Counterfactual definiteness

Last updated

In quantum mechanics, counterfactual definiteness (CFD) is the ability to speak "meaningfully" of the definiteness of the results of measurements that have not been performed (i.e., the ability to assume the existence of objects, and properties of objects, even when they have not been measured). [1] [2] The term "counterfactual definiteness" is used in discussions of physics calculations, especially those related to the phenomenon called quantum entanglement and those related to the Bell inequalities. [3] In such discussions "meaningfully" means the ability to treat these unmeasured results on an equal footing with measured results in statistical calculations. It is this (sometimes assumed but unstated) aspect of counterfactual definiteness that is of direct relevance to physics and mathematical models of physical systems and not philosophical concerns regarding the meaning of unmeasured results.

Contents

Overview

The subject of counterfactual definiteness receives attention in the study of quantum mechanics because it is argued that, when challenged by the findings of quantum mechanics, classical physics must give up its claim to one of three assumptions: locality (no "spooky action at a distance"), no-conspiracy (called also "asymmetry of time"), [4] [5] or counterfactual definiteness (or "non-contextuality").

If physics gives up the claim to locality, it brings into question our ordinary ideas about causality and suggests that events may transpire at faster-than-light speeds. [6]

If physics gives up the "no conspiracy" condition, it becomes possible for "nature to force experimenters to measure what she wants, and when she wants, hiding whatever she does not like physicists to see." [7]

If physics rejects the possibility that, in all cases, there can be "counterfactual definiteness," then it rejects some features that humans are very much accustomed to regarding as enduring features of the universe. "The elements of reality the EPR paper is talking about are nothing but what the property interpretation calls properties existing independently of the measurements. In each run of the experiment, there exist some elements of reality, the system has particular properties < #ai > which unambiguously determine the measurement outcome < ai >, given that the corresponding measurement a is performed." [8]

As a noun, "counterfactual" may refer to an inferred effect or consequence of an unobserved macroscopic event. An example is counterfactual quantum computation. [9]

Theoretical considerations

An interpretation of quantum mechanics can be said to involve the use of counterfactual definiteness if it includes in the mathematical modelling outcomes of measurements that are counterfactual; in particular, those that are excluded according to quantum mechanics by the fact that quantum mechanics does not contain a description of simultaneous measurement of conjugate pairs of properties. [10]

For example, the uncertainty principle states that one cannot simultaneously know, with arbitrarily high precision, both the position and momentum of a particle. [11] Suppose one measures the position of a particle. This act destroys any information about its momentum. Is it then possible to talk about the outcome that one would have obtained if one had measured its momentum instead of its position? In terms of mathematical formalism, is such a counterfactual momentum measurement to be included, together with the factual position measurement, in the statistical population of possible outcomes describing the particle? If the position were found to be r0 then in an interpretation that permits counterfactual definiteness, the statistical population describing position and momentum would contain all pairs (r0,p) for every possible momentum value p, whereas an interpretation that rejects counterfactual values completely would only have the pair (r0,⊥) where ⊥ (called "up tack" or "eet") denotes an undefined value. [12] To use a macroscopic analogy, an interpretation which rejects counterfactual definiteness views measuring the position as akin to asking where in a room a person is located, while measuring the momentum is akin to asking whether the person's lap is empty or has something on it. If the person's position has changed by making him or her stand rather than sit, then that person has no lap and neither the statement "the person's lap is empty" nor "there is something on the person's lap" is true. Any statistical calculation based on values where the person is standing at some place in the room and simultaneously has a lap as if sitting would be meaningless. [13]

The dependability of counterfactually definite values is a basic assumption, which, together with "time asymmetry" and "local causality" led to the Bell inequalities. Bell showed that the results of experiments intended to test the idea of hidden variables would be predicted to fall within certain limits based on all three of these assumptions, which are considered principles fundamental to classical physics, but that the results found within those limits would be inconsistent with the predictions of quantum mechanical theory. Experiments have shown that quantum mechanical results predictably exceed those classical limits. Calculating expectations based on Bell's work implies that for quantum physics the assumption of "local realism" must be abandoned. [14] Bell's theorem proves that every type of quantum theory must necessarily violate locality or reject the possibility of extending the mathematical description with outcomes of measurements which were not actually made. [15] [16]

Counterfactual definiteness is present in any interpretation of quantum mechanics that allows quantum mechanical measurement outcomes to be seen as deterministic functions of a system's state or of the state of the combined system and measurement apparatus. Cramer's (1986) transactional interpretation does not make that interpretation. [16]

Examples of interpretations rejecting counterfactual definiteness

Copenhagen interpretation

The traditional Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics rejects counterfactual definiteness as it does not ascribe any value at all to a measurement that was not performed. When measurements are performed, values result, but these are not considered to be revelations of pre-existing values. In the words of Asher Peres "unperformed experiments have no results". [17]

Many worlds

The many-worlds interpretation rejects counterfactual definiteness in a different sense; instead of not assigning a value to measurements that were not performed, it ascribes many values. When measurements are performed each of these values gets realized as the resulting value in a different world of a branching reality. As Prof. Guy Blaylock of the University of Massachusetts Amherst puts it, "The many-worlds interpretation is not only counterfactually indefinite, it is factually indefinite as well." [18]

Consistent histories

The consistent histories approach rejects counterfactual definiteness in yet another manner; it ascribes single but hidden values to unperformed measurements and disallows combining values of incompatible measurements (counterfactual or factual) as such combinations do not produce results that would match any obtained purely from performed compatible measurements. When a measurement is performed the hidden value is nevertheless realized as the resulting value. Robert Griffiths likens these to "slips of paper" placed in "opaque envelopes". [19] Thus Consistent Histories does not reject counterfactual results per se, it rejects them only when they are being combined with incompatible results. [20] Whereas in the Copenhagen interpretation or the Many Worlds interpretation, the algebraic operations to derive Bell's inequality cannot proceed due to having no value or many values where a single value is required, in Consistent Histories, they can be performed but the resulting correlation coefficients can not be equated with those that would be obtained by actual measurements (which are instead given by the rules of quantum mechanical formalism). The derivation combines incompatible results only some of which could be factual for a given experiment and the rest counterfactual.

See also

Related Research Articles

The Copenhagen interpretation is a collection of views about the meaning of quantum mechanics, stemming from the work of Niels Bohr, Werner Heisenberg, Max Born, and others. The term "Copenhagen interpretation" was apparently coined by Heisenberg during the 1950s to refer to ideas developed in the 1925–1927 period, glossing over his disagreements with Bohr. Consequently, there is no definitive historical statement of what the interpretation entails.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen paradox</span> Historical critique of quantum mechanics

The Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen (EPR) paradox is a thought experiment proposed by physicists Albert Einstein, Boris Podolsky and Nathan Rosen which argues that the description of physical reality provided by quantum mechanics is incomplete. In a 1935 paper titled "Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality be Considered Complete?", they argued for the existence of "elements of reality" that were not part of quantum theory, and speculated that it should be possible to construct a theory containing these hidden variables. Resolutions of the paradox have important implications for the interpretation of quantum mechanics.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Quantum entanglement</span> Correlation between quantum systems

Quantum entanglement is the phenomenon of a group of particles being generated, interacting, or sharing spatial proximity in such a way that the quantum state of each particle of the group cannot be described independently of the state of the others, including when the particles are separated by a large distance. The topic of quantum entanglement is at the heart of the disparity between classical and quantum physics: entanglement is a primary feature of quantum mechanics not present in classical mechanics.

Bell's theorem is a term encompassing a number of closely related results in physics, all of which determine that quantum mechanics is incompatible with local hidden-variable theories, given some basic assumptions about the nature of measurement. "Local" here refers to the principle of locality, the idea that a particle can only be influenced by its immediate surroundings, and that interactions mediated by physical fields cannot propagate faster than the speed of light. "Hidden variables" are putative properties of quantum particles that are not included in quantum theory but nevertheless affect the outcome of experiments. In the words of physicist John Stewart Bell, for whom this family of results is named, "If [a hidden-variable theory] is local it will not agree with quantum mechanics, and if it agrees with quantum mechanics it will not be local."

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Wigner's friend</span> Thought experiment in theoretical quantum physics

Wigner's friend is a thought experiment in theoretical quantum physics, first published by the Hungarian-American physicist Eugene Wigner in 1961, and further developed by David Deutsch in 1985. The scenario involves an indirect observation of a quantum measurement: An observer observes another observer who performs a quantum measurement on a physical system. The two observers then formulate a statement about the physical system's state after the measurement according to the laws of quantum theory. In the Copenhagen interpretation, the resulting statements of the two observers contradict each other. This reflects a seeming incompatibility of two laws in the Copenhagen interpretation: the deterministic and continuous time evolution of the state of a closed system and the nondeterministic, discontinuous collapse of the state of a system upon measurement. Wigner's friend is therefore directly linked to the measurement problem in quantum mechanics with its famous Schrödinger's cat paradox.

In philosophy, philosophy of physics deals with conceptual and interpretational issues in modern physics, many of which overlap with research done by certain kinds of theoretical physicists. Philosophy of physics can be broadly divided into three areas:

Quantum indeterminacy is the apparent necessary incompleteness in the description of a physical system, that has become one of the characteristics of the standard description of quantum physics. Prior to quantum physics, it was thought that

In physics, a hidden-variable theory is a deterministic physical model which seeks to explain the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics by introducing additional variables.

In physics, an observable is a physical property or physical quantity that can be measured. In classical mechanics, an observable is a real-valued "function" on the set of all possible system states, e.g., position and momentum. In quantum mechanics, an observable is an operator, or gauge, where the property of the quantum state can be determined by some sequence of operations. For example, these operations might involve submitting the system to various electromagnetic fields and eventually reading a value.

In physics, the principle of locality states that an object is influenced directly only by its immediate surroundings. A theory that includes the principle of locality is said to be a "local theory". This is an alternative to the concept of instantaneous, or "non-local" action at a distance. Locality evolved out of the field theories of classical physics. The idea is that for a cause at one point to have an effect at another point, something in the space between those points must mediate the action. To exert an influence, something, such as a wave or particle, must travel through the space between the two points, carrying the influence.

In quantum physics, a measurement is the testing or manipulation of a physical system to yield a numerical result. A fundamental feature of quantum theory is that the predictions it makes are probabilistic. The procedure for finding a probability involves combining a quantum state, which mathematically describes a quantum system, with a mathematical representation of the measurement to be performed on that system. The formula for this calculation is known as the Born rule. For example, a quantum particle like an electron can be described by a quantum state that associates to each point in space a complex number called a probability amplitude. Applying the Born rule to these amplitudes gives the probabilities that the electron will be found in one region or another when an experiment is performed to locate it. This is the best the theory can do; it cannot say for certain where the electron will be found. The same quantum state can also be used to make a prediction of how the electron will be moving, if an experiment is performed to measure its momentum instead of its position. The uncertainty principle implies that, whatever the quantum state, the range of predictions for the electron's position and the range of predictions for its momentum cannot both be narrow. Some quantum states imply a near-certain prediction of the result of a position measurement, but the result of a momentum measurement will be highly unpredictable, and vice versa. Furthermore, the fact that nature violates the statistical conditions known as Bell inequalities indicates that the unpredictability of quantum measurement results cannot be explained away as due to ignorance about "local hidden variables" within quantum systems.

A Bell test, also known as Bell inequality test or Bell experiment, is a real-world physics experiment designed to test the theory of quantum mechanics in relation to Albert Einstein's concept of local realism. Named for John Stewart Bell, the experiments test whether or not the real world satisfies local realism, which requires the presence of some additional local variables to explain the behavior of particles like photons and electrons. As of 2015, all Bell tests have found that the hypothesis of local hidden variables is inconsistent with the way that physical systems behave.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Bohr–Einstein debates</span> Series of public disputes between physicists Niels Bohr and Albert Einstein

The Bohr–Einstein debates were a series of public disputes about quantum mechanics between Albert Einstein and Niels Bohr. Their debates are remembered because of their importance to the philosophy of science, insofar as the disagreements—and the outcome of Bohr's version of quantum mechanics becoming the prevalent view—form the root of the modern understanding of physics. Most of Bohr's version of the events held in the Solvay Conference in 1927 and other places was first written by Bohr decades later in an article titled, "Discussions with Einstein on Epistemological Problems in Atomic Physics". Based on the article, the philosophical issue of the debate was whether Bohr's Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, which centered on his belief of complementarity, was valid in explaining nature. Despite their differences of opinion and the succeeding discoveries that helped solidify quantum mechanics, Bohr and Einstein maintained a mutual admiration that was to last the rest of their lives.

Quantum mechanics is the study of matter and its interactions with energy on the scale of atomic and subatomic particles. By contrast, classical physics explains matter and energy only on a scale familiar to human experience, including the behavior of astronomical bodies such as the moon. Classical physics is still used in much of modern science and technology. However, towards the end of the 19th century, scientists discovered phenomena in both the large (macro) and the small (micro) worlds that classical physics could not explain. The desire to resolve inconsistencies between observed phenomena and classical theory led to a revolution in physics, a shift in the original scientific paradigm: the development of quantum mechanics.

The free will theorem of John H. Conway and Simon B. Kochen states that if we have a free will in the sense that our choices are not a function of the past, then, subject to certain assumptions, so must some elementary particles. Conway and Kochen's paper was published in Foundations of Physics in 2006. In 2009, the authors published a stronger version of the theorem in the Notices of the American Mathematical Society. Later, in 2017, Kochen elaborated some details.

In quantum mechanics, the Kochen–Specker (KS) theorem, also known as the Bell–Kochen–Specker theorem, is a "no-go" theorem proved by John S. Bell in 1966 and by Simon B. Kochen and Ernst Specker in 1967. It places certain constraints on the permissible types of hidden-variable theories, which try to explain the predictions of quantum mechanics in a context-independent way. The version of the theorem proved by Kochen and Specker also gave an explicit example for this constraint in terms of a finite number of state vectors.

In quantum mechanics, superdeterminism is a loophole in Bell's theorem. By postulating that all systems being measured are correlated with the choices of which measurements to make on them, the assumptions of the theorem are no longer fulfilled. A hidden variables theory which is superdeterministic can thus fulfill Bell's notion of local causality and still violate the inequalities derived from Bell's theorem. This makes it possible to construct a local hidden-variable theory that reproduces the predictions of quantum mechanics, for which a few toy models have been proposed. In addition to being deterministic, superdeterministic models also postulate correlations between the state that is measured and the measurement setting.

The Leggett inequalities, named for Anthony James Leggett, who derived them, are a related pair of mathematical expressions concerning the correlations of properties of entangled particles. They are fulfilled by a large class of physical theories based on particular non-local and realistic assumptions, that may be considered to be plausible or intuitive according to common physical reasoning.

<i>Quantum Reality</i> Popular science book by physicist Nick Herbert

Quantum Reality is a 1985 popular science book by physicist Nick Herbert, a member of the Fundamental Fysiks Group which was formed to explore the philosophical implications of quantum theory. The book attempts to address the ontology of quantum objects, their attributes, and their interactions, without reliance on advanced mathematical concepts. Herbert discusses the most common interpretations of quantum mechanics and their consequences in turn, highlighting the conceptual advantages and drawbacks of each.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Aspect's experiment</span> Quantum mechanics experiment

Aspect's experiment was the first quantum mechanics experiment to demonstrate the violation of Bell's inequalities with photons using distant detectors. Its 1982 result allowed for further validation of the quantum entanglement and locality principles. It also offered an experimental answer to Albert Einstein, Boris Podolsky, and Nathan Rosen's paradox which had been proposed about fifty years earlier.

References

  1. ↑ Inge S. Helland, "A new foundation of quantum mechanics," p. 386: "Counterfactual definiteness is defined as the ability to speak with results of measurements that have not been performed (i.e., the ability to assure the existence of objects, and properties of objects, even when they have not been measured").
  2. ↑ W. M. de Muynck, W. De Baere, and H. Martens, "Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics, Joint Measurement of Incompatible Observables, and Counterfactual Definiteness" p. 54 says: "Counterfactual reasoning deals with nonactual physical processes and events and plays an important role in physical argumentations. In such reasonings it is assumed that, if some set of manipulations were carried out, then the resulting physical processes would give rise to effects which are determined by the formal laws of the theory applying in the envisaged domain of experimentation. The physical justification of counterfactual reasoning depends on the context in which it is used. Rigorously speaking, given some theoretical framework, such reasoning is always allowed and justified as soon as one is sure of the possibility of at least one realization of the pre-assumed set of manipulations. In general, in counterfactual reasoning it is even understood that the physical situations to which the reasoning applies can be reproduced at will, and hence may be realized more than once."Text was downloaded from: http://www.phys.tue.nl/ktn/Wim/i1.pdf Archived 2013-04-12 at the Wayback Machine
  3. ↑ Enrique J. Galvez, "Undergraduate Laboratories Using Correlated Photons: Experiments on the Fundamentals of Quantum Mechanics," p. 2ff., says, "Bell formulated a set of inequalities, now known as 'Bell’s inequalities,' that would test non-locality. Should an experiment verify these inequalities, then nature would be demonstrated to be local and quantum mechanics incorrect. Conversely, a measurement of a violation of the inequalities would vindicate quantum mechanics’ non-local properties."
  4. ↑ Gábor Hofer-Szabó, Miklós Rédei, László E. Szabó, "The principle of the common cause" (Cambridge 2013), Sect. 9.2 "Local and nonconspiratorial common cause systems".
  5. ↑ T.N. Palmer "Bell's conspiracy, Schrödinger's black cat and global invariant sets", Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, 2015, vol. 373, issue 2047.
  6. ↑ Christoph Saulder, "Contextuality and the Kochen-Specker Theorem", p. 11. Available from the author at: http://www.equinoxomega.net/files/studies/quantenphysik_Handout.pdf
  7. ↑ Angel G. Valdenebro, "Assumptions Underlying Bell's Inequalities," p. 6.
  8. ↑ Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, "The Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Argument and the Bell Inequalities," section 3.
  9. ↑ Rick Bradford, "The Observability of Counterfactuals" p.1. "Suppose something could have happened, but actually did not happen. In classical physics the fact that an event could have happened but didn't can make no difference to any future outcome. Only those things which actually happen can influence the future evolution of the world. But in quantum mechanics it is otherwise. The potential for an event to happen can influence future outcomes even if the event does not happen. Something that could happen but actually does not is called as counterfactual. In quantum mechanics counterfactuals are observable—they have measurable consequences. The Elitzur-Vaidman bomb test provides a striking illustration of this." http://www.rickbradford.co.uk/QM13Counterfactuals.pdf
  10. ↑ Henry P Stapp S-matrix interpretation of quantum-theory Physical Review D Vol 3 #6 1303 (1971)
  11. ↑ Yakir Aharonov et al., "Revisiting Hardy's Paradox: Counterfactual Statements, Real Measurements, Entanglement and Weak Values, p. 1, says, "For example, according to Heisenberg’s uncertainty relations, an absolutely precise measurement of position reduces the uncertainty in position to zero Δx = 0 but produces an infinite uncertainty in momentum Δp = ∞." See https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0104062v1 arXiv:quant-ph/0104062v1
  12. ↑ Yakir Aharonov, et al, "Revisiting Hardy's Paradox: Counterfactual Statements, Real Measurements, Entanglement and Weak Values," p.1 says, "The main argument against counterfactual statements is that if we actually perform measurements to test them, we disturb the system significantly, and in such disturbed conditions no paradoxes arise."
  13. ↑ Inge S. Helland, "A new foundation of quantum mechanics," p. 3.
  14. ↑ Yakir Aharonov, et al, "Revisiting Hardy's Paradox: Counterfactual Statements, Real Measurements, Entanglement and Weak Values," says, "In 1964 Bell published a proof that any deterministic hidden variable theory that reproduces the quantum mechanical statistics must be nonlocal (in a precise sense of non-locality there in defined), Subsequently, Bell' s theorem has been generalized to cover stochastic hidden variable theories. Commenting on Bell' s earlier paper. Stapp (1971) suggests that the proof rests on the assumption of "counterfactual definiteness" : essentially the assumption that subjunctive conditionals of the form: " If measurement M had been performed, result R would have been obtained" always have a definite truth value (even for measurements that were not carried out because incompatible measurements were being made) and that the quantum mechanical statistics are the probabilities of such conditionals." p. 1 arXiv:quant-ph/0104062v1
  15. ↑ David Z Albert, Bohm's Alternative to Quantum Mechanics Scientific American (May 1994)
  16. 1 2 Cramer, John G. (1986-07-01). "The transactional interpretation of quantum mechanics". Reviews of Modern Physics. 58 (3). American Physical Society (APS): 647–687. Bibcode:1986RvMP...58..647C. doi:10.1103/revmodphys.58.647. ISSN   0034-6861.
  17. ↑ Peres, Asher (1978). "Unperformed experiments have no results". American Journal of Physics. 46 (7). American Association of Physics Teachers (AAPT): 745–747. Bibcode:1978AmJPh..46..745P. doi:10.1119/1.11393. ISSN   0002-9505.
  18. ↑ Blaylock, Guy (2010). "The EPR paradox, Bell's inequality, and the question of locality". American Journal of Physics. 78 (1): 111–120. arXiv: 0902.3827 . Bibcode:2010AmJPh..78..111B. doi:10.1119/1.3243279. ISSN   0002-9505. S2CID   118520639.
  19. ↑ Griffiths, Robert B. (2010-10-21). "Quantum Locality". Foundations of Physics. 41 (4). Springer Nature: 705–733. arXiv: 0908.2914 . Bibcode:2011FoPh...41..705G. doi:10.1007/s10701-010-9512-5. ISSN   0015-9018. S2CID   15312828.
  20. ↑ Griffiths, Robert B. (2012-03-16). "Quantum Counterfactuals and Locality". Foundations of Physics. 42 (5). Springer Nature: 674–684. arXiv: 1201.0255 . Bibcode:2012FoPh...42..674G. doi:10.1007/s10701-012-9637-9. ISSN   0015-9018. S2CID   118796867.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.