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

arXiv:gr-qc/9712001 · Physica Scripta

Quantum Pasts and the Utility of History

James B. Hartle

Published Jan 1, 1998• 35 citations
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

From data in the present we can predict the future and retrodict the past. These predictions and retrodictions are for histories – most simply time sequences of events. Quantum mechanics gives probabilities for individual histories in a decoherent set of alternative histories. This paper discusses several issues connected with the distinction between prediction and retrodiction in quantum cosmology: the difference between classical and quantum retrodiction, the permanence of the past, why we predict the future but remember the past, the nature and utility of reconstructing the past(s), and information theoretic measures of the utility of history.

DOI
10.1238/physica.topical.076a00067

Related papers

Bohmian histories and decoherent histories

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.

arXiv:quant-ph/0209104•Physical Review A•Apr 29, 2004•20 citations

Quantum Retrodiction: Foundations and Controversies

Stephen Mark Barnett, John Jeffers, David Thomas Pegg

Prediction is the making of statements, usually probabilistic, about future events based on current information. Retrodiction is the making of statements about past events based on current information. We present the foundations of quantum retrodiction and highlight its intimate connection with the Bayesian interpretation of probability. The close link with Bayesian methods enables us to explore controversies and misunderstandings about retrodiction that have appeared in the literature. To be clear, quantum retrodiction is universally applicable and draws its validity directly from conventional predictive quantum theory coupled with Bayes’ theorem.

arXiv:2103.06074•Symmetry•Apr 2, 2021•19 citations

Quantum Retrodiction

Stephen Mark Barnett, John Jeffers, David Thomas Pegg +2 more

Prediction, of course, is the making of statements about the likelihood of future events. retrodiction (or postdiction) is the making of statement about past events. In these lectures we shall study the rules governing retrodictive probabilities both in the quantum and classical domains. In doing so we develop a powerful tool with which to interpret physical phenomena and both analyse and interpret experiments. We use retrodictive methods to analyze a number of phenomena in quantum optics including the familiar photon antibunching, entanglement and ghost imaging and the perhaps less familiar ideas of quantum scissors, quantum computation in the past a single-particle analysis of two-particle interference. Quantum retrodiction is a quantitative theory and the familiar techniques for evolving quantum states and modelling open systems are applicable to retrodictive problems, but only with the introduction of some novel features. We conclude with a few remarks on more philosophical issues related to the arrow of time and wavefunction "collapse" in the measurement process. These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Springer eBooks•Aug 29, 2005•6 citations

Symmetry of Physical Laws. Part III. Prediction and Retrodiction

Satosi Watanabé

An attempt is made within the framework of the accepted quantum physics to achieve the maximum parallelism between prediction (inference of the future observational data from the present ones) and retrodiction (inference of the past observational data from the present ones). To implement this program, it is shown that the "retrodictive state function" (extrapolation of the present data to the past) can be just as useful as the ordinary "predictive state function" (extrapolation of the present data to the future). This leads to a formalism in which time-reversal becomes a linear transformation and double time-reversal becomes a $c$-number. In spite of this formal symmetry, it can be shown that the actual success of a retrodiction depends on the satisfaction of an additional condition which is not required in prediction, and which is not always fulfilled. From the same point of view, a logical loophole is pointed out in the indiscriminate application of the $H$-theorem to the past. The so-called irreversibility of observation is interpreted in terms of the decrease of "information" in the process of inference.

Reviews of Modern Physics•Apr 1, 1955•127 citations

The Quantum Mechanics of Closed Systems

James B. Hartle

A pedagogical introduction is given to the quantum mechanics of closed systems, most generally the universe as a whole. Quantum mechanics aims at predicting the probabilities of alternative coarse-grained time histories of a closed system. Not every set of alternative coarse-grained histories that can be described may be consistently assigned probabilities because of quantum mechanical interference between individual histories of the set. In “Copenhagen” quantum mechanics, probabilities can be assigned to histories of a subsystem that have been “measured”. In the quantum mechanics of closed systems, containing both observer and observed, probabilities are assigned to those sets of alternative histories for which there is negligible interference between individual histories as a consequence of the system's initial condition and dynamics. Such sets of histories are said to decohere. We define decoherence for closed systems in the simplified case when quantum gravity can be neglected and the initial state is pure. Typical mechanisms of decoherence that are widespread in our universe are illustrated. Copenhagen quantum mechanics is an approximation to the more general quantum framework of closed subsystems. It is appropriate when there is an approximately isolated subsystem that is a participant in a measurement situation in which (among other things) the decoherence of alternative registrations of the apparatus can be idealized as exact. Since the quantum mechanics of closed systems does not posit the existence of the quasiclassical domain of everyday experience, the domain of the approximate aplicability of classical physics must be explained.

Cambridge University Press eBooks•Jul 22, 1993•72 citations

Quantum-mechanical histories and the uncertainty principle. II. Fluctuations about classical predictability

J. J. Halliwell

This paper is concerned with two questions in the decoherent histories approach to quantum mechanics: the emergence of approximate classical predictability, and the fluctuations about it necessitated by the uncertainty principle. It is in part a continuation of an earlier paper on the uncertainty principle for quantum-mechanical histories. We consider histories characterized by position samplings at n moments of time. This includes the case of position sampling continuous in time in the limit n\ensuremath{\rightarrow}\ensuremath{\infty}. We use this to construct a probability distribution on the value of (discrete approximations to) the field equations, F=mx\ifmmode\ddot\else\textasciidieresis\fi{}+V'(x), at n-2 times. We find that it is peaked around F=0; thus classical correlations are exhibited. We show that the width of the peak \ensuremath{\Delta}F is largely independent of the initial state. We show that the uncertainty principle takes the form 2${\mathrm{\ensuremath{\sigma}}}^{2}$(\ensuremath{\Delta}F${)}^{2}$\ensuremath{\ge}${\mathrm{\ensuremath{\Elzxh}}}^{2}$/${\mathit{t}}^{2}$, where \ensuremath{\sigma} is the width of the position samplings, and t is the time scale between projections. We determine the modifications to this result when the system is coupled to a thermal environment, thus obtaining a measure of the comparative sizes of quantum and thermal fluctuations. We show that the thermal fluctuations become comparable to the quantum fluctuations under the same conditions that decoherence effects come into play, in agreement with earlier work. We also study an alternative measure of classical correlations, namely, the conditional probability of finding a sequence of position samplings, given that particular initial phase space data have occurred.We use these results to address the issue of the formal interpretation of the probabilities for sequences of position samplings in the decoherent histories approach to quantum mechanics. Under appropriate conditions, which we describe, they admit an interpretation as a statistical ensemble of classical solutions, with the probability of each individual classical solution given by a smeared Wigner function of its initial data. We study the decoherence properties of histories characterized by the value of the field equations, F, at a sequence of times. We argue that they will be decoherent if their initial data are decoherent.

arXiv:gr-qc/9307013•Physical review. D. Particles, fields, gravitation, and cosmology/Physical review. D. Particles and fields•Nov 15, 1993•49 citations
From data in the present we can predict the future and retrodict the past. These predictions and retrodictions are for histories – most simply time sequences of events. Quantum mechanics gives probabilities for individual histories in a decoherent set of alternative histories. This paper discusses several issues connected with the distinction between prediction and retrodiction in quantum cosmology: the difference between classical and quantum retrodiction, the permanence of the past, why we predict the future but remember the past, the nature and utility of reconstructing the past(s), and information theoretic measures of the utility of history.
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.
Prediction is the making of statements, usually probabilistic, about future events based on current information. Retrodiction is the making of statements about past events based on current information. We present the foundations of quantum retrodiction and highlight its intimate connection with the Bayesian interpretation of probability. The close link with Bayesian methods enables us to explore controversies and misunderstandings about retrodiction that have appeared in the literature. To be clear, quantum retrodiction is universally applicable and draws its validity directly from conventional predictive quantum theory coupled with Bayes’ theorem.
Prediction, of course, is the making of statements about the likelihood of future events. retrodiction (or postdiction) is the making of statement about past events. In these lectures we shall study the rules governing retrodictive probabilities both in the quantum and classical domains. In doing so we develop a powerful tool with which to interpret physical phenomena and both analyse and interpret experiments. We use retrodictive methods to analyze a number of phenomena in quantum optics including the familiar photon antibunching, entanglement and ghost imaging and the perhaps less familiar ideas of quantum scissors, quantum computation in the past a single-particle analysis of two-particle interference. Quantum retrodiction is a quantitative theory and the familiar techniques for evolving quantum states and modelling open systems are applicable to retrodictive problems, but only with the introduction of some novel features. We conclude with a few remarks on more philosophical issues related to the arrow of time and wavefunction "collapse" in the measurement process. These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
An attempt is made within the framework of the accepted quantum physics to achieve the maximum parallelism between prediction (inference of the future observational data from the present ones) and retrodiction (inference of the past observational data from the present ones). To implement this program, it is shown that the "retrodictive state function" (extrapolation of the present data to the past) can be just as useful as the ordinary "predictive state function" (extrapolation of the present data to the future). This leads to a formalism in which time-reversal becomes a linear transformation and double time-reversal becomes a ccc-number. In spite of this formal symmetry, it can be shown that the actual success of a retrodiction depends on the satisfaction of an additional condition which is not required in prediction, and which is not always fulfilled. From the same point of view, a logical loophole is pointed out in the indiscriminate application of the HHH-theorem to the past. The so-called irreversibility of observation is interpreted in terms of the decrease of "information" in the process of inference.
A pedagogical introduction is given to the quantum mechanics of closed systems, most generally the universe as a whole. Quantum mechanics aims at predicting the probabilities of alternative coarse-grained time histories of a closed system. Not every set of alternative coarse-grained histories that can be described may be consistently assigned probabilities because of quantum mechanical interference between individual histories of the set. In “Copenhagen” quantum mechanics, probabilities can be assigned to histories of a subsystem that have been “measured”. In the quantum mechanics of closed systems, containing both observer and observed, probabilities are assigned to those sets of alternative histories for which there is negligible interference between individual histories as a consequence of the system's initial condition and dynamics. Such sets of histories are said to decohere. We define decoherence for closed systems in the simplified case when quantum gravity can be neglected and the initial state is pure. Typical mechanisms of decoherence that are widespread in our universe are illustrated. Copenhagen quantum mechanics is an approximation to the more general quantum framework of closed subsystems. It is appropriate when there is an approximately isolated subsystem that is a participant in a measurement situation in which (among other things) the decoherence of alternative registrations of the apparatus can be idealized as exact. Since the quantum mechanics of closed systems does not posit the existence of the quasiclassical domain of everyday experience, the domain of the approximate aplicability of classical physics must be explained.
This paper is concerned with two questions in the decoherent histories approach to quantum mechanics: the emergence of approximate classical predictability, and the fluctuations about it necessitated by the uncertainty principle. It is in part a continuation of an earlier paper on the uncertainty principle for quantum-mechanical histories. We consider histories characterized by position samplings at n moments of time. This includes the case of position sampling continuous in time in the limit n\ensuremath{\rightarrow}\ensuremath{\infty}. We use this to construct a probability distribution on the value of (discrete approximations to) the field equations, F=mx\ifmmode\ddot\else\textasciidieresis\fi{}+V'(x), at n-2 times. We find that it is peaked around F=0; thus classical correlations are exhibited. We show that the width of the peak \ensuremath{\Delta}F is largely independent of the initial state. We show that the uncertainty principle takes the form 2${\mathrm{\ensuremath{\sigma}}}^{2}$(\ensuremath{\Delta}F)2{)}^{2})2\ensuremath{\ge}${\mathrm{\ensuremath{\Elzxh}}}^{2}$/t2{\mathit{t}}^{2}t2, where \ensuremath{\sigma} is the width of the position samplings, and t is the time scale between projections. We determine the modifications to this result when the system is coupled to a thermal environment, thus obtaining a measure of the comparative sizes of quantum and thermal fluctuations. We show that the thermal fluctuations become comparable to the quantum fluctuations under the same conditions that decoherence effects come into play, in agreement with earlier work. We also study an alternative measure of classical correlations, namely, the conditional probability of finding a sequence of position samplings, given that particular initial phase space data have occurred.We use these results to address the issue of the formal interpretation of the probabilities for sequences of position samplings in the decoherent histories approach to quantum mechanics. Under appropriate conditions, which we describe, they admit an interpretation as a statistical ensemble of classical solutions, with the probability of each individual classical solution given by a smeared Wigner function of its initial data. We study the decoherence properties of histories characterized by the value of the field equations, F, at a sequence of times. We argue that they will be decoherent if their initial data are decoherent.