Born rule: time running forwards and backwards?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the interpretation of the Born rule in quantum mechanics, specifically whether it can be understood as allowing time to run both forwards and backwards simultaneously. Participants explore the relationship between the Born rule, unitary time evolution, and measurement processes, examining the implications of time reversibility in quantum systems.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that the probability ##P_{i \rightarrow f}## can be understood as the product of amplitudes for a system to evolve forwards and backwards, suggesting a duality in time evolution.
  • Others argue that the Born rule is specifically about measurement outcomes and is not applicable to unitary time evolution, which is deterministic and separate from measurement processes.
  • A later reply emphasizes that the computations presented do not relate to the Born rule but rather restate the time reversibility of unitary evolution.
  • Another participant points out that unitarity preserves the overlap between states, which is a separate issue from the Born rule or measurement, and highlights that this holds regardless of time-reversal symmetry.
  • One participant mentions that the principle of detailed balance is a consequence of unitarity and does not depend on time-reversal invariance, countering claims made in some textbooks.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally disagree on the interpretation of the Born rule in relation to time running forwards and backwards. Multiple competing views remain, with some asserting a connection between time evolution and the Born rule, while others maintain that they are distinct concepts.

Contextual Notes

Participants express uncertainty regarding the implications of unitary evolution and measurement, and there are unresolved questions about the relationship between time-reversal symmetry and the Born rule.

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   Reactions: 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   Reactions: 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   Reactions: 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.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
4K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 47 ·
2
Replies
47
Views
6K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K