Propensity, Probability, and Quantum Theory

• Published in: Foundations of physics Vol. 46; no. 8; pp. 973 - 1005
• Main Author: Ballentine, Leslie E.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: New York Springer US 01.08.2016
• Subjects: Classical and Quantum Gravitation; Classical Mechanics; History and Philosophical Foundations of Physics; Philosophy of Science; Physics; Physics and Astronomy; Quantum Physics; Relativity Theory; Statistical Physics and Dynamical Systems; Probability; Propensity; Quantum mechanics
• ISSN: 0015-9018; 1572-9516
• DOI: 10.1007/s10701-016-9991-0

Quantum mechanics and probability theory share one peculiarity. Both have well established mathematical formalisms, yet both are subject to controversy about the meaning and interpretation of their basic concepts. Since probability plays a fundamental role in QM, the conceptual problems of one theory can affect the other. We first classify the interpretations of probability into three major classes: (a) inferential probability , (b) ensemble probability , and (c) propensity . Class (a) is the basis of inductive logic; (b) deals with the frequencies of events in repeatable experiments; (c) describes a form of causality that is weaker than determinism. An important, but neglected, paper by P. Humphreys demonstrated that propensity must differ mathematically , as well as conceptually, from probability, but he did not develop a theory of propensity. Such a theory is developed in this paper. Propensity theory shares many, but not all, of the axioms of probability theory. As a consequence, propensity supports the Law of Large Numbers from probability theory, but does not support Bayes theorem . Although there are particular problems within QM to which any of the classes of probability may be applied, it is argued that the intrinsic quantum probabilities (calculated from a state vector or density matrix) are most naturally interpreted as quantum propensities . This does not alter the familiar statistical interpretation of QM. But the interpretation of quantum states as representing knowledge is untenable. Examples show that a density matrix fails to represent knowledge.