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/0211149

Quantum theory: kinematics, linearity and no-signaling condition

Mário Ziman, Stelmachovic, Peter

Published Nov 22, 2002• 1 citation
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

We show that the linearity of an evolution of Quantum Mechanics follows from the definition of kinematics. The same result is obtained for an arbitrary theory with the state space that includes mixtures of different preparations. Next, we formulate the non-signaling theorem and show that the theorem poses no additional restriction on Quantum Mechanics provided the kinematics is given. We also discuss validity of the postulate for the case of more general theories.

DOI
10.48550/arxiv.quant-ph/0211149

Related papers

Coexistence of Quantum Theory and Special Relativity in Signaling Scenarios

Pedro Sancho

The coexistence between Quantum Mechanics and Special Relativity is usually formulated in terms of the no-signaling condition. Several authors have even suggested that this condition should be included between the basic postulates of Quantum Theory. However, there are several scenarios where signaling is, in principle, possible: based on previous results and the analysis of the relation between unitarity and signaling we present an example of a two-particle interferometric arrangement for which the dynamics is, in principle, compatible with superluminal transmission of information. This type of non-locality is not in the line of Bell's theorem, but closer in spirit to the one-particle acausality studied by Hegerfeldt and others. We analyze in this paper the meaning of this non-locality and how to preserve the coexistence of the two fundamental theories in this signaling scenario.

arXiv:0805.2352•Old and New Concepts of Physics•Apr 22, 2008•1 citation

Comment on “No-Signaling Condition and Quantum Dynamics”

Pavel Bóna

This paper contains a criticism of the article: Ch. Simon, V. Buzek and N. Gisin: ``No-Signaling Condition and Quantum Dynamics'', Phys. Rev. Lett. 87 (2001) 170405, containing a proposal of adoption into quantum mechanics (QM) a new basic axiom. This axiom was declared to imply linearity of time evolution in QM on the basis of kinematic assumptions only. It is shown why, under the considered conditions, the axiom called ``no-signaling condition'' is not effective.

arXiv:quant-ph/0201002•Physical Review Letters•May 21, 2003•5 citations

Unitary Time Evolution in Quantum Mechanics is a Stronger Physical Postulate than Linear Time Evolution

Edward Parker

Abstract Discussions of quantum mechanics often loosely claim that time evolution logically must be unitary, in order for the probabilistic interpretation of the amplitudes of the state vector to make sense at all times. We discuss from first principles whether this claim is true: if we assume only that the time-evolution operator is linear, then does the stronger requirement that it be unitary follow from the other axioms of quantum mechanics? The answer is subtle. We discuss two mathematically distinct but physically equivalent formulations of the axioms of quantum mechanics, and consider generalizing each to postulate only that time evolution is linear. Within one formulation, the unitarity of time evolution follows logically from the other axioms – but within the other formulation, it does not. Allowing the time-evolution operator to be (a priori) arbitrarily linear does not change the physical observables in one formulation of quantum mechanics, but changes the other formulation to a distinct (internally consistent) physical theory that allows new phenomenology like (e.g.) faster-than-light communication. Therefore, the unitarity of time evolution is arguably better thought of as a logically independent and experimentally falsifiable axiom of quantum mechanics, not as a tautological consequence of the other axioms.

arXiv:2309.04095•Foundations of Physics•Feb 1, 2025•0 citations

Different interpretations of quantum mechanics make different predictions in non-linear quantum mechanics, and some do not violate the no-signaling condition

Bassam Helou, Yanbei Chen

Nonlinear modifications of quantum mechanics have a troubled history. They were initially studied for many promising reasons: resolving the measurement problem, testing the limits of standard quantum mechanics, and reconciling it with gravity. Two results substantially undermined the credibility of non-linear theories. Some have been experimentally refuted, and more importantly, all deterministic non-linear theories can be used for superluminal communication. However, these results are unconvincing because they overlook the fact that the distribution of measurement results predicted by non-linear quantum mechanics depends on the interpretation of quantum mechanics that one uses. For instance, although the Everett and Copenhagen interpretations agree on the expression of Born's rule for the outcomes of multiple measurements in linear quantum mechanics, they disagree in non-linear quantum mechanics. We present the range of expressions of Born's rule that can be obtained by applying different formulations of quantum mechanics to a class of non-linear quantum theories. We then determine that many do not allow for superluminal communication but only two seem to have a reasonable justification. The first is the Everett interpretation, and the second, which we name causal-conditional, states that a measurement broadcasts its outcome to degrees of freedom in its future light-cone, who update the wavefunction that their non-linear Hamiltonian depends on according to this new information.

arXiv:1709.06639•Sep 19, 2017•0 citations

Extensions of Born’s rule to non-linear quantum mechanics, some of which do not imply superluminal communication

Bassam Helou, Yanbei Chen

Nonlinear modifications of quantum mechanics have a troubled history.They were initially studied for many promising reasons: resolving the measurement problem, formulating a theory of quantum mechanics and gravity, and understanding the limits of standard quantum mechanics.However, certain non-linear theories have been experimentally tested and failed.More significantly, it has been shown that, in general, deterministic non-linear theories can be used for superluminal communication.We highlight another serious issue: the distribution of measurement results predicted by non-linear quantum mechanics depends on the formulation of quantum mechanics.In other words, Born's rule cannot be uniquely extended to non-linear quantum mechanics.We present these generalizations of Born's rule, and then examine whether some exclude superluminal communication.We determine that a large class do not allow for superluminal communication, but many lack a consistent definition.Nonetheless, we find a single extension of Born's rule with a sound operational definition, and that does not exhibit superluminal communication.The non-linear time-evolution leading to a certain measurement event is driven by the state conditioned on measurements that lie within the past light cone of that event.

Journal of Physics Conference Series•Aug 1, 2017•18 citations

No-signaling in topos formulation and a common ontological basis for classical and non-classical physical theories

Marek Kuś

Starting from logical structures of classical and quantum mechanics we reconstruct the logic of so-called no-signaling theories, where the correlations among subsystems of a composite system are restricted only by a simplest form of causality forbidding an instantaneous communication. Although such theories are, as it seems, irrelevant for the description of physical reality, they are helpful in understanding the relevance of quantum mechanics. The logical structure of each theory has an epistemological flavor, as it is based on analysis of possible results of experiments. In this note we emphasize that not only logical structures of classical, quantum and no-signaling theory may be treated on the same ground but it is also possible to give to all of them a common ontological basis by constructing a “phase space” in all cases. In non-classical cases the phase space is not a set, as in classical theory, but a more general object obtained by means of category theory, but conceptually it plays the same role as the phase space in classical physics.

Philosophical Problems in Science (Zagadnienia Filozoficzne w Nauce)•Dec 29, 2020•0 citations
We show that the linearity of an evolution of Quantum Mechanics follows from the definition of kinematics. The same result is obtained for an arbitrary theory with the state space that includes mixtures of different preparations. Next, we formulate the non-signaling theorem and show that the theorem poses no additional restriction on Quantum Mechanics provided the kinematics is given. We also discuss validity of the postulate for the case of more general theories.
The coexistence between Quantum Mechanics and Special Relativity is usually formulated in terms of the no-signaling condition. Several authors have even suggested that this condition should be included between the basic postulates of Quantum Theory. However, there are several scenarios where signaling is, in principle, possible: based on previous results and the analysis of the relation between unitarity and signaling we present an example of a two-particle interferometric arrangement for which the dynamics is, in principle, compatible with superluminal transmission of information. This type of non-locality is not in the line of Bell's theorem, but closer in spirit to the one-particle acausality studied by Hegerfeldt and others. We analyze in this paper the meaning of this non-locality and how to preserve the coexistence of the two fundamental theories in this signaling scenario.
Abstract Discussions of quantum mechanics often loosely claim that time evolution logically must be unitary, in order for the probabilistic interpretation of the amplitudes of the state vector to make sense at all times. We discuss from first principles whether this claim is true: if we assume only that the time-evolution operator is linear, then does the stronger requirement that it be unitary follow from the other axioms of quantum mechanics? The answer is subtle. We discuss two mathematically distinct but physically equivalent formulations of the axioms of quantum mechanics, and consider generalizing each to postulate only that time evolution is linear. Within one formulation, the unitarity of time evolution follows logically from the other axioms – but within the other formulation, it does not. Allowing the time-evolution operator to be (a priori) arbitrarily linear does not change the physical observables in one formulation of quantum mechanics, but changes the other formulation to a distinct (internally consistent) physical theory that allows new phenomenology like (e.g.) faster-than-light communication. Therefore, the unitarity of time evolution is arguably better thought of as a logically independent and experimentally falsifiable axiom of quantum mechanics, not as a tautological consequence of the other axioms.
Nonlinear modifications of quantum mechanics have a troubled history. They were initially studied for many promising reasons: resolving the measurement problem, testing the limits of standard quantum mechanics, and reconciling it with gravity. Two results substantially undermined the credibility of non-linear theories. Some have been experimentally refuted, and more importantly, all deterministic non-linear theories can be used for superluminal communication. However, these results are unconvincing because they overlook the fact that the distribution of measurement results predicted by non-linear quantum mechanics depends on the interpretation of quantum mechanics that one uses. For instance, although the Everett and Copenhagen interpretations agree on the expression of Born's rule for the outcomes of multiple measurements in linear quantum mechanics, they disagree in non-linear quantum mechanics. We present the range of expressions of Born's rule that can be obtained by applying different formulations of quantum mechanics to a class of non-linear quantum theories. We then determine that many do not allow for superluminal communication but only two seem to have a reasonable justification. The first is the Everett interpretation, and the second, which we name causal-conditional, states that a measurement broadcasts its outcome to degrees of freedom in its future light-cone, who update the wavefunction that their non-linear Hamiltonian depends on according to this new information.
Nonlinear modifications of quantum mechanics have a troubled history.They were initially studied for many promising reasons: resolving the measurement problem, formulating a theory of quantum mechanics and gravity, and understanding the limits of standard quantum mechanics.However, certain non-linear theories have been experimentally tested and failed.More significantly, it has been shown that, in general, deterministic non-linear theories can be used for superluminal communication.We highlight another serious issue: the distribution of measurement results predicted by non-linear quantum mechanics depends on the formulation of quantum mechanics.In other words, Born's rule cannot be uniquely extended to non-linear quantum mechanics.We present these generalizations of Born's rule, and then examine whether some exclude superluminal communication.We determine that a large class do not allow for superluminal communication, but many lack a consistent definition.Nonetheless, we find a single extension of Born's rule with a sound operational definition, and that does not exhibit superluminal communication.The non-linear time-evolution leading to a certain measurement event is driven by the state conditioned on measurements that lie within the past light cone of that event.
Starting from logical structures of classical and quantum mechanics we reconstruct the logic of so-called no-signaling theories, where the correlations among subsystems of a composite system are restricted only by a simplest form of causality forbidding an instantaneous communication. Although such theories are, as it seems, irrelevant for the description of physical reality, they are helpful in understanding the relevance of quantum mechanics. The logical structure of each theory has an epistemological flavor, as it is based on analysis of possible results of experiments. In this note we emphasize that not only logical structures of classical, quantum and no-signaling theory may be treated on the same ground but it is also possible to give to all of them a common ontological basis by constructing a “phase space” in all cases. In non-classical cases the phase space is not a set, as in classical theory, but a more general object obtained by means of category theory, but conceptually it plays the same role as the phase space in classical physics.