# References

In his recent article on “Quantum Theory Without Observers” , Sheldon Goldstein raised a number of important questions about quantum theory. Even though I cannot quite understand what a universal physical theory without any concept of observers could mean, I agree with many of his critical remarks. Bell, who once objected “against measurement”, also pointed out that Bohm’s quantum theory depends on the assumption that only its hypothetical classical variables can directly affect the consciousness of an observer . However, Goldstein’s characterization of the consequences that have to be drawn from his criticism appears one-sided, since he neglects many essential aspects.

In particular, he does not mention at all that Bohm’s classical trajectories can neither be experimentally confirmed nor refuted if the theory is exactly valid. It is always possible to postulate otherwise unobservable (hence arbitrary) causes for stochastic events. Bohm’s presumed ensemble of classical configurations is merely dynamically consistent because of their presumed unobservable dynamics. The resulting trajectories are thus entirely based on classical prejudice. Goldstein quotes Bell that “it should be clear from the smallness of the scintillation on the screen that we have to do with a particle.” Should it then not be as clear that the photon (or any other boson) is a particle, too, rather than the consequence of a field on three-dimensional space, as is assumed in Bohm’s theory? What is observed as a local object is in all cases the position of a macroscopic “pointer” (such as a flash on the screen or a track in the bubble chamber).

Appropriately localized wave packets representing pointer positions could be explained as emerging in a fundamental irreversible “spontaneous localization” process by means of a modified Schrödinger equation, such as it has been proposed by Pearle or Ghirardi, Rimini and Weber (GRW)  and also mentioned by Goldstein. Why then re-introduce classical variables? There is no need (or any good reason) even for a Heisenberg picture in terms of particles, nor for a wave-particle “dualism”. And why always represent these classical variables by a (crucial) ensemble, while the wave function (the other element of reality in Bohm’s theory) is normally regarded as given, but tacitly excluded from being directly experienced by an observer?

The nonlinear terms in spontaneous localization models are chosen to become relevant in measurements or similar situations in order to describe von Neumann’s collapse of the wave function. However, equivalent effects in the density matrix of any relevant system arise without any modification of the Schrödinger equation if only the unavoidable environment of this system is realistically taken into account by what Goldstein calls “Zurek’s decoherence” . Therefore, these two quite different dynamical mechanisms (the disappearance and the dislocalization of phase relations) can both explain the emergence of apparent “particles” and other quasi-classical (local) properties (such as Bell’s “small scintillations”). They cannot practically be distinguished from one another in these cases, provided only the usual probability rules apply somewhere and for something along the chain of interactions between pointer and observer(s) in order to justify the concept of a density matrix. Goldstein’s claim that “the environment acts as an observer” is quite wrong: decoherence is an objective physical process that is essential (and unavoidable) also in Bohm’s theory for correctly guiding the postulated classical pointer positions or other macroscopic variables.

The application of a probabilistic collapse just where environmental decoherence occurs anyway is thus as much a prejudice as the existence of classical particles and fields. “Appearences are misleading.” Here I fully agree with Goldstein (although appearance requires an observer). In contrast to Bohm, Pearle and GRW proposed modifications of quantum theory that can be experimentally refuted (and very probably have been unless modified again ). While the search for deviations from the Schrödinger equation is a reasonable endevour, one must warn young scientists against spending their time on calculating Bohm trajectories or “unraveling” entangled (open) systems — as suggestive as these pictures may appear to the traditionalistic mind. They would be investigating mere phantoms. Such calculations would be meaningful if they led to new observable consequences. However, precisely this is excluded by construction of Bohm’s theory, while a quantum system that is entangled with its environment clearly does not possess any wave function by its own. The idea of “quantum trajectories” for all systems of interest, now quite popular in quantum optics, is (1) inconsistent (as it would depend on the precise choice of the systems), (2) incompatible with a Schrödinger equation (even if that were complemented by a phenomonological collapse), and (3) in conflict with relevant experiments.

Most experiments are local and not relevant for this purpose (thus permitting the concept of a local density matrix, or an apparent ensemble of wave functions representing it). However, all basic quantum experiments performed during recent decades have confirmed consequences of a nonlocal wave function(al), defined on a high-dimensional space that we are used to interpret as a classical configuration space. These consequences appear as “paradoxes” when described in terms of particles or spatial waves (fields). The Schrödinger equation, which unavoidably leads to drastic (eventually universal) entanglement between all macroscopic systems (and thereby locally to decoherence) , would not have to be modified at all by means of the apparently required probalistic terms if one dropped the further prejudice that there is only one state of each observer in this “nonlocal reality”. A universally exact Schrödinger equation would require that there is an ever increasing number of different “versions” of the quasi-classical world with all its observers, which are individually described by robust wave packets in appropriate factor spaces of this high-dimensional space. According to wave mechanics, observers can only exist in dynamically branching, thereafter essentially autonomous components of the global wave function. These observer versions would practically lack any possibility of communicating with one another, and therefore need not be assumed to disappear from reality with precisely one exception (as postulated by the collapse). Because of their dynamical autonomy, these global branch wave functions describe “consistent histories” to their observers. In order to be subjectively and individually experienced, a component of the global wave function seems to have to possess the product form $`\psi _{obs}\mathrm{\Psi }_{rest}`$, with a sufficiently complex and robust observer state $`\psi _{obs}`$, and regardless of the existence of any classical observer variables. The observer is the only “system” that has to be conceptually defined in principle.

All we have then still to assume in order to explain Born’s probabilities in the form of observable frequencies of measurement results is that we, described by certain correlated $`\psi _{obs}`$’s, happen to live in a branch that does not possess a very small norm. This robust component would represent an “apparent reality” to us (in the operational sense), that also forms the basis of Zurek’s “existential interpretation” .

It is usually overlooked that Bohm’s theory contains the same “many worlds” of dynamically separate branches as the Everett interpretation (now regarded as “empty” wave components), since it is based on precisely the same (“absolutely real”) global wave function . Its robust components branch by means of decoherence (rather than combining by means of recoherence) because of a fundamental initial condition to the global wave function that is also responsible for the Second Law  — not because of “increasing knowledge” about a classical state (the reduction of Bohm’s ensemble). Only the “occupied” wave packet itself is thus meaningful, while the assumed classical trajectory would merely point at it: “This is where we are in the quantum world.” However, this can be done without using a trajectory. Any pointing finer than compatible with the width of the robust wave packet is empirically unjustified. John Bell (who rejected Everett’s interpretation for being “extravagant”) seems to have realized this equivalence before he began to favor spontaneous localization (such as GRW) over Bohm’s theory . This is another (historical) fact simply neglected by Goldstein when he heavily relies on Bell’s words in his arguments.