The set-theory twist of quantum mechanics uncovers forcing in axiomatic Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory as a viable tool to understand the singularities in a physical spacetime and serves as a link between the quantum and classical worlds. The random forcing explains the emergence of time in quantum mechanics on infinite-dimensional Hilbert spaces. A natural flow of randomness from fully random to deterministic and classical, as in the measurement procedure and the decoherence process, becomes responsible for the cosmological arrow of time and also for the local-coordinate time in spacetime.
The set-theory twist of quantum mechanics uncovers forcing in axiomatic Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory as a viable tool to understand the singularities in a physical spacetime and serves as a link between the quantum and classical worlds. The random forcing explains the emergence of time in quantum mechanics on infinite-dimensional Hilbert spaces. A natural flow of randomness from fully random to deterministic and classical, as in the measurement procedure and the decoherence process, becomes responsible for the cosmological arrow of time and also for the local-coordinate time in spacetime.
Abstract Quantum mechanics (QM) predicts probabilities on the fundamental level which are, via Born probability law, connected to the formal randomness of infinite sequences of QM outcomes. Recently it has been shown that QM is algorithmic 1-random in the sense of Martin-Löf. We extend this result and demonstrate that QM is algorithmic ω-random and generic precisely as described by the ’miniaturisation’ of the Solovay forcing to arithmetic. This is extended further to the result that QM becomes Zermelo-Fraenkel Solovay random on infinite dimensional Hilbert spaces. Moreover it is more likely that there exists a standard transitive model of ZFC M where QM is expressed in reality than in the universe V of sets. Then every generic quantum measurement adds the infinite sequence, i.e. random real r ∈ 2ω , to M and the model undergoes random forcing extensions, M[r]. The entire process of forcing becomes the structural ingredient of QM and parallels similar constructions applied to spacetime in the quantum limit. This shows the structural resemblance of both in the limit. We discuss several questions regarding measurability and eventual practical applications of the extended Solovay randomness of QM. The method applied is the formalization based on models of ZFC, however, this is particularly well-suited technique to recognising randomness questions of QM. When one works in a constant model of ZFC or in axiomatic ZFC itself the issues considered here become mostly hidden.
Abstract Quantum mechanics (QM) predicts probabilities on the fundamentallevel which are, via Born probability law, connected to the formal randomnessof infinite sequences of QM outcomes. Recently it has been shown thatQM is algorithmic 1-random in the sense of Martin-L¨of. We extend this resultand demonstrate that QM is algorithmic ω-random and generic, precisely asdescribed by the ’miniaturisation’ of the Solovay forcing to arithmetic. Thisis extended further to the result that QM becomes Zermelo–Fraenkel Solovayrandom on infinite-dimensional Hilbert spaces. Moreover, it is more likely thatthere exists a standard transitive ZFC model M, where QM is expressed in reality,than in the universe V of sets. Then every generic quantum measurementadds to M the infinite sequence, i.e. random real r ∈ 2ω, and the model undergoesrandom forcing extensions M[r]. The entire process of forcing becomesthe structural ingredient of QM and parallels similar constructions applied tospacetime in the quantum limit, therefore showing the structural resemblanceof both in this limit. We discuss several questions regarding measurability andpossible practical applications of the extended Solovay randomness of QM.The method applied is the formalization based on models of ZFC; however,this is particularly well-suited technique to recognising randomness questionsof QM. When one works in a constant model of ZFC or in axiomatic ZFCitself, the issues considered here remain hidden to a great extent.
Abstract Quantum mechanics (QM) predicts probabilities on the fundamental level which are, via Born probability law, connected to the formal randomness of infinite sequences of QM outcomes. Recently it has been shown that QM is algorithmic 1-random in the sense of Martin-Löf. We extend this result and demonstrate that QM is algorithmic ω-random and generic precisely as described by the ’miniaturisation’ of the Solovay forcing to arithmetic. This is extended further to the result that QM becomes Zermelo-Fraenkel Solovay random on infinite dimensional Hilbert spaces. Moreover it is more likely that there exists a standard transitive model of ZFC M where QM is expressed in reality than in the universe V of sets. Then every generic quantum measurement adds the infinite sequence, i.e. random real r ∈ 2ω, to M and the model undergoes random forcing extensions, M[r]. The entire process of forcing becomes the structural ingredient of QM and parallels similar constructions applied to spacetime in the quantum limit. This shows the structural resemblance of both in the limit. We discuss several questions regarding measurability and eventual practical applications of the extended Solovay randomness of QM. The method applied is the formalization based on models of ZFC, however, this is particularly well-suited technique to recognising randomness questions of QM. When one works in a constant model of ZFC or in axiomatic ZFC itself the issues considered here become mostly hidden.
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.
The outcome of a single quantum experiment is unpredictable, except in a pure-state limit. The definite process that takes place in the apparatus may either be intrinsically random or be explainable from a deeper theory. While the first scenario is the standard lore, the latter implies that quantum mechanics is emergent. In that case, it is likely that one has to reconsider radiation by accelerated charges as a physical effect, which thus must be compensated by an energy input. Stochastic electrodynamics, for example, asserts that the vacuum energy arises from classical fluctuations with energy 1/2 ℏω per mode. In such theories the stability of the hydrogen ground state will arise from energy input from fluctuations and output by radiation, hence due to an energy throughput. That flux of energy constitutes an arrow of time, which we call the "subquantum arrow of time". It is related to the stability of matter and it is more fundamental than, e.g., the thermodynamic and cosmological arrows.
All the laws of physics are time-reversible. Time arrow emerges only when ensembles of classical particles are treated probabilistically, outside of physics laws, and the entropy and the second law of thermodynamics are introduced. In quantum physics, no mechanism for a time arrow has been proposed despite its intrinsic probabilistic nature. In consequence, one cannot explain why an electron in an excited state will "spontaneously" transition into a ground state as a photon is created and emitted, instead of continuing in its reversible unitary evolution. To address such phenomena, we introduce an entropy for quantum physics, which will conduce to the emergence of a time arrow. The entropy is a measure of randomness over the degrees of freedom of a quantum state. It is dimensionless; it is a relativistic scalar, it is invariant under coordinate transformation of position and momentum that maintain conjugate properties and under CPT transformations; and its minimum is positive due to the uncertainty principle. To excogitate why some quantum physical processes cannot take place even though they obey conservation laws, we partition the set of all evolutions of an initial state into four blocks, based on whether the entropy is (i) increasing but not a constant, (ii) decreasing but not a constant, (iii) a constant, (iv) oscillating. We propose a law that in quantum physics entropy (weakly) increases over time. Thus, evolutions in the set (ii) are disallowed, and evolutions in set (iv) are barred from completing an oscillation period by instantaneously transitioning to a new state. This law for quantum physics limits physical scenarios beyond conservation laws, providing causality reasoning by defining a time arrow.