a conflict between unitary dynamics and the appearance of definite outcomes. This paper argues that the conflict arises from a misplaced assumption about what outcomes must be. In experimental practice, outcomes are not arbitrarily precise microscopic states or instantaneous events, but stable physical records produced in measurement interactions. Treating outcomes as such records allows them to be formalized as coarse-grained equivalence classes of physical states that persist in time and support consistent interaction across systems. On this basis, decoherence explains the stability of outcomes without selecting a unique global result or modifying quantum dynamics. Objectivity is recovered through the robustness of records rather than through absolute, observer-independent outcome facts. The measurement problem is thereby dissolved without invoking collapse mechanisms, branching universes, or observer-dependent postulates, while preserving all standard empirical predictions of quantum mechanics.

Jun 2, 20260 citations

A Temporal Interpretation of Quantum Measurement (Revised and Clarified Formulation)

Roberto Carlos Moleirinho Batista

Abstract This article presents a revised and conceptually refined formulation of a previously proposed Temporal Interpretation of quantum measurement, explicitly addressing the physical nature of wavefunction collapse. While the original proposal emphasised relativistic aspects of momentum superpositions, the present work clarifies the interpretation within the standard formalism of quantum mechanics, without introducing new dynamics or experimental predictions. Unitary evolution is read as a process of differentiated phase accumulation between branches of a quantum state. In relativistic contexts, phase differentials can be structurally related to effective proper-time differentials, allowing the introduction of a notion of temporal compatibility that provides a physically grounded account of decoherence. When such differentials exceed a characteristic scale, interference between branches becomes operationally inaccessible, while global unitarity is preserved. The observer is treated as a physical system endowed with an irreversible proper time associated with macroscopic, entropic dynamics. Within this framework, collapse is explained as an emergent physical phenomenon arising from the irreversibility of the observer’s proper time, which prevents the reconstruction of phase coherence after an interaction. Collapse is therefore neither a fundamental dynamical mechanism nor an objective event in space-time, but a necessary consequence of temporal irreversibility in physical observers. This formulation sharpens the distinction between decoherence and collapse, preserves full consistency with the Born rule, and positions the Temporal Interpretation as a competing interpretative framework that provides a concrete physical explanation for the quantum–classical transition, improving and clarifying the original proposal. This version clarifies the operational status of the interaction time, refines Sections 5.3 and 5.4, and standardises references and editorial structure. No changes to the formalism or conclusions.

Dec 26, 20250 citations