# References

SJSU/TP-98-17

September 1998

Comment on   
“Consistency, amplitudes, and probabilities   
in quantum theory”   
J. Finkelstein<sup>1</sup><sup>1</sup>1 Participating Guest, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory   
e-mail: JLFinkelstein@lbl.gov

Department of Physics

San José State University

San José, CA 95192, U.S.A

## Abstract

In a recent article \[Phys. Rev. A 57, 1572 (1998)\] Caticha has concluded that “nonlinear variants of quantum mechanics are inconsistent.” In this note we identify what it is that nonlinear quantum theories have been shown to be inconsistent with.

In a recent article (ref. , hereinafter denoted by \[C\]), Caticha has presented a program for justifying the standard formalism of quantum theory, based on very general assumptions about amplitudes. (See also ref. ) One of the conclusions of this program is that the time evolution of the quantum-mechanical wave-function must necessarily be linear. To quote from the abstract of \[C\], an argument of which “the crucial ingredient is a very natural consistency constraint: if there are two different ways to compute the amplitude for a given process, the two answers must agree” leads to the conclusion that “the Schrödinger equation must be linear: i.e., nonlinear variants of quantum mechanics are inconsistent.”

There has been considerable work done on nonlinear quantum theories , and while these theories have been criticized (for example) as being incompatible with relativistic causality , it would be surprising if they could be completely ruled out by a simple requirement of self-consistency. The purpose of this note is to identify what it is that \[C\] has shown nonlinear theories to be inconsistent with.

Let us consider the example from \[C\] of a double-slit experiment: a beam of particles is incident on two slits, denoted as $`a`$ and $`a^{}`$, either of which may be open or closed. The transmitted beam is detected at some fixed point on a screen. The program of \[C\] begins by imagining that a complex number $`\varphi `$ is assigned to each of the possible setups: $`\varphi (a)`$ is the number assigned to the setup in which only slit $`a`$ is open, $`\varphi (a^{})`$ to the setup in which only $`a^{}`$ is open, and $`\varphi (aa^{})`$ to the setup in which both slits are open. \[C\] then goes on to establish, as indicated briefly below, that for such an assignment, there exists a function $`\xi (\varphi )`$ which satisfies the following additivity property:

$$\xi (\varphi (aa^{}))=\xi (\varphi (a))+\xi (\varphi (a^{})).$$
(1)   
This equation also appears as eq. (C17) (where eq. (Cn) denotes eq. (n) of \[C\]). One can then replace the numbers $`\varphi `$ by the numbers $`\xi (\varphi )`$, and write $`\xi (aa^{})=\xi (a)+\xi (a^{})`$. The complex numbers $`\xi `$ are then identified (up to a multiplicative constant) as the amplitudes for the respective processes. The existence  of a function $`\xi `$ satisfying this additivity condition (eq. (1) or (C17)) is an important step in establishing that the wave function obeys the linear Schrödinger equation, as in eq. (C30).

Although the program of \[C\] aims to derive the meaning, and eventually the linearity, of the wave function, it is nevertheless instructive to imagine that we had a wave function which propagates non-linearly, and to see how this runs afoul of \[C\]’s program. So let us say that, at the time $`t`$ when our particle arrives at the slits, its wave function is, in a hopefully-obvious notation,

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }(t)=\alpha |a+\alpha ^{}|a^{}.$$
(2)   
and that the effect of closing a slit is to project out that part of the wave function (so that if for example slit $`a^{}`$ is closed, the wave function is as in eq. (2) but with the number $`\alpha ^{}`$ replaced by $`0`$). The particle is to be detected at time $`t_f`$ at some point on the screen called $`x_f`$, so let us define $`\gamma :=x_f|\mathrm{\Psi }(t_f)`$. Of course if the time evolution of $`|\mathrm{\Psi }`$ were linear, $`\gamma `$ would be a linear function of $`\alpha `$ and $`\alpha ^{}`$, but let us suppose instead that $`\gamma =(\alpha +\alpha ^{})^2`$. This suggests that we attempt to begin the program of \[C\] with the following assignment of complex numbers:

$`\varphi (aa^{})`$ $`=`$ $`(\alpha +\alpha ^{})^2`$   
$`\varphi (a)`$ $`=`$ $`(\alpha )^2`$   
$`\varphi (a^{})`$ $`=`$ $`(\alpha ^{})^2`$ (3)   
and see what goes wrong.

What happens is that there is no non-trivial function $`\xi `$ satisfying eq. (1). To see this, note that eqs. (1) and (3) imply

$$\xi ((\alpha +\alpha ^{})^2)=\xi (\alpha ^2)+\xi (\alpha ^2).$$
(4)   
Now if in eq. (4) we choose $`\alpha ^{}=\alpha `$, we get

$$\xi (4\alpha ^2)=2\xi (\alpha ^2),$$
(5)   
while if in eq. (4) we choose $`\alpha ^{}=\alpha `$, we get

$$\xi (0)=2\xi (\alpha ^2).$$
(6)   
Eqs. (5) and (6) imply that $`\xi =`$ constant, and then eq. (4) requires $`\xi =0`$.

Since with the choice made in eq. (3) there is no (non-trivial) solution to eq. (1), we should examine under what conditions eq. (1) (i.e., eq. (C17)) was derived. In \[C\] it is required that the numbers $`\varphi `$ form what is called a “representation”. This requirement is expressed by eqs (C13) and (C19); for simplicity let us restrict our attention to (C13), which asserts that there is a function $`S(x,y)`$ such that

$$\varphi (aa^{})=S(\varphi (a),\varphi (a^{})).$$
(7)   
The consistency constraint is then stated in terms of $`S`$, applied to the generalization to the case of three slits: calling the slits $`a`$, $`a^{}`$, and $`a^{\prime \prime }`$, the combination of all three slits could be considered either as the combination of $`a`$ with $`a^{}`$, which then is combined with $`a^{\prime \prime }`$, or alternatively, as $`a`$ combined with the combination of $`a^{}`$ and $`a^{\prime \prime }`$ (i.e., the associativity relation $`[(aa^{})a^{\prime \prime }]=[a(a^{}a^{\prime \prime })]`$). Then the requirement that the value of $`\varphi (aa^{}a^{\prime \prime })`$ be the same if calculated in different ways leads, by repeated application of eq. (7), to

$$S(S(\varphi (a),\varphi (a^{})),\varphi (a^{\prime \prime }))=S(\varphi (a),S(\varphi (a^{}),\varphi (a^{\prime \prime }))).$$
(8)   
This equation (which is equivalent to eq. (C15)) is the consistency constraint from which eq. (1) (eq. (C17)), and ultimately the Schrödinger equation (C30) is derived.

If we extend the assignment written in eq. (3) in the obvious way to the case of three slits, we see that the first place this extended assignment fails to follow the program of \[C\] is not the consistency condition eq. (8), but rather in the demand that the numbers form a “representation”, eq. (7). This equation demands that if you know the values of $`\varphi (a)`$ and of $`\varphi (a^{})`$, you have enough information to calculate the value of $`\varphi (aa^{})`$. But with the assignment (3), that is not true: if all you know are the values of $`\alpha ^2`$ and of $`\alpha ^2`$, you do not have enough information to calculate the value of $`(\alpha +\alpha ^{})^2`$, since you do not know the relative sign of $`\alpha `$ and $`\alpha ^{}`$.

This situation is analogous to the calculation of probabilities in standard quantum theory; if all you know are the detection probabilities when slits $`a`$ and $`a^{}`$ are open individually, you do not have enough information to calculate the probability when both slits are open, because the probabilities are non-linear functions of the amplitudes. Likewise, in a non-linear theory such as we are imagining here, knowing the amplitudes when the slits are open individually does not allow you to calculate the amplitude when both slits are open. Thus the demand that the amplitudes form a representation fails for this sort of theory.

\[C\] has shown that, as long as the numbers $`\varphi `$ form a “representation” (as in eq. (C13)), they might as well be taken to be additive, because they could always be replaced by the numbers $`\xi `$ which are additive. This fact (together with the other part of the representation requirement, eq. (C19)) then leads to the demonstrated linearity of the Schrödinger equation. Thus it is the demand that the amplitudes form a “representation” with which nonlinear theories are inconsistent.

Acknowledgement: I have benefitted greatly from correspondence with Ariel Caticha. I acknowledge also the hospitality of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.