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/0610204 · Journal of Physics A Mathematical and Theoretical

Quantum dynamics without the wavefunction

Rafael D. Sorkin

Published Mar 7, 2007• 86 citations
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

When suitably generalized and interpreted, the path-integral offers an alternative to the more familiar quantal formalism based on state-vectors, selfadjoint operators, and external observers. Mathematically one generalizes the path-integral-as-propagator to a {\it quantal measure} $μ$ on the space $Ω$ of all ``conceivable worlds'', and this generalized measure expresses the dynamics or law of motion of the theory, much as Wiener measure expresses the dynamics of Brownian motion. Within such ``histories-based'' schemes new, and more ``realistic'' possibilities open up for resolving the philosophical problems of the state-vector formalism. In particular, one can dispense with the need for external agents by locating the predictive content of $μ$ in its sets of measure zero: such sets are to be ``precluded''. But unrestricted application of this rule engenders contradictions. One possible response would remove the contradictions by circumscribing the application of the preclusion concept. Another response, more in the tradition of ``quantum logic'', would accommodate the contradictions by dualizing $Ω$ to a space of ``co-events'' and effectively identifying reality with an element of this dual space.

DOI
10.1088/1751-8113/40/12/s20

Related papers

version 19 Quantum Dynamics without the Wave Function

Rafael D. Sorkin

When suitably generalized and interpreted, the path-integral offers an al-ternative to the more familiar quantal formalism based on state-vectors, selfadjoint operators, and external observers. Mathematically one general-izes the path-integral-as-propagator to a quantal measure µ on the space Ω of all “conceivable worlds”, and this generalized measure expresses the dy-namics or law of motion of the theory, much as Wiener measure expresses the dynamics of Brownian motion. Within such “histories-based ” schemes new, and more “realistic ” possibilities open up for resolving the philosophi-cal problems of the state-vector formalism. In particular, one can dispense with the need for external agents by locating the predictive content of µ in its sets of measure zero: such sets are to be “precluded”. But unrestricted application of this rule engenders contradictions. One possible response would remove the contradictions by circumscribing the application of the preclusion concept. Another response, more in the tradition of “quantum logic”, would accommodate the contradictions by dualizing Ω to a space of “co-events ” and effectively identifying reality with an element of this dual space. Reading the literature on “quantum foundations”, you could easily get the impression that the problems begin and end with non-relativistic quantum mechanics. Perhaps most authors have limited themselves to this special case because they thought that no essentially

•Jan 5, 2015•0 citations

Hamiltonian path integrals

Прохоров Лев Васильевич, Sergei V. Shabanov

Introduction Preliminary remarks The path integral formalism is one of the most important tools in modern theoretical physics. Integration in functional spaces was considered for the first time by Norbert Wiener in his studies of diffusion processes [60, 61]. The corresponding integration measure is now known as the Wiener measure, i.e. the so-called Gaussian path integrals were studied. In quantum mechanics, functional integrals were introduced by R. Feynmann [62, 63] who was inspired by important observations due to P. A. M. Dirac concerning a relation between wave function and classical action [64, 65]. In modern physics the path integral formalism is applied not only to developing a quantum description for systems with infinitely many degrees of freedom as, for example, in quantum field theories or condensed matter physics, but also to ordinary quantum mechanical problems. Moreover there is a tendency to reformulate standard quantum mechanical problems (such as a particle in a “box” or potential well [66, 67], or a particle in the Coulomb field [68]) within the framework of the path integral method. The reason for doing this is rather obvious: physicists develop a new mathematical tool, a new language and, in order to comprehend all of its subtleties, it is necessary to investigate as many concrete examples as possible. Use of the path integral formalism is widespread in quantum field theory because it is the most adequate mathematical tool for a wide range of problems which allows, not only for elegant formulation of problems, but also for a great deal of simplification of their theoretical analysis.

Cambridge University Press eBooks•Sep 22, 2011•5 citations

Quantum mechanics

Carlo Rovelli C

Quantum mechanics (QM) is not just a theory of micro-objects: it is our current fundamental theory of motion. It expresses a deeper understanding of Nature than classical mechanics. Precisely as classical mechanics, the conventional formulation of QM describes evolution of states and observables in time. Precisely as classical mechanics, this is not sufficient to deal with general relativistic systems, because these systems do not describe evolution in time; they describe correlations between observables. Therefore, a formulation of QM slightly more general than the conventional one – or a quantum version of the relativistic classical mechanics discussed in the previous chapter – is needed. In this chapter I discuss the possibility of such a formulation. In the last section I discuss the general physical interpretation of QM. QM can be formulated in a number of more or less equivalent formalisms: canonical (Hilbert spaces and self-adjoint operators), covariant (Feynman's sum-over-histories), algebraic (states as linear functionals over an abstract algebra of observables) and others. Generally, but not always, we are able to translate these formalisms into one another, but often what is easy in one formulation is difficult in another. A generalrelativistic sum-over-histories formalism has been developed by Jim Hartle. Here I focus on the canonical formalism, because the canonical formalism has provided the mathematical completeness and precision needed to explicitly construct the mathematical apparatus of quantum gravity. Later I will consider alternative formalisms.

Cambridge University Press eBooks•Nov 15, 2004•0 citations

Building a path-integral calculus

Leticia F. Cugliandolo, Vivien Lecomte, Frédéric van Wijland

Path integrals are a central tool when it comes to describing quantum or thermal fluctuations of particles or fields. Their success dates back to Feynman who showed how to use them within the framework of quantum mechanics. Since then, path integrals have pervaded all areas of physics where fluctuation effects, quantum and/or thermal, are of paramount importance. Their appeal is based on the fact that one converts a problem formulated in terms of operators into one of sampling classical paths with a given weight. Path integrals are the mirror image of our conventional Riemann integrals, with functions replacing the real numbers one usually sums over. However, unlike conventional integrals, path integration suffers a serious drawback: in general, one cannot make non-linear changes of variables without committing an error of some sort. Thus, no path-integral based calculus is possible. Here we identify which are the deep mathematical reasons causing this important caveat, and we come up with cures for systems described by one degree of freedom. Our main result is a construction of path integration free of this longstanding problem.

•Jun 26, 2018•2 citations

Logic is to the quantum as geometry is to gravity

Rafael D. Sorkin

I will propose that the reality to which the quantum formalism implicitly refers is a kind of generalized history, the word history having here the same meaning as in the phrase sum-over-histories. This proposal confers a certain independence on the concept of event, and it modifies the rules of inference concerning events in order to resolve a contradiction between the idea of reality as a single history and the principle that events of zero measure cannot happen (the Kochen-Specker paradox being a classic expression of this contradiction). The so-called measurement problem is then solved if macroscopic events satisfy classical rules of inference, and this can in principle be decided by a calculation. The resulting conception of reality involves neither multiple worlds nor external observers. It is therefore suitable for quantum gravity in general and causal sets in particular. Quantum gravity and quantal reality Why, in our attempts to unify our theories of gravity and the quantum, has progress been so slow? One reason, no doubt, is that it's simply a very hard problem. Another is that we lack clear guidance from experiments or astronomical observations. But I believe that a third thing holding us back is that we haven't learned how to think clearly about the quantum world in itself, without reference to “observers” and other external agents. Because of this we don't really know how to think about the Planckian regime where quantum gravity is expected to be most relevant. We don’t know how to think about the vacuum on small scales, or about the inside of a black hole, or about the early universe. Nor do we have a way to pose questions about relativistic causality in such situations.

arXiv:1004.1226•Cambridge University Press eBooks•Jul 19, 2012•23 citations

On the connection between classical and quantum descriptions

I.D. Mandzhavidze

The paper develops the idea that the dynamics of both classical and quantum processes is time reversible. It is shown how this classical analogy allows one to define the measure for the path integral in quantum mechanics.

arXiv:hep-ph/0311196•Nov 14, 2003•1 citation
When suitably generalized and interpreted, the path-integral offers an alternative to the more familiar quantal formalism based on state-vectors, selfadjoint operators, and external observers. Mathematically one generalizes the path-integral-as-propagator to a {\it quantal measure} μμμ on the space ΩΩΩ of all conceivable worlds'', and this generalized measure expresses the dynamics or law of motion of the theory, much as Wiener measure expresses the dynamics of Brownian motion. Within such histories-based'' schemes new, and more realistic'' possibilities open up for resolving the philosophical problems of the state-vector formalism. In particular, one can dispense with the need for external agents by locating the predictive content of $μ$ in its sets of measure zero: such sets are to be precluded''. But unrestricted application of this rule engenders contradictions. One possible response would remove the contradictions by circumscribing the application of the preclusion concept. Another response, more in the tradition of quantum logic'', would accommodate the contradictions by dualizing $Ω$ to a space of co-events'' and effectively identifying reality with an element of this dual space.
When suitably generalized and interpreted, the path-integral offers an al-ternative to the more familiar quantal formalism based on state-vectors, selfadjoint operators, and external observers. Mathematically one general-izes the path-integral-as-propagator to a quantal measure µ on the space Ω of all “conceivable worlds”, and this generalized measure expresses the dy-namics or law of motion of the theory, much as Wiener measure expresses the dynamics of Brownian motion. Within such “histories-based ” schemes new, and more “realistic ” possibilities open up for resolving the philosophi-cal problems of the state-vector formalism. In particular, one can dispense with the need for external agents by locating the predictive content of µ in its sets of measure zero: such sets are to be “precluded”. But unrestricted application of this rule engenders contradictions. One possible response would remove the contradictions by circumscribing the application of the preclusion concept. Another response, more in the tradition of “quantum logic”, would accommodate the contradictions by dualizing Ω to a space of “co-events ” and effectively identifying reality with an element of this dual space. Reading the literature on “quantum foundations”, you could easily get the impression that the problems begin and end with non-relativistic quantum mechanics. Perhaps most authors have limited themselves to this special case because they thought that no essentially
Introduction Preliminary remarks The path integral formalism is one of the most important tools in modern theoretical physics. Integration in functional spaces was considered for the first time by Norbert Wiener in his studies of diffusion processes [60, 61]. The corresponding integration measure is now known as the Wiener measure, i.e. the so-called Gaussian path integrals were studied. In quantum mechanics, functional integrals were introduced by R. Feynmann [62, 63] who was inspired by important observations due to P. A. M. Dirac concerning a relation between wave function and classical action [64, 65]. In modern physics the path integral formalism is applied not only to developing a quantum description for systems with infinitely many degrees of freedom as, for example, in quantum field theories or condensed matter physics, but also to ordinary quantum mechanical problems. Moreover there is a tendency to reformulate standard quantum mechanical problems (such as a particle in a “box” or potential well [66, 67], or a particle in the Coulomb field [68]) within the framework of the path integral method. The reason for doing this is rather obvious: physicists develop a new mathematical tool, a new language and, in order to comprehend all of its subtleties, it is necessary to investigate as many concrete examples as possible. Use of the path integral formalism is widespread in quantum field theory because it is the most adequate mathematical tool for a wide range of problems which allows, not only for elegant formulation of problems, but also for a great deal of simplification of their theoretical analysis.
Quantum mechanics (QM) is not just a theory of micro-objects: it is our current fundamental theory of motion. It expresses a deeper understanding of Nature than classical mechanics. Precisely as classical mechanics, the conventional formulation of QM describes evolution of states and observables in time. Precisely as classical mechanics, this is not sufficient to deal with general relativistic systems, because these systems do not describe evolution in time; they describe correlations between observables. Therefore, a formulation of QM slightly more general than the conventional one – or a quantum version of the relativistic classical mechanics discussed in the previous chapter – is needed. In this chapter I discuss the possibility of such a formulation. In the last section I discuss the general physical interpretation of QM. QM can be formulated in a number of more or less equivalent formalisms: canonical (Hilbert spaces and self-adjoint operators), covariant (Feynman's sum-over-histories), algebraic (states as linear functionals over an abstract algebra of observables) and others. Generally, but not always, we are able to translate these formalisms into one another, but often what is easy in one formulation is difficult in another. A generalrelativistic sum-over-histories formalism has been developed by Jim Hartle. Here I focus on the canonical formalism, because the canonical formalism has provided the mathematical completeness and precision needed to explicitly construct the mathematical apparatus of quantum gravity. Later I will consider alternative formalisms.
Path integrals are a central tool when it comes to describing quantum or thermal fluctuations of particles or fields. Their success dates back to Feynman who showed how to use them within the framework of quantum mechanics. Since then, path integrals have pervaded all areas of physics where fluctuation effects, quantum and/or thermal, are of paramount importance. Their appeal is based on the fact that one converts a problem formulated in terms of operators into one of sampling classical paths with a given weight. Path integrals are the mirror image of our conventional Riemann integrals, with functions replacing the real numbers one usually sums over. However, unlike conventional integrals, path integration suffers a serious drawback: in general, one cannot make non-linear changes of variables without committing an error of some sort. Thus, no path-integral based calculus is possible. Here we identify which are the deep mathematical reasons causing this important caveat, and we come up with cures for systems described by one degree of freedom. Our main result is a construction of path integration free of this longstanding problem.
I will propose that the reality to which the quantum formalism implicitly refers is a kind of generalized history, the word history having here the same meaning as in the phrase sum-over-histories. This proposal confers a certain independence on the concept of event, and it modifies the rules of inference concerning events in order to resolve a contradiction between the idea of reality as a single history and the principle that events of zero measure cannot happen (the Kochen-Specker paradox being a classic expression of this contradiction). The so-called measurement problem is then solved if macroscopic events satisfy classical rules of inference, and this can in principle be decided by a calculation. The resulting conception of reality involves neither multiple worlds nor external observers. It is therefore suitable for quantum gravity in general and causal sets in particular. Quantum gravity and quantal reality Why, in our attempts to unify our theories of gravity and the quantum, has progress been so slow? One reason, no doubt, is that it's simply a very hard problem. Another is that we lack clear guidance from experiments or astronomical observations. But I believe that a third thing holding us back is that we haven't learned how to think clearly about the quantum world in itself, without reference to “observers” and other external agents. Because of this we don't really know how to think about the Planckian regime where quantum gravity is expected to be most relevant. We don’t know how to think about the vacuum on small scales, or about the inside of a black hole, or about the early universe. Nor do we have a way to pose questions about relativistic causality in such situations.