Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Log inSign up
Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Blog
Job Board
Q3AS

© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

TermsPrivacyLegal Notice

arXiv:1006.1139

Some Notes on the Difference between Interaction and Measurement

Davide Bondoni

Published Jun 6, 2010• 0 citations
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

This paper has been withdrawn by the author. In this paper I present some reasons to adopt an holistic point of wiev, eliminating a boundary subject/object in the measurement. I review shortly Everett's and Cramer's positions, casting light on their flaws, to introduce a logical motivation to thinking to an experiment as a totality in which everything is entangled.

DOI
10.48550/arxiv.1006.1139

Related papers

Measuring Measuring

Arne Hansen, Stefan Wolf

Measurements play a crucial role in doing physics: Their results provide the basis on which we adopt or reject physical theories. In this note, we examine the effect of subjecting measurements themselves to our experience. We require that our contact with the world is empirically warranted. Therefore, we study theories that satisfy the following assumption: Interactions are accounted for so that they are empirically traceable, and observations necessarily go with such an interaction with the observed system. Examining, with regard to these assumptions, an abstract representation of measurements with tools from quantum logic leads us to contextual theories. Contextuality becomes a means to render interactions, thus also measurements, empirically tangible. The measurement becomes problematic---also beyond quantum mechanics---if one tries to commensurate the assumption of tangible interactions with the notion of a spectator theory, i.e., with the idea that measurement results are read off without effect. The problem, thus, presents itself as the collision of different epistemological stances with repercussions beyond quantum mechanics.

arXiv:1910.06123•Oct 14, 2019•1 citation

Quantum Entanglement, Its Nature and Manifestations

P. Kohút

Knowing the mutual interconnection of everything with everything, it is no problem to interpret the interactions between the measuring and quantum systems as any other interactions between two or more systems consisting of elementary quantum dipoles. So, all relations between the measuring apparatus and measured quantum objects are only parts of the universal cosmic network of elementary quantum interactions creating the objective physical reality, independent of a human consciousness. But the observer, as a conscious subject, plays an active and creative role in his communication with the micro-world.

Scientific GOD Journal•Feb 27, 2011•1 citation

The Problem of the Observer in Physics

Davide Bondoni

This paper has been withdrawn by the author. In this short paper I present a new approach to the problem of measurement, based on the difference between language (reality) and meta-language (meta-reality). This way, it will be shown as the measurement is a meta-sentence on a real event. It is no longer necessary to split up the world into subject and object with a shifty boundary, but starting with an holistic event (the phenomenon) in which everything is entangled and make meta-assertion on this. This possible way out stops von Neumann's chain and explains the real meaning of the concept of measurement.

arXiv:1006.0187•Jun 1, 2010•0 citations

On the Interpretative Essence of the Term “Interaction-Free Measurement”: The Role of Entanglement

R. M. Angelo

arXiv:0802.3853•Foundations of Physics•Dec 11, 2008•5 citations

"Objective vs Subjective Probability," handwritten draft, 1955

Hugh Everett

Before writing a first draft of the long thesis, Hugh Everett wrote three short papers, often refered to as his minipapers, for John Wheeler to review. This minipaper, called "Objective vs. Subjective Probability," presents an early formulation of the quantum measurement problem in terms of a conflict between subjective and objective probabilities. Everett ultimately provided a much clearer formulation of the measurement problem in terms of a conflict between different state attributions in the long thesis. The structure of the experimental setup, however, is similar. There are two versions of this minipaper. The present document is an early handwritten draft. It was found in a file labeled "Early drafts," among Everett's papers.

•May 20, 2011•0 citations

The Measurement Problem Is the "Measurement" Problem

Arne Hansen, Stefan Wolf

The term "measurement" in quantum theory (as well as in other physical theories) is ambiguous: It is used to describe both an experience - e.g., an observation in an experiment - and an interaction with the system under scrutiny. If doing physics is regarded as a creative activity to develop a meaningful description of the world, then one has to carefully discriminate between the two notions: An observer's account of experience - consitutive to meaning - is hardly expressed exhaustively by the formal framework of an interaction within one particular theory. We develop a corresponding perspective onto central terms in quantum mechanics in general, and onto the measurement problem in particular.

arXiv:1810.04573•Oct 10, 2018•2 citations
This paper has been withdrawn by the author. In this paper I present some reasons to adopt an holistic point of wiev, eliminating a boundary subject/object in the measurement. I review shortly Everett's and Cramer's positions, casting light on their flaws, to introduce a logical motivation to thinking to an experiment as a totality in which everything is entangled.
Measurements play a crucial role in doing physics: Their results provide the basis on which we adopt or reject physical theories. In this note, we examine the effect of subjecting measurements themselves to our experience. We require that our contact with the world is empirically warranted. Therefore, we study theories that satisfy the following assumption: Interactions are accounted for so that they are empirically traceable, and observations necessarily go with such an interaction with the observed system. Examining, with regard to these assumptions, an abstract representation of measurements with tools from quantum logic leads us to contextual theories. Contextuality becomes a means to render interactions, thus also measurements, empirically tangible. The measurement becomes problematic---also beyond quantum mechanics---if one tries to commensurate the assumption of tangible interactions with the notion of a spectator theory, i.e., with the idea that measurement results are read off without effect. The problem, thus, presents itself as the collision of different epistemological stances with repercussions beyond quantum mechanics.
Knowing the mutual interconnection of everything with everything, it is no problem to interpret the interactions between the measuring and quantum systems as any other interactions between two or more systems consisting of elementary quantum dipoles. So, all relations between the measuring apparatus and measured quantum objects are only parts of the universal cosmic network of elementary quantum interactions creating the objective physical reality, independent of a human consciousness. But the observer, as a conscious subject, plays an active and creative role in his communication with the micro-world.
This paper has been withdrawn by the author. In this short paper I present a new approach to the problem of measurement, based on the difference between language (reality) and meta-language (meta-reality). This way, it will be shown as the measurement is a meta-sentence on a real event. It is no longer necessary to split up the world into subject and object with a shifty boundary, but starting with an holistic event (the phenomenon) in which everything is entangled and make meta-assertion on this. This possible way out stops von Neumann's chain and explains the real meaning of the concept of measurement.
Before writing a first draft of the long thesis, Hugh Everett wrote three short papers, often refered to as his minipapers, for John Wheeler to review. This minipaper, called "Objective vs. Subjective Probability," presents an early formulation of the quantum measurement problem in terms of a conflict between subjective and objective probabilities. Everett ultimately provided a much clearer formulation of the measurement problem in terms of a conflict between different state attributions in the long thesis. The structure of the experimental setup, however, is similar. There are two versions of this minipaper. The present document is an early handwritten draft. It was found in a file labeled "Early drafts," among Everett's papers.
The term "measurement" in quantum theory (as well as in other physical theories) is ambiguous: It is used to describe both an experience - e.g., an observation in an experiment - and an interaction with the system under scrutiny. If doing physics is regarded as a creative activity to develop a meaningful description of the world, then one has to carefully discriminate between the two notions: An observer's account of experience - consitutive to meaning - is hardly expressed exhaustively by the formal framework of an interaction within one particular theory. We develop a corresponding perspective onto central terms in quantum mechanics in general, and onto the measurement problem in particular.