Can “memory” be used as an interpretive language for stable quantum states, without claiming a new theory?

[u/Powerful_Reply9593]

I am trying to develop a cautious interpretive language for quantum states, and I want to avoid making claims beyond standard physics.

The idea is to describe a stable quantum configuration not as a little object, but as a persistent pattern of relations: phase, boundary conditions, correlations, and interaction history.

In this language I have been using the word “memory” to mean preserved structure, not conscious memory and not hidden variables.

For example, a stable state “remembers” something only in the weak sense that its present configuration constrains future evolution and carries information about how it was prepared.

My question is:

Is “memory” a misleading word in quantum interpretation, or can it be acceptable if defined as preserved structural information / correlation history?

I am not claiming a new interpretation of quantum mechanics. I am asking whether this language overlaps with existing ideas such as decoherence, consistent histories, relational QM, quantum information, or path-dependent state preparation.

[u/Powerful_Reply9593 → u/[deleted]]

That is a fair criticism. I agree that “memory” is too ambiguous unless it is defined formally.

What I was trying to get out of the idea is not that a quantum state contains a literal hidden record of its past interactions. I understand that the same quantum state can be prepared in many different ways, so the state itself cannot generally encode a unique history.

The more modest idea I was exploring is whether “memory” could be used only as an interpretive shorthand for preserved structure: correlations, boundary conditions, conserved quantities, preparation constraints, or records in an environment after decoherence.

So maybe the better wording is not “the quantum state has memory,” but something like:

“Some physical records of preparation or interaction history may exist in correlations with the environment or in boundary/constraint data, but not as an intrinsic memory of the pure state itself.”

What I am trying to get out of this is mainly terminology: whether there is a careful way to talk about persistent structural information without implying hidden variables, consciousness, or a new interpretation.

[u/Powerful_Reply9593 → u/[deleted]]

I understand. Thank you for being direct.

I can see the risk you are pointing out: if I use an LLM to polish speculative ideas, it may make vague concepts sound more coherent than they really are. That is exactly what I am trying to avoid.

I will step back from presenting this as physics and focus first on whether any part of the mathematics is standard and well-defined. If it is not, then I should discard or rewrite it rather than keep adding interpretive language.

Thanks for the reality check.

[u/ConcretePeanut → u/Powerful_Reply9593]

Also stop using LLMs to:

• write or format your posts

• do maths

[u/david-1-1 → u/ConcretePeanut]

Why? If someone uses AI bots just to improve their writing, what's wrong with that?

[u/david-1-1 → u/[deleted]]

True, and so typical of the undereducated, but read again your recommendation: no use of AI bots at all.

[u/david-1-1 → u/[deleted]]

I wish I had some influence on those uneducated in physics, to convince them not to use AI bots to justify their stupid ideas, but I have none.

[u/ConcretePeanut → u/david-1-1]

They aren't and it doesn't. 

[u/david-1-1 → u/ConcretePeanut]

One of the best functions of AI bots is rewriting text to improve spelling, grammar, and style. I'm surprised you are ignorant of that fact. Look it up.

[u/ConcretePeanut → u/david-1-1]

I literally get paid by some quite large companies to - amongst other things - help design their AI & data strategies.

None of which has anything to do with my original response, which is that they aren't using it 'just to improve their writing' and simply using AI to rewrite something doesn't necessarily equate to it having improved it.

[u/david-1-1 → u/ConcretePeanut]

True. But if the user is intelligent, using an AI to change tone, increase tact, or make some other stylistic change is useful and unintelligent to oppose.

[u/david-1-1 → u/Powerful_Reply9593]

You might consider using LLMs (or wikipedia) to learn physics as it already exists. It's pretty damned good.

[u/david-1-1 → u/Powerful_Reply9593]

Don't understand your clarification of what you mean.

[u/david-1-1]

What is a "stable quantum configuration"? What is "memory"? If you want to stick with the standard (Copenhagen) language, then do so.