More them any other topic in the foundations of physics, the problem of the arrow (or arrows!) of time seems to be characterized by a unique ‘slipperiness’: it is not only difficult to find answers to the questions once posed, but difficult to find meaningful questions to ask in the first place. Perhaps this is because an asymmetry with respect to the sense of time is built into us at an even deeper level than other ‘synthetic a priori’ conceptions about the world such as the continued existence of unknown objects. However that may be, in this situation, rather than trying to pose general questions which may turn out in the end to be ill-defined, there may be something to be said for trying to formulate much less speculative, indeed perhaps in retrospect trivial questions to which at least we have a hope of finding a definite answer. This is what I shall do in this essay: to be specific, I shall ask whether a test which is currently being designed concerning the validity of a certain ‘common-sense’ view of the macroscopic world (‘macrorealism’) would be affected if we were to relax our common-sense assumptions about the direction of causality in time. Let me start with a very brief review of established ideas concerning the formal (a)symmetry of the quantum theory with respect to the direction of time. The classic works on this subject are the paper of Aharonov et al. (‘ABL’) and the book by Belinfante. In these discussions the notion of ‘measurement’ is taken as primitive and undefined.
More them any other topic in the foundations of physics, the problem of the arrow (or arrows!) of time seems to be characterized by a unique ‘slipperiness’: it is not only difficult to find answers to the questions once posed, but difficult to find meaningful questions to ask in the first place. Perhaps this is because an asymmetry with respect to the sense of time is built into us at an even deeper level than other ‘synthetic a priori’ conceptions about the world such as the continued existence of unknown objects. However that may be, in this situation, rather than trying to pose general questions which may turn out in the end to be ill-defined, there may be something to be said for trying to formulate much less speculative, indeed perhaps in retrospect trivial questions to which at least we have a hope of finding a definite answer. This is what I shall do in this essay: to be specific, I shall ask whether a test which is currently being designed concerning the validity of a certain ‘common-sense’ view of the macroscopic world (‘macrorealism’) would be affected if we were to relax our common-sense assumptions about the direction of causality in time. Let me start with a very brief review of established ideas concerning the formal (a)symmetry of the quantum theory with respect to the direction of time. The classic works on this subject are the paper of Aharonov et al. (‘ABL’) and the book by Belinfante. In these discussions the notion of ‘measurement’ is taken as primitive and undefined.
Less than meets the eye If even some of the ideas presented here are correct, the world is different from what it seems. The major theses of the book, on time's arrows and on quantum measurement theory, are unified by the notion of cryptic constraints . We see, sense, specify, macroscopic states, but what we predict about these states depends on an important assumption concerning their microscopic situation. The assumption is that the actual microstate is equally likely to be any of those consistent with the macrostate. And I say, not so. For various reasons, both classical and quantum, many otherwise-possible microstates are eliminated. As presented in detail in previous chapters, such elimination impacts many areas of physics, from the cosmos to the atom. But we also make the point that this elimination can be difficult to notice and in particular there is no experimental evidence that confirms the usual assumption. By an explicit example on a model (Fig. 4.3.2), we show that a future constraint eliminating 98% of the microstates can go completely unnoticed. My expectation is that this fundamental change in the foundations of statistical mechanics is needed. Whether or not it takes the forms I've proposed will be determined by future investigations. In the next section I will review open problems for the program implicit in this book. The tone will be that used in speaking with colleagues: an attempt to be frank about difficulties and a willingness to be wildly speculative.
In the next few pages I provide previews of the book: Section 1.1 is a statement of the main ideas. Section 1.2 is a chapter by chapter guide. There are two principal themes: time's arrows and quantum measurement. In both areas I will make significant statements about what are usually called their foundations. These statements are related, and involve modification of the underlying hypotheses of statistical mechanics. The modified statistical mechanics contains notions that are at variance with certain primitive intuitions, but it is consistent with all known experiments. I will try to present these ideas as intellectually attractive, but this virtue will be offered as a reason for study, not as a reason for belief. Historically, intellectual satisfaction has not been a reliable guide to scientific truth. For this reason I have striven to provide experimental and observational tests where I could, even where such experiment is not feasible today. The need for this hardheaded, or perhaps, intellectually humble, approach is particularly felt in the two areas that I will address. The foundations of thermodynamics and the foundations of quantum mechanics have been among the most contentious areas of physics; indeed, some would deny their place within that discipline. In my opinion, this situation is a result of the paucity of relevant experiment.
It is brought forward that viable theories of the physical world that have no variable at all that can play the role of time, do not exist; some notion of time is one of the very first ingredients a candidate theory should possess. Almost by definition, time has an arrow. In contrast, time reversibility, or even the possibility to run the equations of motion backwards in time, is not at all a primary requirement. This means that the direction of the arrow of time may well be uniquely defined in the theory, even locally. It is explained that a rigorous definition of time, as well as a formulation of the causality and locality concepts, can only be given when one has a model for the physical phenomena described. The only viable causality condition is one that is symmetric under time reversal. We explain these statements in terms of the author’s favoured deterministic cellular automaton interpretation of quantum mechanics, also to be referred to as 'vector space analysis', and expand on these ideas. It is also summarised how our more rigorous causality condition affects Bell’s theorems. What distinguishes quantum systems from classical ones is our fundamental inability to control the microscopic details of the initial state when phenomena are studied in the light of some theoretical model.
Introduction In this chapter I attempt to review a few somewhat loosely connected themes, which figure in recent work by physicists on decoherence and irreversibility in quantum mechanics. The looseness is forced upon us by the subject – any proper discussion inevitably drags in questions about thermodynamic reversibility and the various arrows of time, about the foundations of quantum mechanics and quantum measurement, about the nature of quantum coherence, and about the relationship between quantum and classical mechanics. There are inevitably many gaps in our understanding of these questions, both for the physicist and for the philosopher. Some philosophers may feel that the subject is too immature to be interesting to them – that it is not yet ripe for philosophical analysis. Indeed I have recently heard the opinion expressed that quantum mechanics in its entirety was still not amenable to such analysis – that if the physicists could not yet understand it, there was no point in philosophers trying! I hope this feeling is not too widespread amongst philosophers of science – I suspect that it may arise in part because the philosophical community (along with a good part of the scientific community) is unaware of some important advances that have been made in the last decade in understanding the physics of quantum processes at the macroscopic level, as well as the relation between classical and quantum mechanics. Much of the chapter is therefore unashamedly tutorial in nature; however, given the wide range of topics covered, I imagine that even physicists will find at least some of the material to be novel.
Measurements play a specific role in quantum mechanics; only measurements allow us to catch a glimpse of the eluding physical reality. However, there is something deeply unsatisfactory with this specificity—a measurement is itself a physical process! Several varying modes of coping with this dilemma have been proposed and this article tries to describe how a now-century-long discussion has led to new insights about the transition from the quantum to the classical world. Starting from the pioneer’s view of the quantum measurement problem, it follows the development of formalisms, the interest from philosophers for its new aspects on reality and how different interpretations of quantum mechanics have tried to support our classically working brains in understanding quantum phenomena. Decoherence is a main topic and its role in measurement processes exemplified. The question of whether the quantum measurement problem is now solved is left open for the readers’ own judgment.