Consistent histories and quantum reasoning.

A system of quantum reasoning for a closed system is developed by treating nonrelativistic quantum mechanics as a stochastic theory. The sample space corresponds to a decomposition, as a sum of orthogonal projectors, of the identity operator on a Hilbert space of histories. Provided a consistency condition is satisfied, the corresponding Boolean algebra of histories, called a framework, can be assigned probabilities in the usual way, and within a single framework quantum reasoning is identical to ordinary probabilistic reasoning. A refinement rule, which allows a probability distribution to be extended from one framework to a larger (refined) framework, incorporates the dynamical laws of quantum theory. Two or more frameworks which are incompatible because they possess no common refinement cannot be simultaneously employed to describe a single physical system. Logical reasoning is a special case of probabilistic reasoning in which (conditional) probabilities are 1 (true) or 0 (false). As probabilities are only meaningful relative to some framework, the same is true of the truth or falsity of a quantum description. The formalism is illustrated using simple examples, and the physical considerations which determine the choice of a framework are discussed. \textcopyright{} 1996 The American Physical Society.

[1]  A. Kent Consistent Sets Contradict , 1996 .

[2]  L. Vaidman Weak-measurement elements of reality , 1996, quant-ph/9601005.

[3]  Griffiths,et al.  Semiclassical Fourier transform for quantum computation. , 1995, Physical review letters.

[4]  McElwaine Approximate and exact consistency of histories. , 1995, Physical review. A, Atomic, molecular, and optical physics.

[5]  A. Kent,et al.  On the consistent histories approach to quantum mechanics , 1994, gr-qc/9412067.

[6]  Kent,et al.  Properties of consistent histories. , 1994, Physical review letters.

[7]  C. Isham,et al.  The Classification of decoherence functionals: An Analog of Gleason's theorem , 1994, gr-qc/9406015.

[8]  C. Isham,et al.  Quantum temporal logic and decoherence functionals in the histories approach to generalized quantum theory , 1994, gr-qc/9405029.

[9]  Pekka Lahti,et al.  Symposium on the Foundations of Modern Physics 1993 , 1994, Symposium on The Foundations of Modern Physics.

[10]  R. Griffiths The consistency of consistent histories: A reply to d'Espagnat , 1993 .

[11]  T. Hyvönen Symposium on the Foundations of Modern Physics 1994 , 1993 .

[12]  C. J. Isham,et al.  Quantum logic and the histories approach to quantum theory , 1993 .

[13]  Griffiths,et al.  Consistent interpretation of quantum mechanics using quantum trajectories. , 1993, Physical review letters.

[14]  W. Zurek Preferred States, Predictability, Classicality and the Environment-Induced Decoherence , 1993 .

[15]  M. Gell-Mann,et al.  Classical equations for quantum systems. , 1992, Physical review. D, Particles and fields.

[16]  R. Omnes Consistent interpretations of quantum mechanics , 1992 .

[17]  Y. Aharonov,et al.  Complete description of a quantum system at a given time , 1991 .

[18]  B. D'espagnat Towards a separable “empirical reality”? , 1990 .

[19]  W. H. Zurek Complexity, Entropy and the Physics of Information , 1990 .

[20]  B. D'espagnat Are there realistically interpretable local theories? , 1989 .

[21]  R. Omnes,et al.  Logical reformulation of quantum mechanics. I. Foundations , 1988 .

[22]  B. D'espagnat Consistent histories and the measurement problem , 1987 .

[23]  Robert B. Griffiths,et al.  Consistent histories and the interpretation of quantum mechanics , 1984 .

[24]  Max Born,et al.  THE INTERPRETATION OF QUANTUM MECHANICS* , 1953, The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science.

[25]  Arthur I. Miller Sixty-Two Years of Uncertainty , 1990 .

[26]  J. Neumann Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics , 1955 .

[27]  Feller William,et al.  An Introduction To Probability Theory And Its Applications , 1950 .