November 1997, “The Radical Eye” Let me send you some prep work…while I'm procrastinating from things I really need to be doing. I'll convey the information in my favorite way: quoting/forwarding old emails! The first, an old – kind of poorly written – note “Dreams of a More Ethereal Quantum,” concerns one aspect of the below-the-water stuff: the idea about distilling the MaxEntlooking part out of quantum theory. It doesn't say much more than I said in the proposal…but you can't expect too much, it's still just a vague program for a program. That stuff is at the bottom of the note; the early part of the note says a few – even more sketchy – things about Mermin and Quantum Probabilities…so I thought I would include it for that reason. The only other readable thing (I think) I've written on this aspect of the below-the-water stuff is on pages 22–26 of my paper with Caves, “Quantum Information: How Much Information in a State Vector” (it's on quant-ph). These same pages also contain an extended discussion on probability. The second note, “Rainy Mondays and Consistent Histories,” is a note I wrote Bob Griffiths concerning what I think of his Consistent History stuff. I think it says quite plainly and clearly what I think about probability in quantum mechanics. It's pretty self-contained (i.e., not referring to old conversations, etc.), so you might find it useful reading.
November 1997, “The Radical Eye” Let me send you some prep work…while I'm procrastinating from things I really need to be doing. I'll convey the information in my favorite way: quoting/forwarding old emails! The first, an old – kind of poorly written – note “Dreams of a More Ethereal Quantum,” concerns one aspect of the below-the-water stuff: the idea about distilling the MaxEntlooking part out of quantum theory. It doesn't say much more than I said in the proposal…but you can't expect too much, it's still just a vague program for a program. That stuff is at the bottom of the note; the early part of the note says a few – even more sketchy – things about Mermin and Quantum Probabilities…so I thought I would include it for that reason. The only other readable thing (I think) I've written on this aspect of the below-the-water stuff is on pages 22–26 of my paper with Caves, “Quantum Information: How Much Information in a State Vector” (it's on quant-ph). These same pages also contain an extended discussion on probability. The second note, “Rainy Mondays and Consistent Histories,” is a note I wrote Bob Griffiths concerning what I think of his Consistent History stuff. I think it says quite plainly and clearly what I think about probability in quantum mechanics. It's pretty self-contained (i.e., not referring to old conversations, etc.), so you might find it useful reading.
10 February 1997, “Sunday Afternoons and Consistent Histories” I've finally completed to my satisfaction your challenge of taking a plunge into “consistent histories.” And I've had great fun! In particular, I read all or most of each of the following: “Consistent Histories and the Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics,” “Quantum Interpretation Using Consistent Histories,” “Correlations in separated quantum systems: A consistent history analysis of the EPR problem,” “The Consistency of Consistent Histories: A Reply to d'Espagnat,” “A Consistent History Approach to the Logic of Quantum Mechanics,” “Consistent Histories and Quantum Reasoning.” I don't think I've read everything, but I'll trust that I haven't missed anything too significant – at least for a novice education in the subject. I say I had great fun because, before this, my only introduction to consistent histories had been through various talks by Gell-Mann, Hartle, and Zurek. And, I can't say I ever found any of those satisfactory – they all made it a very confusing muddle to me. I never could figure out the point, i.e., what actually was being proposed as a “solution” to the quantum interpretation problem. Consequently, I often just fell asleep or thought about other things or both. In contrast, I found all your papers logically crisp.
September 1996, “Theorem II” I encountered your “Ithaca Interpretation” paper this morning on the quant-ph archive … and, I must say, I've been walking around with a nice feeling since. There are some things in it that I like very much! Your Theorem II (or a very slight variation of it) has indeed been proven before, by Bill Wootters. I'll attach the citations below along with part of a note Bill once sent me. (Interestingly, one can also make a cut between real, complex, and quaternionic Hilbert spaces based on such a theorem.) About your Theorem I, if I am not mistaken, it also has a history that predates the references you gave. I believe Richard Jozsa once told me that a fellow named Hadjisavvas found it well before HJW and Gisin. If you are interested you can contact Richard directly; his e-mail address is.… As I say, I enjoyed your paper very much! (Presently) I think my only point of departure in what you say is about the issue of “objective probability.” Carl Caves and I (in still another paper cited below which can be found on quant-ph, pp. 22–26 in particular) have advocated the view that even the probabilities of quantum theory should be interpreted in a Bayesian or subjective way. We prefer to say that it is the “indeterminism” of quantum mechanics that is “objective,” and not the probabilities themselves.
January 1999, “The (Un-)Detached Observer” Yesterday I ran across your paper “On the Interpretation and Philosophical Foundation of Quantum Mechanics” posted on the web, and was very much impressed with its depth. Most importantly, however, I am sad to say, it reminded me that I still owe you some papers. I have remedied that now by sending you a pile of things that I have written on the relation between information gain and quantum state disturbance. These are relevant to your request above, and, I think, even more relevant to the thoughts in your paper. I am in great agreement with the idea that there may be a deeper foundation to quantum mechanics, one along the lines that Pauli and Wheeler attempted to sketch. Quantum mechanics, it seems to me, is an expression of the best we can say in a world where the observer is not detached (to use Pauli's phrase). Recognizing and appreciating that lack of detachedness is the most exacting tool we have for peering into the greater future of quantum theory. This I think is the ultimate role of quantum information theory. (For the opposite point of view, however, you may be interested in having a look at John Preskill's paper “Quantum Information: Its Future Impact on Physics” at http://theory.caltech.edu/~preskill/.) I hope you will enjoy the things I have sent you; it is always my attempt to be as clear as I possibly can be when I write.
22 August 1999, “Your Article” I am writing to let you know that I enjoyed your article quant-ph/9812050, “Why Quantum Mechanics is Hard to Understand,” very much. I was in particular very pleased with your Section IV “Dynamics vs. History.” It may interest you to know that Markus Fierz expressed a similar point of view in his article: “Does a physical theory comprehend an ‘objective, real, single process’?” in Observation and Interpretation in the Philosophy of Physics , edited by S. Körner (Dover, NY, 1957), pp. 93–96. I will append the full text below for your enjoyment. [See note to Rüdiger Schack, dated 29 August 1999.] Most importantly, I would like to ask you for the final coordinates of your paper. Was it published somewhere? I would like to cite it in an upcoming paper. 28 August 1999, “Not Much” I don't have a good idea about where to send your paper. I think chances are that AJP will be tougher than FP . In any case, it had an impact on me. My old advisor used to say of our joint papers, “If three people read this paper, we'll be doing OK!” If you know of two others with yours, you're probably doing OK. I like this focus on the concept of “object.” I look forward to anything you might have to say about it. I have some slides that I use as a rallying cry to the idea that quantum information theory may have some impact on quantum foundations. The first is a list of axioms for quantum mechanics.
This document is the first installment of three in the Cerro Grande Fire Series. It is a collection of letters written to various colleagues, most of whom regularly circuit this archive, including Howard Barnum, Paul Benioff, Charles Bennett, Herbert Bernstein, Doug Bilodeau, Gilles Brassard, Jeffrey Bub, Carlton Caves, Gregory Comer, Robert Griffiths, Adrian Kent, Rolf Landauer, Hideo Mabuchi, David Mermin, David Meyer, Michael Nielsen, Asher Peres, John Preskill, Mary Beth Ruskai, Ruediger Schack, Abner Shimony, William Wootters, Anton Zeilinger, and many others. The singular thread sewing all the letters together is the quantum. Some of the pieces are my best efforts to date to give substance to an evanescent thought I see rising from the field of quantum information---I call it the Paulian idea. To the extent I have communicated its misty shadow to my correspondents and seen a twinkle of enthusiasm, it seemed worthwhile to expand the jury on this anniversary occasion.
Fifteen years ago, I mused in a Reference Frame column on how different generations of physicists differed in the degree to which they thought that the interpretation of quantum mechanics remains a serious problem. I declared myself to be among those who feel uncomfortable when asked to articulate what we really think about the quantum theory, adding that “If I were forced to sum up in one sentence what the Copenhagen interpretation says to me, it would be ‘Shut up and calculate!’” In the intervening years, I've come to hold a milder and more nuanced opinion of the Copenhagen view, but that should be the subject of another column. The subject of this one is the habit of misquotation or misattribution that afflicts our profession, a rather different example of which I pointed out a few months ago. Given my capacity for intellectual development (“inconsistency,” in the terminology deployed in the current American political season), it's fortunate that I've now reached an age at which I tend to forget about things I've written more than a few years ago. Indeed, I find it downright irritating when somebody asks me questions about papers I wrote a mere half dozen years ago, naively identifying me with the author of those ancient texts. Until quite recently, I had no memory of ever having written such a childishly brusque dismissal of such an exquisitely subtle point of view, much less of having published it in so widely read a venue. This amnesia, combined with the evolution in my thinking that had distanced me from my long-forgotten words, may explain why I was initially somewhat puzzled by the slight sensation of discomfort that passed over me when, browsing the e-print archive earlier this year, I read a characterization of Max Born's probability rule as “the favorite ingredient of what has been nicknamed, after Feynman's famous dictum, the shut up and calculate interpretation of quantum mechanics.” I yield to nobody in my admiration for Richard Feynman's aphorisms on the nature of quantum mechanics. Indeed, long ago I published a poem consisting of nothing more than a resetting as verse of a paragraph Feynman had written about his own attitude toward the quantum theory, in his now (but not then) famous article that launched the whole field of quantum computation. I like to think I have devoured everything Feynman ever wrote on the character of quantum mechanics.