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

Physical Review

Time Symmetry in the Quantum Process of Measurement

Yakir Aharonov, Peter G. Bergmann, Joel L. Lebowitz

Published Jun 22, 1964• 907 citations
Publisher

Abstract

We examine the assertion that the "reduction of the wave packet," implicit in the quantum theory of measurement introduces into the foundations of quantum physics a time-asymmetric element, which in turn leads to irreversibility. We argue that this time assymmetry is actually related to the manner in which statistical ensembles are constructed. If we construct an ensemble time symmetrically by using both initial and final states of the system to delimit the sample, then the resulting probability distribution turns out to be time symmetric as well. The conventional expressions for prediction as well as those for "retrodiction" may be recovered from the time-symmetric expressions formally by separating the final (or the initial) selection procedure from the measurements under consideration by sequences of "coherence destroying" manipulations. We can proceed from this situation, which resembles prediction, to true prediction (which does not involve any postselection) by adding to the time-symmetric theory a postulate which asserts that ensembles with unambiguous probability distributions may be constructed on the basis of preselection only. If, as we believe, the validity of this postulate and the falsity of its time reverse result from the macroscopic irreversibility of our universe as a whole, then the basic laws of quantum physics, including those referring to measurements, are as completely time symmetric as the laws of classical physics. As a by-product of our analysis, we also find that during the time interval between two noncommuting observations, we may assign to a system the quantum state corresponding to the observation that follows with as much justification as we assign, ordinarily, the state corresponding to the preceding measurement.

DOI
10.1103/physrev.134.b1410

Related papers

More on the Arrow of Time

Robert H. Penfield

A basic time asymmetry is said to exist in the conventional quantum theory of measurement because the initial state, determined by the initial measurement, suffers a reduction of the wave packet when a succeeding measurement is made. It is shown, completely within the conventional framework, that the sense of this time asymmetry can be reversed and a retroductive formalism introduced which is based upon the fact that only the final state is known. Moreover, if both the initial and final states of a set of measurements are fixed, a completely time symmetric formalism can be constructed for the time interval between these given states. The selection of the predictive scheme can be made with the help of macroscopic considerations and consequently it appears that the basic time asymmetry is not a consequence of conventional quantum physics including measurement.

American Journal of Physics•May 1, 1966•17 citations

Irreversibility, equilibrium and measurement in quantum mechanics

Christopher J. N. Coveney, Peter V. Coveney

Quantum mechanics is widely recognised as being incomplete. It is not consistent with the second law of thermodynamics and does not provide a scientifically credible physical account of the measurement process, the means by which coherence is broken and classically observable states are recorded. This has led to many ad hoc assumptions being used to account for various properties of quantum systems, among which is the coherence time of quantum devices that determines their ability to perform computations. Here, we show that all these properties can be accommodated naturally and consistently in the context of mixing quantum systems which exhibit continuous spectra, as arises in the thermodynamic limit in quantum statistical mechanics and quantum gravity. In particular, for isolated systems we show that the time-reversal symmetry associated with unitary time evolution of the quantum state gives rise to time-symmetry breaking and a semi-group evolution which attains thermodynamic equilibrium at long times. Moreover, the emergence of this non-unitary time-asymmetry leads to microcanonical equilibrium states in which all quantum coherence is lost and is accompanied by the transformation of pure states into mixtures, leading in turn to an increase in entropy. Inclusion of a macroscopic measurement apparatus shows how the outcome of a measurement corresponds to the von Neumann projection postulate, arising with probabilities in conformance with the Born rule. The mathematical structure of the theory which applies to quantum systems with continuous spectra is closely analogous to the classical ergodic theory of dynamical systems and the conditions under which they attain equilibrium states.

quant-pharXiv:2607.19142•Jul 22, 2026•0 citations

The Rise and Fall of Time-Symmetrized Quantum Mechanics

W. David Sharp, Niall Shanks

In the context of a discussion of time symmetry in the quantum mechanical measurement process, Aharonov et al. (1964) derived an expression concerning probabilities for the outcomes of measurements conducted on systems which have been pre- and postselected on the basis of both preceding and succeeding measurements. Recent literature has claimed that a resulting “time-symmetrized” interpretation of quantum mechanics has significant implications for some basic issues, such as contextuality and determinateness, in elementary, nonrelativistic quantum mechanics. Bub and Brown (1986) have shown that under the standard interpretation of the aforementioned expression, these claims employ ensembles which are not well defined. It is argued here that under a counterfactual interpretation of the expression, these claims may be understood as employing well-defined ensembles; it is shown, however, that such an interpretation cannot be reconciled with the standard interpretation of quantum mechanics.

Philosophy of Science•Sep 1, 1993•41 citations

Time-symmetric quantum mechanics questioned and defended

Michael Nauenberg

In their feature article "A Time-Symmetric Formulation of Quantum Mechanics" (PHYSICS TODAY, November 2010, page 27), Yakir Aharonov, Sandu Popescu, and Jeff Tollaksen state that there exists a "freedom to impose independent initial and final conditions on the evolution of a quantum system" without having to modify quantum mechanics "by an iota." The supporting illustrations they give, however, are based on an inadequate analysis of the measurement process in quantum mechanics.Consider their gedanken experiment in which measurements are made at two successive times, t and t 1, after the system has been prepared in a state Ψ at t 0 < t < t 1. Now suppose that the experiment is repeated, but without any measurements made at t 1. Then the standard statistical prediction of quantum mechanics for the outcome at the intermediate time t is identical in both experiments, contradicting the authors' claim that "the results at [the intermediary time] t depend not only on what happened earlier at t 0, but also on what happens later at t 1."To illustrate their arguments, the authors describe some measurements of polarization with spin-1⁄2 particles as follows: "We could, for example, start at t 0 with an ensemble of spin-1⁄2 particles, each one polarized 'up' in the z-direction. Then at t 1 we measure each spin in the x-direction and select only the particles for which the spin turned out to be up again, but in the new direction. Thus, at any intermediate time t, the spin components in both the z and the x directions—two noncommuting observables—would seem to be completely determined." The rationale given for that strange conclusion is that "if at t we measure the spin along x, we must also find it up [along x], because otherwise the measurement at t 1 wouldn't find it up [along x]." But that claim is incorrect. Selecting, after a measurement, a subset of particles with spin up along a given axis does not imply that before the measurement such particles had spin up along that axis. On the contrary, if some particles at t 1 also emerge with spin down along x, then, according to quantum mechanics, the state Ψ at t < t 1 does not represent particles polarized along the x-direction. To find that state, the axis of the measurement device—for example, a Stern–Gerlach magnet—must be rotated until all particles emerge with the same direction of polarization. For the example under consideration, that would be the direction of the z-axis, which corresponds to the polarization at t 0 and t. Hence, a measurement at any later time t 1 is not lost information; instead, it is redundant information about the outcome of a measurement at an intermediate time t when at the initial time t 0 the particles are in a state Ψ.The claim by Aharonov and coauthors that at various stages of the measurement process ensembles can be separated into subensembles that can be associated with quantum states leads to contradictions with the principles of quantum mechanics, and gives rise to the paradoxes of "impossible ensembles" discussed in the article. Their unphysical description of the measurement process leads them to the false conclusion that "quantum mechanics offers a place to specify both an initial and an independent final state," and to such outlandish statements as the idea "that quantum mechanics lets one impose . . . a putative final state of the universe."© 2011 American Institute of Physics.

Physics Today•May 1, 2011•10 citations

The Time Asymmetry of Quantum Mechanics and Concepts of Physical Directionality of Time. Part 1. T Asymmetry of Quantum Probability Laws.

Andrew Holster

This is Part 1 of a four part paper, intended to redress some of the most fundamental confusions in the subject of physical time directionality, and represent the concepts accurately. There are widespread fallacies in the subject that need to be corrected in introductory courses for physics students and philosophers. Parts 1 and 2 are about quantum mechanics, Part 3 is about fundamental concepts, and Part 4 is about cosmology. We start in Part 1 by analysing the time reversal symmetry of quantum probability laws. Time reversal symmetry is defined as the property of invariance under the time reversal transformation, T: t -> -t. It is shown that quantum mechanics (classical or relativistic) is strongly time asymmetric in its probability laws. This contradicts the orthodox analysis, found throughout the conventional literature on physical time, which claims that quantum mechanics is time symmetric or reversible. This is widely claimed as settled scientific fact, and large philosophical and scientific conclusions are drawn from it. But it is an error. The fact is that while quantum mechanics is widely claimed to be reversible on the basis of two formal mathematical properties (that it does have), these properties do not represent invariance under the time reversal transformation. A recent experiment (Batalhao at alia, 2015) showing irreversibility of quantum thermodynamics is discussed as an illustration of this result. Most physicists remain unaware of the errors, decades after they were first demonstrated. Orthodox specialists in the philosophy of time who are aware of the error continue to refer to the ‘time symmetry’ or ‘reversibility’ of quantum mechanics anyway – and exploit the ambiguity to claim false implications about physical time reversal symmetry in nature. The excuse for perpetrating the confusion is that, since it is has now become customary to refer to the formal properties of quantum mechanics as ‘reversibility’ or ‘time reversal symmetry’, we should just keep referring to them by this name, even though they are not time reversal symmetry. This causes endless confusion, in attempts to explain the physical irreversibility of our universe, and in philosophical discussions of implications of physics for the nature of time. The failure of time reversal symmetry in quantum mechanics changes the interpretation of modern physics in a deep way. It changes the problem of explaining the real irreversibility found throughout nature.

•Dec 1, 2017•0 citations

Time-symmetric quantum mechanics questioned and defended

Art Hobson

“A Time-Symmetric Formulation of Quantum Mechanics” by Yakir Aharonov, Sandu Popescu, and Jeff Tollaksen is riddled with errors. That is not surprising, given that their starting point is an erroneous “postselection” process. Postselection ignores the measurement postulate of standard quantum physics, according to which a system’s quantum state abruptly switches, upon measurement, into an eigenstate of the measured observable.With that postulate abandoned, it’s to be expected that Aharonov and coauthors obtain results that persistently violate the standard quantum uncertainty principle. For example, in their discussion on page 28 of a spin-1⁄2 system, they incorrectly state that “the measurement of Sπ /4 [the spin component along the diagonal between the x-axis and z-axis] is effectively a simultaneous measurement of Sx and Sz .” If that were true, it would violate the uncertainty principle. But the statement is not true. A measurement of Sπ /4 could be made by positioning a Stern–Gerlach apparatus with its inhomogeneous magnetic field in the π/4 direction, without measuring either Sz or Sx . In fact, the measurement would put the system into an eigenstate of Sπ /4, leaving both Sz and Sx indeterminate, in agreement with the uncertainty principle.Aharonov and coauthors continue: “The idea that they [Sz and Sx ] are both well defined stems from the fact that measuring either one yields +1⁄2 with certainty.” But that supposed violation of the uncertainty principle is wrong. Using an obvious notation, in their example the system is claimed to be in the eigenstate |+Sz 〉 at time t. This eigenstate can also be written as (|+Sx 〉 + |−Sx 〉)/√2‾, showing that the spin component Sx is indeterminate whenever the system is in the state |+Sz 〉, in agreement with the uncertainty principle.One sentence later, the authors state, “If we first measure Sz and then Sx , . . . then, given the pre- and postselection, both measurements yield +1⁄2 with certainty.” That supposed violation of the uncertainty principle is wrong. If we first measure Sz , we’ll get +1⁄2 because the system was previously prepared in that state. But if we then measure Sx , we’ll find the result +1⁄2 with 0.5 probability and −1⁄2 with 0.5 probability, consistent with the uncertainty principle. To use the misleading “ensemble” language of Aharonov and coauthors, every member of the ensemble is in the state |+Sz 〉 = (|+Sx 〉 + |−Sx 〉)/√2‾. Contrary to the authors’ postselection process, it’s not true that 50% of the ensemble is in the state |+Sx 〉 (which would violate the uncertainty principle), and 50% is in |−Sx 〉. To misinterpret quantum superpositions such as (|+Sx 〉 + |−Sx 〉)/√2‾ in this manner is an elementary misconception. It also directly contradicts the experimental facts about measurements of the Stern–Gerlach type.Contrary to the assertion of Aharonov and coauthors on page 32 that they “have not modified quantum mechanics by one iota,” their postselection process would change the foundations of quantum mechanics. The fallacy in that process was pointed out by Asher Peres 16 years ago.11. A. Peres, Physics Letters A 203 2-3 150(1995). https://doi.org/10.1016/0375-9601(95)00395-J REFERENCESSection:ChooseTop of pageREFERENCES <<CITING ARTICLES1. A. Peres, Physics Letters A 203 2-3 150(1995). https://doi.org/10.1016/0375-9601(95)00395-J , Google ScholarCrossref, ISI© 2011 American Institute of Physics.

Physics Today•May 1, 2011•2 citations
We examine the assertion that the "reduction of the wave packet," implicit in the quantum theory of measurement introduces into the foundations of quantum physics a time-asymmetric element, which in turn leads to irreversibility. We argue that this time assymmetry is actually related to the manner in which statistical ensembles are constructed. If we construct an ensemble time symmetrically by using both initial and final states of the system to delimit the sample, then the resulting probability distribution turns out to be time symmetric as well. The conventional expressions for prediction as well as those for "retrodiction" may be recovered from the time-symmetric expressions formally by separating the final (or the initial) selection procedure from the measurements under consideration by sequences of "coherence destroying" manipulations. We can proceed from this situation, which resembles prediction, to true prediction (which does not involve any postselection) by adding to the time-symmetric theory a postulate which asserts that ensembles with unambiguous probability distributions may be constructed on the basis of preselection only. If, as we believe, the validity of this postulate and the falsity of its time reverse result from the macroscopic irreversibility of our universe as a whole, then the basic laws of quantum physics, including those referring to measurements, are as completely time symmetric as the laws of classical physics. As a by-product of our analysis, we also find that during the time interval between two noncommuting observations, we may assign to a system the quantum state corresponding to the observation that follows with as much justification as we assign, ordinarily, the state corresponding to the preceding measurement.
A basic time asymmetry is said to exist in the conventional quantum theory of measurement because the initial state, determined by the initial measurement, suffers a reduction of the wave packet when a succeeding measurement is made. It is shown, completely within the conventional framework, that the sense of this time asymmetry can be reversed and a retroductive formalism introduced which is based upon the fact that only the final state is known. Moreover, if both the initial and final states of a set of measurements are fixed, a completely time symmetric formalism can be constructed for the time interval between these given states. The selection of the predictive scheme can be made with the help of macroscopic considerations and consequently it appears that the basic time asymmetry is not a consequence of conventional quantum physics including measurement.
Quantum mechanics is widely recognised as being incomplete. It is not consistent with the second law of thermodynamics and does not provide a scientifically credible physical account of the measurement process, the means by which coherence is broken and classically observable states are recorded. This has led to many ad hoc assumptions being used to account for various properties of quantum systems, among which is the coherence time of quantum devices that determines their ability to perform computations. Here, we show that all these properties can be accommodated naturally and consistently in the context of mixing quantum systems which exhibit continuous spectra, as arises in the thermodynamic limit in quantum statistical mechanics and quantum gravity. In particular, for isolated systems we show that the time-reversal symmetry associated with unitary time evolution of the quantum state gives rise to time-symmetry breaking and a semi-group evolution which attains thermodynamic equilibrium at long times. Moreover, the emergence of this non-unitary time-asymmetry leads to microcanonical equilibrium states in which all quantum coherence is lost and is accompanied by the transformation of pure states into mixtures, leading in turn to an increase in entropy. Inclusion of a macroscopic measurement apparatus shows how the outcome of a measurement corresponds to the von Neumann projection postulate, arising with probabilities in conformance with the Born rule. The mathematical structure of the theory which applies to quantum systems with continuous spectra is closely analogous to the classical ergodic theory of dynamical systems and the conditions under which they attain equilibrium states.
In the context of a discussion of time symmetry in the quantum mechanical measurement process, Aharonov et al. (1964) derived an expression concerning probabilities for the outcomes of measurements conducted on systems which have been pre- and postselected on the basis of both preceding and succeeding measurements. Recent literature has claimed that a resulting “time-symmetrized” interpretation of quantum mechanics has significant implications for some basic issues, such as contextuality and determinateness, in elementary, nonrelativistic quantum mechanics. Bub and Brown (1986) have shown that under the standard interpretation of the aforementioned expression, these claims employ ensembles which are not well defined. It is argued here that under a counterfactual interpretation of the expression, these claims may be understood as employing well-defined ensembles; it is shown, however, that such an interpretation cannot be reconciled with the standard interpretation of quantum mechanics.
In their feature article "A Time-Symmetric Formulation of Quantum Mechanics" (PHYSICS TODAY, November 2010, page 27), Yakir Aharonov, Sandu Popescu, and Jeff Tollaksen state that there exists a "freedom to impose independent initial and final conditions on the evolution of a quantum system" without having to modify quantum mechanics "by an iota." The supporting illustrations they give, however, are based on an inadequate analysis of the measurement process in quantum mechanics.Consider their gedanken experiment in which measurements are made at two successive times, t and t 1, after the system has been prepared in a state Ψ at t 0 < t < t 1. Now suppose that the experiment is repeated, but without any measurements made at t 1. Then the standard statistical prediction of quantum mechanics for the outcome at the intermediate time t is identical in both experiments, contradicting the authors' claim that "the results at [the intermediary time] t depend not only on what happened earlier at t 0, but also on what happens later at t 1."To illustrate their arguments, the authors describe some measurements of polarization with spin-1⁄2 particles as follows: "We could, for example, start at t 0 with an ensemble of spin-1⁄2 particles, each one polarized 'up' in the z-direction. Then at t 1 we measure each spin in the x-direction and select only the particles for which the spin turned out to be up again, but in the new direction. Thus, at any intermediate time t, the spin components in both the z and the x directions—two noncommuting observables—would seem to be completely determined." The rationale given for that strange conclusion is that "if at t we measure the spin along x, we must also find it up [along x], because otherwise the measurement at t 1 wouldn't find it up [along x]." But that claim is incorrect. Selecting, after a measurement, a subset of particles with spin up along a given axis does not imply that before the measurement such particles had spin up along that axis. On the contrary, if some particles at t 1 also emerge with spin down along x, then, according to quantum mechanics, the state Ψ at t < t 1 does not represent particles polarized along the x-direction. To find that state, the axis of the measurement device—for example, a Stern–Gerlach magnet—must be rotated until all particles emerge with the same direction of polarization. For the example under consideration, that would be the direction of the z-axis, which corresponds to the polarization at t 0 and t. Hence, a measurement at any later time t 1 is not lost information; instead, it is redundant information about the outcome of a measurement at an intermediate time t when at the initial time t 0 the particles are in a state Ψ.The claim by Aharonov and coauthors that at various stages of the measurement process ensembles can be separated into subensembles that can be associated with quantum states leads to contradictions with the principles of quantum mechanics, and gives rise to the paradoxes of "impossible ensembles" discussed in the article. Their unphysical description of the measurement process leads them to the false conclusion that "quantum mechanics offers a place to specify both an initial and an independent final state," and to such outlandish statements as the idea "that quantum mechanics lets one impose . . . a putative final state of the universe."© 2011 American Institute of Physics.
This is Part 1 of a four part paper, intended to redress some of the most fundamental confusions in the subject of physical time directionality, and represent the concepts accurately. There are widespread fallacies in the subject that need to be corrected in introductory courses for physics students and philosophers. Parts 1 and 2 are about quantum mechanics, Part 3 is about fundamental concepts, and Part 4 is about cosmology. We start in Part 1 by analysing the time reversal symmetry of quantum probability laws. Time reversal symmetry is defined as the property of invariance under the time reversal transformation, T: t -> -t. It is shown that quantum mechanics (classical or relativistic) is strongly time asymmetric in its probability laws. This contradicts the orthodox analysis, found throughout the conventional literature on physical time, which claims that quantum mechanics is time symmetric or reversible. This is widely claimed as settled scientific fact, and large philosophical and scientific conclusions are drawn from it. But it is an error. The fact is that while quantum mechanics is widely claimed to be reversible on the basis of two formal mathematical properties (that it does have), these properties do not represent invariance under the time reversal transformation. A recent experiment (Batalhao at alia, 2015) showing irreversibility of quantum thermodynamics is discussed as an illustration of this result. Most physicists remain unaware of the errors, decades after they were first demonstrated. Orthodox specialists in the philosophy of time who are aware of the error continue to refer to the ‘time symmetry’ or ‘reversibility’ of quantum mechanics anyway – and exploit the ambiguity to claim false implications about physical time reversal symmetry in nature. The excuse for perpetrating the confusion is that, since it is has now become customary to refer to the formal properties of quantum mechanics as ‘reversibility’ or ‘time reversal symmetry’, we should just keep referring to them by this name, even though they are not time reversal symmetry. This causes endless confusion, in attempts to explain the physical irreversibility of our universe, and in philosophical discussions of implications of physics for the nature of time. The failure of time reversal symmetry in quantum mechanics changes the interpretation of modern physics in a deep way. It changes the problem of explaining the real irreversibility found throughout nature.
“A Time-Symmetric Formulation of Quantum Mechanics” by Yakir Aharonov, Sandu Popescu, and Jeff Tollaksen is riddled with errors. That is not surprising, given that their starting point is an erroneous “postselection” process. Postselection ignores the measurement postulate of standard quantum physics, according to which a system’s quantum state abruptly switches, upon measurement, into an eigenstate of the measured observable.With that postulate abandoned, it’s to be expected that Aharonov and coauthors obtain results that persistently violate the standard quantum uncertainty principle. For example, in their discussion on page 28 of a spin-1⁄2 system, they incorrectly state that “the measurement of Sπ /4 [the spin component along the diagonal between the x-axis and z-axis] is effectively a simultaneous measurement of Sx and Sz .” If that were true, it would violate the uncertainty principle. But the statement is not true. A measurement of Sπ /4 could be made by positioning a Stern–Gerlach apparatus with its inhomogeneous magnetic field in the π/4 direction, without measuring either Sz or Sx . In fact, the measurement would put the system into an eigenstate of Sπ /4, leaving both Sz and Sx indeterminate, in agreement with the uncertainty principle.Aharonov and coauthors continue: “The idea that they [Sz and Sx ] are both well defined stems from the fact that measuring either one yields +1⁄2 with certainty.” But that supposed violation of the uncertainty principle is wrong. Using an obvious notation, in their example the system is claimed to be in the eigenstate |+Sz 〉 at time t. This eigenstate can also be written as (|+Sx 〉 + |−Sx 〉)/√2‾, showing that the spin component Sx is indeterminate whenever the system is in the state |+Sz 〉, in agreement with the uncertainty principle.One sentence later, the authors state, “If we first measure Sz and then Sx , . . . then, given the pre- and postselection, both measurements yield +1⁄2 with certainty.” That supposed violation of the uncertainty principle is wrong. If we first measure Sz , we’ll get +1⁄2 because the system was previously prepared in that state. But if we then measure Sx , we’ll find the result +1⁄2 with 0.5 probability and −1⁄2 with 0.5 probability, consistent with the uncertainty principle. To use the misleading “ensemble” language of Aharonov and coauthors, every member of the ensemble is in the state |+Sz 〉 = (|+Sx 〉 + |−Sx 〉)/√2‾. Contrary to the authors’ postselection process, it’s not true that 50% of the ensemble is in the state |+Sx 〉 (which would violate the uncertainty principle), and 50% is in |−Sx 〉. To misinterpret quantum superpositions such as (|+Sx 〉 + |−Sx 〉)/√2‾ in this manner is an elementary misconception. It also directly contradicts the experimental facts about measurements of the Stern–Gerlach type.Contrary to the assertion of Aharonov and coauthors on page 32 that they “have not modified quantum mechanics by one iota,” their postselection process would change the foundations of quantum mechanics. The fallacy in that process was pointed out by Asher Peres 16 years ago.11. A. Peres, Physics Letters A 203 2-3 150(1995). https://doi.org/10.1016/0375-9601(95)00395-J REFERENCESSection:ChooseTop of pageREFERENCES <<CITING ARTICLES1. A. Peres, Physics Letters A 203 2-3 150(1995). https://doi.org/10.1016/0375-9601(95)00395-J , Google ScholarCrossref, ISI© 2011 American Institute of Physics.