New features

Log in / create account

Article Discussion

Read Edit


Interpretations of quantum mechanics
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Main page Contents Featured content Current events Random article Interaction About Wikipedia Community portal Recent changes Contact Wikipedia Donate to Wikipedia Help T oolbox Print/export Languages ‫اﻟﻌﺮﺑﯿﺔ‬ Deutsch Español

An interpretation of quantum mechanics is a set of statements which attempt to explain how quantum mechanics informs our understanding of nature. Although quantum mechanics has received thorough experimental testing, many of these experiments are open to different interpretations. There exist a number of contending schools of thought, differing over whether quantum mechanics can be understood to be deterministic, which elements of quantum mechanics can be considered "real", and other matters. This question is of special interest to philosophers of physics, as physicists continue to show a strong interest in the subject. They usually consider an interpretation of quantum mechanics as an interpretation of the mathematical formalism of quantum mechanics, specifying the physical meaning of the mathematical entities of the theory.
Contents [hide] 1 Historical background 2 Obstructions to direct interpretation 3 Problematic status of pictures and interpretations 4 Instrumentalist interpretation 5 Summary of common interpretations of QM 5.1 Properties of interpretations 5.2 The Copenhagen interpretation 5.3 Many worlds 5.4 Consistent histories 5.5 Ensemble interpretation, or statistical interpretation 5.6 de Broglie–Bohm theory 5.7 Relational quantum mechanics 5.8 Transactional interpretation 5.9 Stochastic mechanics 5.10 Objective collapse theories 5.11 The decoherence approach 5.12 von Neumann/Wigner interpretation: consciousness causes the collapse 5.13 Many minds 5.14 Quantum logic 5.15 Modal interpretations of quantum theory 5.16 Other interpretations 6 Comparison 7 See also 8 Sources 9 References 10 Further reading 11 External links

Quantum mechanics

Uncertainty principle

Introduction · Mathematical formulations Background [show] Fundamental concepts Experiments Formulations Equations Interpretations Advanced topics Scientists
v • d• e

[show] [show] [show] [show] [show] [show] [show]

Italiano Nederlands Português Русский Svenska

Historical background


The definition of terms used by researchers in quantum theory (such as wavefunctions and matrix mechanics) progressed through many stages. For instance, Schrödinger originally viewed the wavefunction associated with the electron as corresponding to the charge density of an object smeared out over an extended, possibly infinite, volume of space. Max Born interpreted it as simply corresponding to a probability distribution. These are two different interpretations of the wavefunction. In one it corresponds to a material field; in the other it corresponds to a probability distribution — specifically, the probability that the quantum of charge is located at any particular point within spatial dimensions. The Copenhagen interpretation was traditionally the most popular among physicists, next to a purely instrumentalist position that denies any need for explanation. (This latter view is expressed by David Mermin's famous quote "shut up and calculate", often attributed to Richard Feynman.[1]) However, the many-worlds interpretation has been gaining acceptance[2]; a poll mentioned in "The Physics of Immortality" (published in 1994), of 72 "leading cosmologists and other quantum field theorists" found that 58% supported the many-worlds interpretation, including Stephen Hawking and Nobel laureates Murray Gell-Mann and Richard Feynman.[3] Moreover, the instrumentalist position has been challenged by recent proposals for falsifiable experiments that might one day distinguish interpretations, e.g. by measuring an AI consciousness[4] or via quantum computing.[5]

Obstructions to direct interpretation
The difficulties of interpretation reflect a number of points about the orthodox description of quantum mechanics, including:


converted by

1. The abstract, mathematical nature of the description of quantum mechanics. 2. The existence of what appear to be non-deterministic and irreversible processes in quantum mechanics. 3. The phenomenon of entanglement, and in particular, the correlations between remote events that are not expected in classical theory. 4. The complementarity of possible descriptions of reality. 5. The essential role played by observers and the process of measurement in the theory. 6. The rapid rate at which quantum descriptions become more complicated as the size of a system increases. First, the accepted mathematical structure of quantum mechanics is based on fairly abstract mathematics, such as Hilbert spaces and operators on those Hilbert spaces. In classical mechanics and electromagnetism, on the other hand, properties of a point mass or properties of a field are described by real numbers or functions defined on two or three dimensional sets. These have direct, spatial meaning, and in these theories there seems to be less need to provide special interpretation for those numbers or functions. Further, the process of measurement plays an essential role in the theory. Put simply: the world around us seems to be in a specific state, yet quantum mechanics describes it with wave functions governing the probabilities of values. In general the wavefunction assigns non-zero probabilities to all possible values for a given physical quantity, such as position. How then is it that we come to see a particle at a specific position when its wave function is spread across all space? In order to describe how specific outcomes arise from the probabilities, the direct interpretation introduces the concept of measurement. According to the theory, wave functions interact with each other and evolve in time according to the laws of quantum mechanics until a measurement is performed, at which time the system will take on one of the possible values with probability governed by the wave-function. Measurement can interact with the system state in somewhat peculiar ways, as is illustrated by the double-slit experiment. Thus the mathematical formalism used to describe the time evolution of a non-relativistic system proposes two somewhat different kinds of transformations: Reversible transformations described by unitary operators on the state space. These transformations are determined by solutions to the Schrödinger equation. Non-reversible and unpredictable transformations described by mathematically more complicated transformations (see quantum operations). Examples of these transformations are those that are undergone by a system as a result of measurement. A restricted version of the problem of interpretation in quantum mechanics consists in providing some sort of plausible picture, just for the second kind of transformation. This problem may be addressed by purely mathematical reductions, for example by the many-worlds or the consistent histories interpretations. In addition to the unpredictable and irreversible character of measurement processes, there are other elements of quantum physics that distinguish it sharply from classical physics and which cannot be represented by any classical picture. One of these is the phenomenon of entanglement, as illustrated in the EPR paradox, which seemingly violates principles of local causality.[6] Another obstruction to direct interpretation is the phenomenon of complementarity, which seems to violate basic principles of propositional logic. Complementarity says there is no logical picture (obeying classical propositional logic) that can simultaneously describe and be used to reason about all properties of a quantum system S. This is often phrased by saying that there are "complementary" sets A and B of propositions that can describe S, but not at the same time. Examples of A and B are propositions involving a wave description of S and a corpuscular description of S. The latter statement is one part of Niels Bohr's original formulation, which is often equated to the principle of complementarity itself. Complementarity is not usually taken to mean that classical logic fails, although Hilary Putnam did take that view in his paper Is logic empirical?. Instead complementarity means that composition of physical properties for S (such as position and momentum both having values in certain ranges) using propositional connectives does not obey rules of classical propositional logic (see also Quantum_logic). As is now well-known (Omnès, 1999) the "origin of complementarity lies in the noncommutativity of operators" describing observables in quantum mechanics. Because the complexity of a quantum system is exponential in the number of degrees of freedom, it is difficult to overlap the quantum and classical descriptions to see how the classical approximations are being made.

Problematic status of pictures and interpretations
The precise ontological status, of each one of the interpreting pictures, remains a matter of philosophical argument.


In other words, if we interpret the formal structure X of quantum mechanics by means of a structure Y (via a mathematical equivalence of the two structures), what is the status of Y? This is the old question of saving the phenomena, in a new guise. Some physicists, for example Asher Peres and Chris Fuchs, seem to argue that an interpretation is nothing more than a formal equivalence between sets of rules for operating on experimental data. This would suggest that the whole exercise of interpretation is unnecessary. On the other hand, since classical physics and non-mathematical language cannot match the precision and generality of quantum mechanics, anything said outside the mathematical formulation is necessarily limited in accuracy and scope.

Instrumentalist interpretation
Main article: Instrumentalist interpretation


Any modern scientific theory requires at the very least an instrumentalist description which relates the mathematical formalism to experimental practice and prediction. In the case of quantum mechanics, the most common instrumentalist description is an assertion of statistical regularity between state preparation processes and measurement processes. That is, if a measurement of a real-valued quantity is performed many times, each time starting with the same initial conditions, the outcome is a well-defined probability distribution over the real numbers; moreover, quantum mechanics provides a computational instrument to determine
converted by

statistical properties of this distribution, such as its expectation value. Calculations for measurements performed on a system S postulate a Hilbert space H over the complex numbers. When the system S is prepared in a pure state, it is associated with a vector in H. Measurable quantities are associated with Hermitian operators acting on H: these are referred to as observables. Repeated measurement of an observable A for S prepared in state ψ yields a distribution of values. The expectation value of this distribution is given by the expression This mathematical machinery gives a simple, direct way to compute a statistical property of the outcome of an experiment, once it is understood how to associate the initial state with a Hilbert space vector, and the measured quantity with an observable (that is, a specific Hermitian operator). As an example of such a computation, the probability of finding the system in a given state expectation value of a (rank-1) projection operator The probability is then the non-negative real number given by is given by computing the

By abuse of language, the bare instrumentalist description can be referred to as an interpretation, although this usage is somewhat misleading since instrumentalism explicitly avoids any explanatory role; that is, it does not attempt to answer the question of what quantum mechanics is talking about.

Summary of common interpretations of QM
Properties of interpretations
An interpretation can be characterized by whether it satisfies certain properties, such as: Realism Completeness Local realism Determinism

[edit] [edit]

T explain these properties, we need to be more explicit about the kind of picture an interpretation provides. T that end we will o o regard an interpretation as a correspondence between the elements of the mathematical formalism M and the elements of an interpreting structure I, where: The mathematical formalism consists of the Hilbert space machinery of ket-vectors, self-adjoint operators acting on the space of ket-vectors, unitary time dependence of ket-vectors and measurement operations. In this context a measurement operation can be regarded as a transformation which carries a ket-vector into a probability distribution on ket-vectors. See also quantum operations for a formalization of this concept. The interpreting structure includes states, transitions between states, measurement operations and possibly information about spatial extension of these elements. A measurement operation here refers to an operation which returns a value and results in a possible system state change. Spatial information, for instance would be exhibited by states represented as functions on configuration space. The transitions may be non-deterministic or probabilistic or there may be infinitely many states. However, the critical assumption of an interpretation is that the elements of I are regarded as physically real. In this sense, an interpretation can be regarded as a semantics for the mathematical formalism. In particular, the bare instrumentalist view of quantum mechanics outlined in the previous section is not an interpretation at all since it makes no claims about elements of physical reality. The current use in physics of "completeness" and "realism" is often considered to have originated in the paper which proposed the EPR paradox.[7] In that paper the authors proposed the concept "element of reality" and "completeness" of a physical theory. Though they did not define "element of reality", they did provide a sufficient characterization for it, namely a quantity whose value can be predicted with certainty before measuring it or disturbing it in any way. EPR define a "complete physical theory" as one in which every element of physical reality is accounted for by the theory. In the semantic view of interpretation, an interpretation of a theory is complete if every element of the interpreting structure is accounted for by the mathematical formalism. Realism is a property of each one of the elements of the mathematical formalism; any such element is real if it corresponds to something in the interpreting structure. For instance, in some interpretations of quantum mechanics (such as the many-worlds interpretation) the ket vector associated to the system state is assumed to correspond to an element of physical reality, while in others it does not. Determinism is a property characterizing state changes due to the passage of time, namely that the state at an instant of time in the future is a function of the state at the present (see time evolution). It may not always be clear whether a particular interpreting structure is deterministic or not, precisely because there may not be a clear choice for a time parameter. Moreover, a given theory may have two interpretations, one of which is deterministic, and the other not. Local realism has two parts: The value returned by a measurement corresponds to the value of some function on the state space. Stated in another way, this value is an element of reality; The effects of measurement have a propagation speed not exceeding some universal bound (e.g., the speed of light). In order for this to make sense, measurement operations must be spatially localized in the interpreting structure. A precise formulation of local realism in terms of a local hidden variable theory was proposed by John Bell. Bell's theorem, combined with experimental testing, restricts the kinds of properties a quantum theory can have. For instance, the experimental rejection of Bell's theorem implies that quantum mechanics cannot satisfy local realism.
converted by

The Copenhagen interpretation
Main article: Copenhagen interpretation


The Copenhagen interpretation is the "standard" interpretation of quantum mechanics formulated by Niels Bohr and Werner Heisenberg while collaborating in Copenhagen around 1927. Bohr and Heisenberg extended the probabilistic interpretation of the wavefunction, proposed by Max Born. The Copenhagen interpretation rejects questions like "where was the particle before I measured its position?" as meaningless. The measurement process randomly picks out exactly one of the many possibilities allowed for by the state's wave function in a manner consistent with the well-defined probabilities that are assigned to each possible state.

Many worlds
Main article: Many-worlds interpretation


The many-worlds interpretation is an interpretation of quantum mechanics in which a universal wavefunction obeys the same deterministic, reversible laws at all times; in particular there is no indeterministic and irreversible wavefunction collapse associated with measurement. The phenomena associated with measurement are claimed to be explained by decoherence, which occurs when states interact with the environment producing entanglement, repeatedly splitting the universe into mutually unobservable, alternate histories—distinct universes within a greater multiverse.

Consistent histories
Main article: Consistent histories


The consistent histories generalizes the conventional Copenhagen interpretation and attempts to provide a natural interpretation of quantum cosmology. The theory is based on a consistency criterion that allows the history of a system to be described so that the probabilities for each history obey the additive rules of classical probability. It is claimed to be consistent with the Schrödinger equation. According to this interpretation, the purpose of a quantum-mechanical theory is to predict the relative probabilities of various alternative histories.

Ensemble interpretation, or statistical interpretation
Main article: Ensemble Interpretation


The Ensemble interpretation, or statistical interpretation, can be viewed as a minimalist interpretation. That is, it claims to make the fewest assumptions associated with the standard mathematical formalization. At its heart, it takes the statistical interpretation of Born to the fullest extent. The interpretation states that the wave function does not apply to an individual system, or for example, a single particle, but is an abstract mathematical, statistical quantity that only applies to an ensemble of similar prepared systems or particles. Probably the most notable supporter of such an interpretation was Einstein: The attempt to conceive the quantum-theoretical description as the complete description of the individual systems leads to unnatural theoretical interpretations, which become immediately unnecessary if one accepts the interpretation that the description refers to ensembles of systems and not to individual systems. —Einstein in Albert Einstein: Philosopher-Scientist, ed. P.A. Schilpp (Harper & Row, New York) Probably the most prominent current advocate of the ensemble interpretation is Leslie E. Ballentine, Professor at Simon Fraser University, and writer of the graduate level text book Quantum Mechanics, A Modern Development . An experiment illustrating the ensemble interpretation is provided in Akira T onomura's Video clip 1 [8]. It is evident from this double-slit experiment with an ensemble of individual electrons that, since the quantum mechanical wave function (absolutely squared) describes the completed interference pattern, it must describe an ensemble.

de Broglie–Bohm theory
Main article: de Broglie–Bohm theory


The de Broglie–Bohm theory of quantum mechanics is a theory by Louis de Broglie and extended later by David Bohm to include measurements. Particles, which always have positions, are guided by the wavefunction. The wavefunction evolves according to the Schrödinger wave equation, and the wavefunction never collapses. The theory takes place in a single space-time, is nonlocal, and is deterministic. The simultaneous determination of a particle's position and velocity is subject to the usual uncertainty principle constraint. The theory is considered to be a hidden variable theory, and by embracing non-locality it satisfies Bell's inequality. It has been shown to be empirically equivalent to the Copenhagen interpretation, which retains locality but gives up counter factual definiteness. The measurement problem is claimed to be resolved by the particles having definite positions at all times.[9] Collapse is explained as phenomenological.[10]

Relational quantum mechanics
Main article: Relational quantum mechanics


The essential idea behind relational quantum mechanics, following the precedent of special relativity, is that different observers may give different accounts of the same series of events: for example, to one observer at a given point in time, a system may be in a single, "collapsed" eigenstate, while to another observer at the same time, it may be in a superposition of two or more states. Consequently, if quantum mechanics is to be a complete theory, relational quantum mechanics argues that the notion of "state" describes not the observed system itself, but the relationship, or correlation, between the system and its observer(s). The state vector of conventional quantum mechanics becomes a description of the correlation of some degrees of freedom in the observer, with respect to the observed system. However, it is held by relational quantum mechanics that this applies to all physical objects, whether or not they are conscious or macroscopic. Any "measurement event" is seen simply as an ordinary physical interaction, an establishment of the sort of correlation discussed above. Thus the physical content of the theory is to do not with objects themselves, but the relations between them.[11][12] An independent relational approach to quantum mechanics was developed in analogy with David Bohm's elucidation of special
converted by

relativity[13], in which a detection event is regarded as establishing a relationship between the quantized field and the detector. The inherent ambiguity associated with applying Heisenberg's uncertainty principle is subsequently avoided.[14]

Transactional interpretation
Main article: Transactional interpretation


The transactional interpretation of quantum mechanics (TIQM) by John G. Cramer is an interpretation of quantum mechanics inspired by the Wheeler–Feynman absorber theory.[15] It describes quantum interactions in terms of a standing wave formed by retarded (forward-in-time) and advanced (backward-in-time) waves. The author argues that it avoids the philosophical problems with the Copenhagen interpretation and the role of the observer, and resolves various quantum paradoxes.

Stochastic mechanics
Main article: Stochastic interpretation


An entirely classical derivation and interpretation of the Schrödinger equation by analogy with Brownian motion was suggested by Princeton University professor Edward Nelson in 1966.[16] Similar considerations had previously been published, for example by R. Fürth (1933), I. Fényes (1952), and Walter Weizel (1953), and are referenced in Nelson's paper. More recent work on the stochastic interpretation has been done by M. Pavon.[17] An alternative stochastic interpretation was developed by Roumen T sekov.[18]

Objective collapse theories
Main article: Objective collapse theory


Objective collapse theories differ from the Copenhagen interpretation in regarding both the wavefunction and the process of collapse as ontologically objective. In objective theories, collapse occurs randomly ("spontaneous localization"), or when some physical threshold is reached, with observers having no special role. Thus, they are realistic, indeterministic, no-hidden-variables theories. The mechanism of collapse is not specified by standard quantum mechanics, which needs to be extended if this approach is correct, meaning that Objective Collapse is more of a theory than an interpretation. Examples include the GhirardiRimini-Weber theory[19] and the Penrose interpretation.[20]

The decoherence approach
Main article: Quantum decoherence


Decoherence occurs when a system interacts with its environment, or any complex external system, in such a thermodynamically irreversible way that ensures different elements in the quantum superposition of the system+environment's wave function can no longer (or are extremely unlikely to) interfere with each other. Decoherence does not provide a mechanism for the actual wave function collapse; rather, it is claimed that it provides a mechanism for the appearance of wave function collapse. The quantum nature of the system is simply "leaked" into the environment so that a total superposition of the wave function still exists, but cannot be detected by experiments that (so far) can be carried out in practice.

von Neumann/Wigner interpretation: consciousness causes the collapse
Main article: Quantum mind/body problem


In his monumental treatise The Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, John von Neumann deeply analyzed the socalled measurement problem. He concluded that the entire physical universe could be made subject to the Schrödinger equation (the universal wave function). Since something "outside the calculation" was needed to collapse the wave function, von Neumann concluded that the collapse was caused by the consciousness of the experimenter.[21] This point of view was later more prominently expanded on by Eugene Wigner (see Quantum mind/body problem). Variations of the von Neumann interpretation include: Subjective reduction research This principle, that consciousness causes the collapse, is the point of intersection between quantum mechanics and the mind/body problem; and researchers are working to detect conscious events correlated with physical events that, according to quantum theory, should involve a wave function collapse; but, thus far, results are inconclusive.[22][23] Participatory anthropic principle (PAP) Main article: Anthropic principle John Archibald Wheeler's participatory anthropic principle claims that consciousness plays some role in bringing the universe into existence.[24] Other physicists have elaborated their own variations of the von Neumann interpretation; including: Henry P. Stapp (Mindful Universe: Quantum Mechanics and the Participating Observer) Bruce Rosenblum and Fred Kuttner (Quantum Enigma: Physics Encounters Consciousness)

Many minds
Main article: Many-minds interpretation


The many-minds interpretation of quantum mechanics extends the many-worlds interpretation by proposing that the distinction between worlds should be made at the level of the mind of an individual observer.

Quantum logic
Main article: Quantum logic


Quantum logic can be regarded as a kind of propositional logic suitable for understanding the apparent anomalies regarding quantum measurement, most notably those concerning composition of measurement operations of complementary variables. This research area and its name originated in the 1936 paper by Garrett Birkhoff and John von Neumann, who attempted to

converted by

reconcile some of the apparent inconsistencies of classical boolean logic with the facts related to measurement and observation in quantum mechanics.

Modal interpretations of quantum theory


Modal interpretations of quantum mechanics were first conceived of in 1972 by B. van Fraassen, in his paper “A formal approach to the philosophy of science.” However, this term now is used to describe a larger set of models that grew out of this approach. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy describes several versions[25]: The Copenhagen variant Kochen-Dieks-Healey Interpretations Motivating Early Modal Interpretations, based on the work of R. Clifton, M. Dickson and J. Bub.

Other interpretations
Main article: Minority interpretations of quantum mechanics


As well as the mainstream interpretations discussed above, a number of other interpretations have been proposed which have not made a significant scientific impact. These range from proposals by mainstream physicists to the more occult ideas of quantum mysticism.



The most common interpretations are summarized in the table below. The values shown in the cells of the table are not without controversy, for the precise meanings of some of the concepts involved are unclear and, in fact, are themselves at the center of the controversy surrounding the given interpretation. No experimental evidence exists that distinguishes among these interpretations. T that extent, the physical theory stands, and o is consistent with itself and with reality; difficulties arise only when one attempts to "interpret" the theory. Nevertheless, designing experiments which would test the various interpretations is the subject of active research. Most of these interpretations have variants. For example, it is difficult to get a precise definition of the Copenhagen interpretation. The table below gives two variants: one that regards the waveform as being a tool for calculating probabilities only, and the other regards the waveform as an "element of reality." Interpretation Ensemble interpretation Copenhagen interpretation Author(s) Max Born, 1926 Deterministic? NA No Wavefunction Unique Hidden Collapsing real? history? variables? wavefunctions? No No Yes Yes Agnostic No No NA Observer role? None NA

Niels Bohr, Werner Heisenberg, 1927 Louis de Broglie, de Broglie-Bohm 1927, David theory Bohm, 1952 von Neumann, von Neumann 1932, Wheeler, interpretation Wigner Garrett Birkhoff, Quantum logic 1936 Many-worlds Hugh Everett, interpretation 1957 Stochastic Edward Nelson, mechanics 1966 Many-minds H. Dieter Zeh, interpretation 1970 Consistent Robert B. histories Griffiths, 1984 Objective Ghirardi-Riminicollapse Weber, 1986 theories Transactional John G. Cramer, interpretation 1986 Relational Carlo Rovelli, interpretation 1994







No Agnostic Yes No Yes Agnostic1 No No No

Yes Agnostic Yes No Yes Agnostic1 Yes Yes Yes

Yes Yes3 No Yes No No Yes Yes Agnostic8

No No No No No No No No No

Yes No No No No No Yes Yes7 Yes9

Causal Interpretational2 None None Interpretational4 Interpretational2 None None Intrinsic10

1 If wavefunction is real then this becomes the many-worlds interpretation. If wavefunction less than real, but more than just

information, then Zurek calls this the "existential interpretation". 2 Quantum mechanics is regarded as a way of predicting observations, or a theory of measurement. 3 But quantum logic is more limited in applicability than Coherent Histories. 4 Observers separate the universal wavefunction into orthogonal sets of experiences. 5 Both particle AND guiding wavefunction are real. 6 Unique particle history, but multiple wave histories.

converted by

7 In the TI the collapse of the state vector is interpreted as the completion of the transaction between emitter and absorber. 8 Comparing histories between systems in this interpretation has no well-defined meaning. 9 Any physical interaction is treated as a collapse event relative to the systems involved, not just macroscopic or conscious

observers. 10 The state of the system is observer-dependent, i.e., the state is specific to the reference frame of the observer.

See also
Afshar experiment Bohr-Einstein debates Path integral formulation Philosophical interpretation of classical physics Quantum: gravity Zeno effect




Bub, J. and Clifton, R. 1996. “A uniqueness theorem for interpretations of quantum mechanics,” Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 27B: 181-219 Rudolf Carnap, 1939, "The interpretation of physics," in Foundations of Logic and Mathematics of the International Encyclopedia of Unified Science. University of Chicago Press. Dickson, M., 1994, "Wavefunction tails in the modal interpretation" in Hull, D., Forbes, M., and Burian, R., eds., Proceedings of the PSA 1" 366–76. East Lansing, Michigan: Philosophy of Science Association. --------, and Clifton, R., 1998, "Lorentz-invariance in modal interpretations" in Dieks, D. and Vermaas, P., eds., The Modal Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers: 9–48. Fuchs, Christopher, 2002, "Quantum Mechanics as Quantum Information (and only a little more). " -------- and A. Peres, 2000, "Quantum theory needs no ‘interpretation’," Physics Today. Herbert, N., 1985. Quantum Reality: Beyond the New Physics. New York: Doubleday. ISBN 0-385-23569-0. Hey, Anthony, and Walters, P., 2003. The New Quantum Universe, 2nd ed. Cambridge Univ. Press. ISBN 0-5215-6457-3. Roman Jackiw and D. Kleppner, 2000, "One Hundred Years of Quantum Physics," Science 289(5481): 893. Max Jammer, 1966. The Conceptual Development of Quantum Mechanics. McGraw-Hill. --------, 1974. The Philosophy of Quantum Mechanics. Wiley & Sons. Al-Khalili, 2003. Quantum: A Guide for the Perplexed. London: Weidenfeld & Nicholson. de Muynck, W. M., 2002. Foundations of quantum mechanics, an empiricist approach. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. ISBN 1-4020-0932-1 [8] . Roland Omnès, 1999. Understanding Quantum Mechanics. Princeton Univ. Press. Karl Popper, 1963. Conjectures and Refutations. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. The chapter "Three views Concerning Human Knowledge" addresses, among other things, instrumentalism in the physical sciences. Hans Reichenbach, 1944. Philosophic Foundations of Quantum Mechanics. Univ. of California Press. Max T egmark and J. A. Wheeler, 2001, "100 Years of Quantum Mysteries," Scientific American 284: 68. Bas van Fraassen, 1972, "A formal approach to the philosophy of science," in R. Colodny, ed., Paradigms and Paradoxes: The Philosophical Challenge of the Quantum Domain. Univ. of Pittsburgh Press: 303-66. John A. Wheeler and Wojciech Hubert Zurek (eds), Quantum Theory and Measurement, Princeton: Princeton University Press, ISBN 0-691-08316-9, LoC QC174.125.Q38 1983.



1. ^ For a discussion of the provenance of the phrase "shut up and calculate", see [1] 2. ^ Vaidman, L. (2002, March 24). Many-Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. Retrieved March 19, 2010, from Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: eg98 3. ^ Who believes in many-worlds? 4. ^ Quantum theory as a universal physical theory, by David Deutsch, International Journal of Theoretical Physics, Vol 24 #1 (1985) 5. ^ Three connections between Everett's interpretation and experiment Quantum Concepts of Space and Time, by David Deutsch, Oxford University Press (1986) 6. ^ La nouvelle cuisine, by John S. Bell, last article of Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics, second edition. 7. ^ A. Einstein, B. Podolsky and N. Rosen, 1935, "Can quantum-mechanical description of physical reality be considered complete?" Phys. Rev. 47: 777. 8. ^ An experiment illustrating the ensemble interpretation 9. ^ Why Bohm's Theory Solves the Measurement Problem by T Maudlin, Philosophy of Science 62, pp. 479-483 (September, 1995). . 10. ^ Bohmian Mechanics as the Foundation of Quantum Mechanics by D. Durr, N. Zanghi, and S. Goldstein in Bohmian Mechanics and Quantum Theory: An Appraisal, edited by J.T Cushing, A. Fine, and S. Goldstein, Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science . 184, 21-44 (Kluwer, 1996)1997 [2] 11. ^ [3] 12. ^ For more information, see Carlo Rovelli, 1996, "Relational Quantum Mechanics, " Int. J. of Theor. Phys. 35: 1637. Also arXiv: quant-ph/9609002. 13. ^ David Bohm, The Special Theory of Relativity, Benjamin, New York, 1965 14. ^ [4] . For a full account [5] , see Q. Zheng and T Kobayashi, 1996, "Quantum Optics as a Relativistic Theory of Light," Physics . Essays 9: 447. Annual Report, Department of Physics, School of Science, University of T okyo (1992) 240. 15. ^ [6] 16. ^ Nelson,E. (1966) Derivation of the Schrödinger Equation from Newtonian Mechanics, Phys. Rev. 150, 1079-1085 17. ^ M. Pavon, “Stochastic mechanics and the Feynman integral”, J. Math. Phys. 41, 6060-6078 (2000) 18. ^ T sekov, R. (2009) Bohmian Mechanics versus Madelung Quantum Hydrodynamics 19. ^ Frigg, R. GRW theory 20. ^ Review of Penrose's Shadows of the Mind 21. ^ von Neumann, John. (1932/1955). Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

converted by

Translated by Robert T Beyer. . 22. ^ Dick J. Bierman and Stephen Whitmarsh. (2006). Consciousness and Quantum Physics: Empirical Research on the Subjective Reduction of the State Vector. in Jack A. Tuszynski (Ed). The Emerging Physics of Consciousness. p. 27-48. 23. ^ C. M. H. Nunn et. al. (1994). Collapse of a Quantum Field may Affect Brain Function. Journal of Consciousness Studies. 1(1):127-139. 24. ^ Science Show - 18 February 2006 - The anthropic universe 25. ^ [7]

Bibliographic guide to the foundations of quantum mechanics and quantum information [9]

Further reading
Almost all authors below are professional physicists.


David Z Albert, 1992. Quantum Mechanics and Experience. Harvard Univ. Press. ISBN 0674741129. John S. Bell, 1987. Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics. Cambridge Univ. Press, ISBN 0-521-36869-3. The 2004 edition (ISBN 0-521-52338-9) includes two additional papers and an introduction by Alain Aspect. Dmitrii Ivanovich Blokhintsev, 1968. The Philosophy of Quantum Mechanics. D. Reidel Publishing Company. ISBN 9027701059. David Bohm, 1980. Wholeness and the Implicate Order. London: Routledge. ISBN 0-7100-0971-2. David Deutsch, 1997. The Fabric of Reality. London: Allen Lane. ISBN 014027541X; ISBN 0713990619. Argues forcefully against instrumentalism. For general readers. Bernard d'Espagnat, 1976. Conceptual Foundation of Quantum Mechanics, 2nd ed. Addison Wesley. ISBN 081334087X. --------, 1983. In Search of Reality. Springer. ISBN 0387113991. --------, 2003. Veiled Reality: An Analysis of Quantum Mechanical Concepts . Westview Press. --------, 2006. On Physics and Philosophy. Princeton Univ. Press. Arthur Fine, 1986. The Shaky Game: Einstein Realism and the Quantum Theory. Science and its Conceptual Foundations. Univ. of Chicago Press. ISBN 0226249484. Ghirardi, Giancarlo, 2004. Sneaking a Look at God’s Cards. Princeton Univ. Press. Gregg Jaeger (2009) Entanglement, Information, and the Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. Springer. ISBN 9783540921271. N. David Mermin (1990) Boojums all the way through. Cambridge Univ. Press. ISBN 0521388805. Roland Omnes, 1994. The Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. Princeton Univ. Press. ISBN 0691036691. --------, 1999. Understanding Quantum Mechanics. Princeton Univ. Press. --------, 1999. Quantum Philosophy: Understanding and Interpreting Contemporary Science. Princeton Univ. Press. Roger Penrose, 1989. The Emperor's New Mind. Oxford Univ. Press. ISBN 0-198-51973-7. Especially chpt. 6. --------, 1994. Shadows of the Mind. Oxford Univ. Press. ISBN 0-19-853978-9. --------, 2004. The Road to Reality. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. Argues that quantum theory is incomplete.

External links
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: "Bohmian mechanics " by Sheldon Goldstein. "Collapse Theories. " by Giancarlo Ghirardi. "Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics " by Jan Faye. "Everett's Relative State Formulation of Quantum Mechanics " by Jeffrey Barrett. "Many-Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics " by Lev Vaidman. "Modal Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics " by Michael Dickson and Dennis Dieks. "Quantum Entanglement and Information " by Jeffrey Bub. "Quantum mechanics " by Jenann Ismael. "Relational Quantum Mechanics " by Federico Laudisa and Carlo Rovelli. "The Role of Decoherence in Quantum Mechanics " by Guido Bacciagaluppi.
quantum mechanics

Wikiversity has learning materials about M aking sense of

Willem M. de Muynck, Broad overview of the realist vs. empiricist interpretations, against oversimplified view of the measurement process. Schreiber, Z., "The Nine Lives of Schrodinger's Cat. " Overview of competing interpretations. Interpretations of quantum mechanics on The many worlds of quantum mechanics. Erich Joos' Decoherence Website. Quantum Mechanics for Philosophers. Argues for the superiority of the Bohm interpretation. Hidden Variables in Quantum Theory: The Hidden Cultural Variables of their Rejection. Numerous Many Worlds-related T opics and Articles. Relational Approach to Quantum Physics. Theory of incomplete measurements. Deriving quantum mechanics axioms from properties of acceptable measurements. Alfred Neumaier's FAQ. Measurement in Quantum Mechanics FAQ. Categories: Quantum measurement | Quantum mechanics

This page was last modified on 22 August 2010 at 14:54. T is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. See T ext erms of Use for details. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
converted by

Contact us Privacy policy About Wikipedia Disclaimers

converted by

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful