I Born rule: time running forwards and backwards?

jcap
Messages
166
Reaction score
12
Can the Born rule be understood as time running both forwards and backwards simultaneously?

The probability ##P_{i \rightarrow f}## that an initial quantum state ##\psi_i## is measured to be in final quantum state ##\psi_f##, after evolving according to the unitary time-evolution operator ##U_{i \rightarrow f}##, is given by an application of the Born rule:
\begin{eqnarray*}
P_{i \rightarrow f} &=& |\langle\psi_f|U_{i \rightarrow f}|\psi_i\rangle|^2 \\
&=& \langle\psi_f|U_{i \rightarrow f}|\psi_i\rangle^*\langle\psi_f|U_{i \rightarrow f}|\psi_i\rangle \\
&=& \langle\psi_i|U^\dagger_{i \rightarrow f}|\psi_f\rangle\langle\psi_f|U_{i \rightarrow f}|\psi_i\rangle \\
&=& \langle\psi_i|U_{f \rightarrow i}|\psi_f\rangle\langle\psi_f|U_{i \rightarrow f}|\psi_i\rangle\tag{1}
\end{eqnarray*}
where ##U^\dagger_{i \rightarrow f}=U_{f \rightarrow i}##.

Thus the probability ##P_{i \rightarrow f}## can be understood as the product of the amplitudes for the system to evolve both forwards from the initial state to the final state and backwards from the final state to the initial state.

Addition

More accurately after applying the forwards and backwards time operators in equation line ##(1)## we have:
$$P_{i \rightarrow f} =\langle\psi_i(t_i)|\psi_f(t_i)\rangle\langle\psi_f(t_f)|\psi_i(t_f)\rangle$$
Thus the probability ##P_{i \rightarrow f}## can be understood as the product of the overlap of the forwards-evolved initial state and the final state at time ##t_f## and the overlap of the backwards-evolved final state and the initial state at time ##t_i##.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes Dale
Physics news on Phys.org
jcap said:
Can the Born rule be understood as time running both forwards and backwards simultaneously?

No. The Born rule tells you probabilities for getting particular results from a measurement. But a measurement is not a reversible process, at least not according to basic QM (certain interpretations, such as the MWI, may differ, but those are precisely the interpretations that have problems accounting for the Born Rule).

jcap said:
The probability ##P_{i \rightarrow f}## that an initial quantum state ##\psi_i## is measured to be in final quantum state ##\psi_f##, after evolving according to the unitary time-evolution operator ##U_{i \rightarrow f}##, is given by the Born rule

No. Unitary time evolution is a separate process from measurement. You don't apply the Born rule before unitary time evolution; you apply the Born rule after unitary time evolution. And you don't use the Born rule to tell you the probability for some initial state to evolve unitarily into some final state (which wouldn't make sense anyway since unitary evolution is deterministic); you use the Born rule to tell you the probability for getting some particular measurement result, given a quantum system in some particular state at the time of measurement.

jcap said:
the probability ##P_{i \rightarrow f}## can be understood as the product of the amplitudes for the system to evolve both forwards from the initial state to the final state and backwards from the final state to the initial state.

No. All your "reversal" computation is really telling you is that unitary time evolution is time reversible, which is of course true. It is not telling you anything about the Born rule or measurement.
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71
PeterDonis said:
No. Unitary time evolution is a separate process from measurement. You don't apply the Born rule before unitary time evolution; you apply the Born rule after unitary time evolution. And you don't use the Born rule to tell you the probability for some initial state to evolve unitarily into some final state (which wouldn't make sense anyway since unitary evolution is deterministic); you use the Born rule to tell you the probability for getting some particular measurement result, given a quantum system in some particular state at the time of measurement.

Ok, more accurately after applying the forwards and backwards time operators we have:
$$P_{i \rightarrow f} =\langle\psi_i(t_i)|\psi_f(t_i)\rangle\langle\psi_f(t_f)|\psi_i(t_f)\rangle$$
Thus the probability ##P_{i \rightarrow f}## can be understood as the product of the overlap of the forwards-evolved initial state and the final state at time ##t_f## and the overlap of the backwards-evolved final state and the initial state at time ##t_i##.

Does this make more sense?
 
Last edited:
jcap said:
Does this make more sense?

You're still just restating "unitary evolution is time reversible" in different words. Nothing you say in this post has anything to do with the Born rule or measurement.
 
PeterDonis said:
You're still just restating "unitary evolution is time reversible" in different words.

Here's another way of putting it that might help: what you are showing is that unitary evolution preserves the overlap between states. Which is true, but, again, has nothing to do with the Born rule or measurement.
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71
And, importantly, it's true whether or not the interactions are time-reversal symmetric. It's because of unitarity and has nothing to do with time-reversal invariance or its violation. Unitarity alone implies the (weak) principle of detailed balance. You don't need time-reversal invariance for it to hold true, as errorneously claimed in some textbooks in connection with the Boltzmann equation and the H theorem, which is valid no matter whether the interactions obey or don't obey time-reversal invariance. That's important, because indeed time-reversal invariance is broken by the weak interaction.
 
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. Towards the end of the first lecture for the Qiskit Global Summer School 2025, Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Olivia Lanes (Global Lead, Content and Education IBM) stated... Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/quantum-entanglement-is-a-kinematic-fact-not-a-dynamical-effect/ by @RUTA
If we release an electron around a positively charged sphere, the initial state of electron is a linear combination of Hydrogen-like states. According to quantum mechanics, evolution of time would not change this initial state because the potential is time independent. However, classically we expect the electron to collide with the sphere. So, it seems that the quantum and classics predict different behaviours!
Back
Top