The problem of quantum state reduction The fundamental problem of quantum mechanics, as that theory is presently understood, is to make sense of the reduction of the state vector (i.e. collapse of the wave function ), denoted here by R . This issue is usually addressed in terms of the ‘quantum measurement problem’, which is to comprehend how, upon measurement of a quantum system, this (seemingly) discontinuous R -process can come about. A measurement, after all, merely consists of the quantum state under consideration becoming entangled with a more extended part of the physical universe, e.g. with a measuring apparatus. This measuring apparatus – together with the observing physicist and their common environment – should, according to conventional understanding, all also have some quantum description. Accordingly, there should be a quantum description of this entire quantum state, involving not only the original system under consideration but also the apparatus, physicist, and remaining environment – and this entire state would be expected to evolve continuously, solely according to the Schrödinger equation (unitary evolution), here denoted by the symbol U . Numerous different attitudes to R have been expressed over many years, ever since quantum mechanics was first clearly formulated. The most influential viewpoint has been the ‘Copenhagen interpretation’ of Niels Bohr, according to which the state vector │ψ〉 is not to be taken seriously as describing a quantum-level physical reality, but is to be regarded as merely referring to our (maximal) ‘knowledge’ of a physical system, and whose ultimate role is simply to provide us with a means to calculate probabilities when a measurement is performed on the system.
The problem of quantum state reduction The fundamental problem of quantum mechanics, as that theory is presently understood, is to make sense of the reduction of the state vector (i.e. collapse of the wave function ), denoted here by R . This issue is usually addressed in terms of the ‘quantum measurement problem’, which is to comprehend how, upon measurement of a quantum system, this (seemingly) discontinuous R -process can come about. A measurement, after all, merely consists of the quantum state under consideration becoming entangled with a more extended part of the physical universe, e.g. with a measuring apparatus. This measuring apparatus – together with the observing physicist and their common environment – should, according to conventional understanding, all also have some quantum description. Accordingly, there should be a quantum description of this entire quantum state, involving not only the original system under consideration but also the apparatus, physicist, and remaining environment – and this entire state would be expected to evolve continuously, solely according to the Schrödinger equation (unitary evolution), here denoted by the symbol U . Numerous different attitudes to R have been expressed over many years, ever since quantum mechanics was first clearly formulated. The most influential viewpoint has been the ‘Copenhagen interpretation’ of Niels Bohr, according to which the state vector │ψ〉 is not to be taken seriously as describing a quantum-level physical reality, but is to be regarded as merely referring to our (maximal) ‘knowledge’ of a physical system, and whose ultimate role is simply to provide us with a means to calculate probabilities when a measurement is performed on the system.
The stability of a quantum superposition f two different stationary mass distributions is examined, where the perturbing effect of each distribution on the space-time structure is taken into account, in accordance with the principles of general relativity. It is argued that the definition of the time-translation operator for the superposed space-times involves an inherent ill-definedness, leading to an essential uncertainty in the energy of the superposed state which, in the Newtonian limit, is proportional to the gravitational self-energy EA of the difference between the two mass distributions. This is consistent with a suggested finite lifetime of the order of?t/ELx for the superposed state, in agreement with a certain proposal made by the author for a gravitationally induced spontaneous quantum state reduction, and with closely related earlier suggestions by Di6si and by Ghirardi et al. 1. THE PROBLEM OF QUANTUM STATE REDUCTION The fundamental problem of quantum mechanics, as that theory is presently understood, is to make sense of the reduction of the state vector (i.e. collapse of the wavefunction), denoted here by R. This issue is usually addressed in terms of the "quantum measurement problem", which is to comprehend how, upon measurement of a quantum system, this (seem-ingly) discontinuous R-process can come about. A measurement, after all, merely consists of the quantum state under consideration becoming en-tangled with a more extended part of the physical universe, e.g. with a
In the well known Copenhagen interpretation of Quantum mechanics, advocated by N. Bohr, the physical objects and the experimental results can be described only in a macroscopic language, leaving any possible microscopic description as unspeakable. This point of view has been deepened by C. Rovelli in the relational interpretation of Quantum mechanics. Most of the alternative interpretations, which try a detailed microscopic description of physical phenomena and of their evolution, have in common the explicit introduction of the wave function as the basic element of the theory. These interpretations require the notion of quantum state as the fundamental concept of the theory, which is the typical unspeakable physical element according to the Copenhagen interpretation. The two basic physical entities are intimately bound together by the integrity of the wave function. These interpretations are usually indicated as realistic. It is well known that the use of the wave function and its time evolution in the description of the physical processes leads unavoidably to some difficulties or so-called paradoxes. The measurement problem is at the center of these difficulties, mainly because it requires the introduction of the reduction process of the wave function, which is not included explicitly within the mathematical formalism of Quantum Mechanics. In this paper we build up and propose a model which goes beyond the standard formalism and which is able to solve the measurement problem and all the other difficulties which, in a way or in another, are related to it.
In classical physics there is, in accordance with common sense, an objective world ‘out there’. That world evolves in a clear and deterministic way, being governed by precisely formulated mathematical equations. This is as true for the theories of Maxwell and Einstein as it is for the original Newtonian scheme. Physical reality is taken to exist independently of ourselves; and exactly how the classical world ‘is’ is not affected by how we might choose to look at it. Moreover, our bodies and our brains are themselves to be part of that world. They, also, are viewed as evolving according to the same precise and deterministic classical equations. All our actions are to be fixed by these equations - no matter how we might feel that our conscious wills may be influencing how we behave. Such a picture appears to lie at the background of most serious 1 philosophical arguments concerned with the nature of reality, of our conscious perceptions, and of our apparent free will. Some people might have an uncomfortable feeling that there should also be a role for quantum theory - that fundamental but disturbing scheme of things which, in the first quarter of this century, arose out of observations of subtle discrepancies between the actual behaviour of the world and the descriptions of classical physics. To many, the term ‘quantum theory’ evokes merely some vague concept of an ‘uncertainty principle’, which, at the level of particles, atoms or molecules, forbids precision in our descriptions and yields merely probabilistic behaviour. Actually, quantum descriptions are very precise, as we shall see, although radically different from the familiar classical ones. Moreover, we shall find, despite a common view to the contrary, that probabilities do not arise at the minute quantum level of particles, atoms, or molecules - those evolve deterministically - but, seemingly, via some mysterious larger-scale action connected with the emergence of a classical world that we can consciously perceive. We must try to understand this, and how quantum theory forces us to change our view of physical reality.
Quantum physicists have made many attempts to solve the quantum measurement problem, but no solution seems to have received widespread acceptance. The time has come for a new approach. In Sense Perception and Reality: A Theory of Perceptual Relativity, Quantum Mechanics and the Observer Dependent Universe and in a new paper The End of Realism I suggest the quantum measurement problem is caused by a failure to understand that each species has its own sensory world and that when we say the wave function collapses and brings a particle into existence we mean the particle is bought into existence in the human sensory world by the combined operation of the human sensory apparatus, particle detectors and the experimental set up. This is similar to the Copenhagen Interpretation suggested by Niels Bohr and others, but the understanding that the collapse of the wave function brings a particle into existence in the human sensory world removes the need for a dividing line between the quantum world and the macro world. The same rules can apply to both worlds and the ideas stated in this paper considerably strengthen the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics.
The Quantum Mechanics is interpreted, in this article, in a simple and direct way. By combining the unitary evolution with the quantum condition that observations require the state vector to be an eigenstate of the observable, a discontinuity in evolution (the state vector reduction) seems to be mandatory. Thus, for each such discontinuity, new initial conditions for the time evolution state vector are needed, and they are obtained by measurements. Delayed-choice experiments suggest that these new initial conditions are specified after the discontinuity takes place. Consequently, because it needs initial conditions that can be specified with a delay, the time evolving state vector is semi-realistic (in the sense that it is not completely specified until the measurement is performed), and not entirely realistic. The collapse of the wave function, especially when it is combined with the entanglement, seems to be a non-local phenomenon. In fact, the non-locality is present only as a consistency requirement for the initial conditions needed to select a solution of the evolution equation. The Direct Interpretation is intended to provide to our intuition a physical background, for helping us thinking about quantum phenomena. It identifies the main counterintuitive parts of the Quantum Mechanics in the discontinuity and the delayed initial conditions. Because it makes minimal assumptions, it is compatible with the main interpretations of Quantum Mechanics. Two principal unclear points of Quantum Mechanics are identified in the discontinuities, and the measurement problem. Both problems will be approached in subsequent articles.
Few, if any, issues in physics have engendered as much discussion as the measurement problem in quantum mechanics. It is generally agreed that the `normal' dynamical evolution of the state vector in quantum mechanics is given by a unitary map. The linearity of this map implies that the state vector will, in general, be found in a superposition of eigenstates of a given observable (or, similarly, that the density matrix describing a subsystem will not correspond to a definite value of this observable). However, when we make a measurement of an observable, we always obtain a define value—although it is impossible to predict with certainty which value will be obtained. The traditional response to this issue is to postulate that when a measurement is made, the wavefunction `collapses' to an eigenstate of the observable being measured, perhaps due to the inherent classicality of the measuring apparatus (Bohr), or to the consciousness of the observer (Wigner), or possibly to some modification of quantum dynamics that occurs even when observations are not being made. The main motivation for the Everett (`many worlds') interpretation is to avoid introducing any such collapse postulate. This volume commemorates the 50th anniversary of the publication of Everett's paper in 1957 and contains 20 original articles as well as the transcripts of several discussions that took place at meetings devoted to the Everett interpretation at Oxford University and the Perimeter Institute. The attractiveness of the Everett interpretation is very succinctly summarized by a sentence from Vaidman's contribution (p 582): `The collapse, with its randomness, non-locality and the lack of a well-defined moment of occurrence, is such an ugly scar on quantum theory, that I, along with many others, am ready to follow Everett and deny its existence.' But the main drawback of the interpretation is then equally succinctly stated in the next sentence: `The price is the many worlds interpretation, i.e., the existence of numerous parallel worlds.' In other words, if the state vector evolves to have a non-zero amplitude for two different values of an observable that I `measure' (i.e., interact with in an appropriate way), each of these alternatives remains equally `real', i.e., there is a `branch' of the wavefunction in which the observable takes the first value and I believe that it has this first value and a branch of the wavefunction where it takes the second value and I believe that it has this second value. Each of these `me's' sees a definite value for the observable, thus nicely accounting for what I believe I experience without invoking collapse. But then, it seems that I have to believe that there are many other `me's' around—even if they are very difficult for this particular me to access—and no way I can predict which `me' I will be in the future. Indeed, Saunders writes on p 192, `If Alice is a person (of course she is) then we must say, even prior to branching at tj that there are many Alices present, atom for atom duplicates...Alice should be uncertain after all— each Alice should be uncertain—for each as of tj does not (and as a matter of principle, cannot) know which of these branching persons she is.' Thus, if taken seriously, the Everett viewpoint leads directly to questions like `What determines which ``me'' I am now and/or will feel that I am in the future?' The response `You are all of them' somehow doesn't seem satisfying, and further pursuit of these issues would seem to lead to questions as fruitless as questions like `Why am I ``me'' and not ``you''?' I believe that this accounts for why the Everett interpretation does not have universal appeal. But enough of `me' for now (more later); let's discuss the book. Unlike many edited volumes and conference proceedings in physics—which often consist of hastily slapped-together re-hashes of previous papers—this volume meets very high standards in the choice of topics and authors and in the quality of the writing. Although each of the articles is closely tied in with the Everett interpretation, there are many articles of considerable value and interest in their own right, such as the discussion of quasiclassical realms by Hartle and and the discussion of the de Broglie–Bohm interpretation by Valentini. There is also an excellent introduction by Saunders to the quantum measurement problem and the main issues that arise in the Everett interpretation. A central issue in the Everett interpretation is the status of the `Born rule', which asserts that, for state ψ, the probability of obtaining a particular outcome of a measurement is ||Pψ||2, where P is the projection operator onto the eigensubspace associated with the measurement outcome. In traditional interpretations, the Born rule is simply postulated as part of the collapse hypothesis. In the Everett interpretation, it is far from obvious that the Born rule even has any meaning—if all outcomes occur, how can one talk about the probability of a particular outcome? Given the importance of this issue, it is highly appropriate that four chapters of the book (by Saunders, Papineau, Wallace, and Greaves and Myrvold) are devoted to addressing probability and the Born rule from the Everett viewpoint, and three chapters (by Kent, Albert, and Price) are devoted to criticising these views. As indicated by the above quote from Saunders' article, uncertainty and probability can enter the Everett interpretation via each Alice being uncertain as to which Alice she is or will be. However, in view of the difficulties to which this kind of argumentation will lead, it is perhaps not surprising that in the 123 pages of combined discussion by Saunders, Papineau, Wallace, and Greaves and Myrvold, there are only fleeting references to the use of probability along these lines. Rather, the approach taken is reminiscent of that of adept politicians: if you can't answer a question, then answer a different question, and answer it with conviction and detail. Instead of considering probabilities of outcomes—a highly problematical notion when all of the possible outcomes actually occur—consider only decision theory issues. In particular, Wallace gives a precise and detailed mathematical proof that, under certain hypotheses, the only rational strategy that a quantum observer can follow in making decisions is to weight the possible outcomes by Born rule probabilities. To illustrate this more graphically, suppose tomorrow's weather were determined by some quantum mechanical, Stern–Gerlach-like process. I would like to know whether it is likely to rain tomorrow. However, when I ask an Everett follower (who knows the state vector and has done the Born rule calculation), all she will tell me in direct response to my question is that `it will rain and it won't rain.' Nevertheless, she is willing tell me whether or not it is rational for me to take an umbrella. I suppose that if she tells me that it would be highly irrational for me to take an umbrella, I can take the hint and deduce that it is very unlikely to rain. However, there does seem something wrong with the fact that she is not allowed to say this directly. In any case, if the conclusion of a mathematically correct argument is that rational decision strategies require the Born rule, then there must be quite a bit lying in the assumptions. The articles by Kent, Albert, and Price do a good job of fleshing out these assumptions and pointing out the weaknesses and flaws in the probability and decision theory discussions within the Everett framework. I hope it is clear from what I have written above that this is an outstanding volume, which should be of great interest to anyone interested in the foundations of quantum theory. Indeed, I feel quite fortunate to be the particular `me' that happens to exist in the same branch of the wavefunction of the universe in which this book was published.