Quantum histories and measurements

Marcelo Losada, Roberto Laura

N. G. van Kampen, Bryce Seligman DeWitt, Sheldon Goldstein +3 more

James B. Hartle

The predictions of the Bohmian and the decoherent (or consistent) histories formulations of the quantum mechanics of a closed system are compared for histories---sequences of alternatives at a series of times. For certain kinds of histories, Bohmian mechanics and decoherent histories may both be formulated in the same mathematical framework within which they can be compared. In that framework, Bohmian mechanics and decoherent histories represent a given history by different operators. Their predictions for the probabilities of histories of a closed system therefore generally differ. However, in an idealized model of measurement, the predictions of Bohmian mechanics and decoherent histories coincide for the probabilities of records of measurement outcomes. The formulations are thus difficult to distinguish experimentally. They may differ in their accounts of the past history of the Universe in quantum cosmology.

Leonardo Castellani

It is convenient to describe a quantum system at all times by means of a “history operator” [Formula: see text], encoding measurements and unitary time evolution between measurements. These operators naturally arise when computing the probability of measurement sequences, and generalize the “sum over position histories” of the Feynman path-integral. As we argue in this work, this description has some computational advantages over the usual state vector description, and may help to clarify some issues regarding nonlocality of quantum correlations and collapse. A measurement on a system described by [Formula: see text] modifies the history operator, [Formula: see text], where [Formula: see text] is the projector corresponding to the measurement. We refer to this modification as “history operator collapse”. Thus, [Formula: see text] keeps track of the succession of measurements on a system, and contains all histories compatible with the results of these measurements. The collapse modifies the history content of [Formula: see text], and therefore modifies also the past (relative to the measurement), but never in a way to violate causality. Probabilities of outcomes are obtained as [Formula: see text]. A similar formula yields probabilities for intermediate measurements, and reproduces the result of the two-vector formalism in the case of the given initial and final states. We apply the history operator formalism to a few examples: entangler circuit, Mach–Zehnder interferometer, teleportation circuit and three-box experiment. Not surprisingly, the propagation of coordinate eigenstates [Formula: see text] is described by a history operator [Formula: see text] containing the Feynman path-integral.

Adrian Kent

Murray Gell‐Mann, James B. Hartle

This paper discusses the relation between the decoherent histories approach to quantum mechanics that is based on coarse-grained decoherent histories of a closed system, and the approximate quantum mechanics of measured subsystems, as in the Copenhagen interpretation. We show how the a classical world used in such formulations is not to something to be postulated but rather explained by suitable sets of alternative histories of quasiclassical variables. We discuss the general definition of measurement, the collapse of the wave function, and irreversibility from the perspective of decoherent histories quantum theory..