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:quant-ph/0209055 · Foundations of Physics

Relative Frequency and Probability in the Everett Interpretation of Heisenberg-Picture Quantum Mechanics

Mark A. Rubin

Published Mar 1, 2003• 55 citations
arXivHTMLPDF
DOI
10.1023/a:1023765114419

Related papers

Locality in the Everett Interpretation of Heisenberg-Picture Quantum Mechanics

Mark A. Rubin

arXiv:quant-ph/0103079•Foundations of Physics Letters•Aug 1, 2001•30 citations

Everettian relative states in the Heisenberg picture

Samuel Kuypers, David Deutsch

Everett's relative-state construction in quantum theory has never been satisfactorily expressed in the Heisenberg picture. What one might have expected to be a straightforward process was impeded by conceptual and technical problems that we solve here. The result is a construction which, unlike Everett's one in the Schrödinger picture, makes manifest the locality of Everettian multiplicity, its inherently approximative nature and its origin in certain kinds of entanglement and locally inaccessible information. (By Everettian , we are referring not only to Everett's own work, but also to versions of quantum theory that elaborate and refine his. The notion of relative states first appeared in Everett (Everett 1973 In The many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics (eds BS DeWitt, N Graham)). We are proposing a formalism for relative states that is more detailed and more illuminating than Everett's.) Our construction also allows us to give a more precise definition of an Everett ‘universe’, under which it is fully quantum, not quasi-classical, and we compare the Everettian decomposition of a quantum state with the foliation of a space–time.

arXiv:2008.02328•Proceedings of the Royal Society A Mathematical Physical and Engineering Sciences•Feb 1, 2021•16 citations

UNDERSTANDING PROBABILITIES IN THE EVERETT INTERPRETATION OF QUANTUM MECHANICS

Adrien Barton

•Mar 5, 2014•0 citations

The Probability Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics

Bryce de Witt

•Jan 1, 1998•0 citations

Probability, preclusion and biological evolution in Heisenberg-picture Everett quantum mechanics

Mark A. Rubin

The fact that certain “extraordinary” probabilistic phenomena — in particular, macroscopic violations of the second law of thermodynamics — have never been observed to occur can be accounted for by taking hard preclusion as a basic physical law, i.e. precluding from existence events corresponding to very small but nonzero values of quantum-mechanical weight. This approach is not consistent with the usual ontology of the Everett interpretation, in which outcomes correspond to branches of the state vector, but can be successfully implemented using a Heisenberg-picture-based ontology in which outcomes are encoded in transformations of operators. Hard preclusion can provide an explanation for biological evolution, which can in turn explain our subjective experiences of, and reactions to, “ordinary” probabilistic phenomena, and the compatibility of those experiences and reactions with what we conventionally take to be objective probabilities arising from physical laws.

arXiv:2011.10029•International Journal of Modern Physics A•Jun 18, 2021•1 citation

Heisenberg and the Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics

Kristian Camilleri

•Feb 1, 2009•8 citations
Everett's relative-state construction in quantum theory has never been satisfactorily expressed in the Heisenberg picture. What one might have expected to be a straightforward process was impeded by conceptual and technical problems that we solve here. The result is a construction which, unlike Everett's one in the Schrödinger picture, makes manifest the locality of Everettian multiplicity, its inherently approximative nature and its origin in certain kinds of entanglement and locally inaccessible information. (By Everettian , we are referring not only to Everett's own work, but also to versions of quantum theory that elaborate and refine his. The notion of relative states first appeared in Everett (Everett 1973 In The many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics (eds BS DeWitt, N Graham)). We are proposing a formalism for relative states that is more detailed and more illuminating than Everett's.) Our construction also allows us to give a more precise definition of an Everett ‘universe’, under which it is fully quantum, not quasi-classical, and we compare the Everettian decomposition of a quantum state with the foliation of a space–time.
The fact that certain “extraordinary” probabilistic phenomena — in particular, macroscopic violations of the second law of thermodynamics — have never been observed to occur can be accounted for by taking hard preclusion as a basic physical law, i.e. precluding from existence events corresponding to very small but nonzero values of quantum-mechanical weight. This approach is not consistent with the usual ontology of the Everett interpretation, in which outcomes correspond to branches of the state vector, but can be successfully implemented using a Heisenberg-picture-based ontology in which outcomes are encoded in transformations of operators. Hard preclusion can provide an explanation for biological evolution, which can in turn explain our subjective experiences of, and reactions to, “ordinary” probabilistic phenomena, and the compatibility of those experiences and reactions with what we conventionally take to be objective probabilities arising from physical laws.