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:1403.6701

An intuition behind quantum measurement

Piotr Witas

Published Mar 25, 2014• 0 citations
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

An attempt is made to give a heuristic explanation of the distinguished role of measurement in the quantum theory. We question the notion of "naive" reductionism by stressing the difference between an isolated quantum and classical object. It is argued that the transition from the micro- to the macroscopic description should be made along some parameters not characterized by the quantum theory.

DOI
10.48550/arxiv.1403.6701

Related papers

Quantum measurement

Jim Baggott

Abstract Measurement lies at the core of the quantum formalism. This may seem a statement of the intuitively obvious for any theoretical structure with a pretension to predict the outcomes of observations made or experiments performed on objects in the real world. But classical mechanics is a theorys of the physical properties of objects and their behaviour when exposed to different kinds of forces, and there is no particularly significant role for measurement other than a passive role involving the recording of those properties or behaviour. In contrast, measurement in quantum theory takes on a far deeper, almost ominous, significance

•Nov 6, 2003•0 citations

On Measurement

Bernard d’Espagnat

Macroscopic systems being composed of atoms and fields, there is no reason why they should not obey the quantum laws. It therefore seems quite natural to consider them as quantum systems, albeit extremely complex ones. Measurement constitutes a riddle, and a great many theories were put forward as attempts to solve this riddle. The number is so considerable indeed that to try and review them all would be an almost impossible undertaking. A few essentially quantum notions, such as quantum tunneling, have been shown quite indispensable for explaining a number of experimental facts concerning some systems of macroscopic size and complexity. Small differences necessarily exist between a system as it really is and its description by means of simple statements Moreover, elaborate experimental setups can in general be conceived of that, if used as measurement devices, would enhance these small differences.

CRC Press eBooks•May 4, 2018•0 citations

The role played by scientific realism in the measurement problem of quantum mechanics

Jorge Manero, Juan Alberto Guzmán García

Many attempts have been made to characterise and solve the infamous measurement problem of quantum mechanics by advocating, implicitly or explicitly, different realist perspectives. As a result, we are still uncertain where this problem and its corresponding solution are to be located in the realism-antirealism debate. On the basis of a well-known characterisation of scientific realism, this paper intends to fill this gap by arguing that the quantum description of the processes involved in typical measurements is problematic from the standpoint of semantic realism, which is a necessary but not sufficient condition for fully-fledged scientific realism.

THEORIA An International Journal for Theory History and Foundations of Science•Dec 12, 2024•0 citations

Explanation, Emergence, and Quantum Entanglement

Andreas Hüttemann

This paper tries to get a grip on two seemingly conflicting intuitions about reductionism in quantum mechanics. On one hand it is received wisdom that quantum mechanics puts an end to ‘reductionism’. Quantum entanglement is responsible for such features of quantum mechanics as holism, the failure of supervenience, and emergence. While I agree with these claims, I will argue that it is only part of the story. Quantum mechanics provides us with thoroughgoing reductionist explanations. I will distinguish two kinds of microexplanation (or micro-‘reduction’). I will argue that even though quantum entanglement provides an example of the failure of one kind of microexplanation, it does not affect the other. Contrary to a recent paper by Kronz and Tiehen, I claim that the explanation of the dynamics of quantum mechanical systems is just as reductionist as it used to be in classical mechanics.

Philosophy of Science•Jan 1, 2005•63 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

How to Be a Copenhagenistic-QBistic Everettist

Marcin Wieśniak

The measurement problem in quantum mechanics (QM) is related to the inability to include learning about the properties of a quantum system by an agent in the formalism of quantum theory. It includes questions about the physical processes behind the measurement, uniqueness, and randomness of obtained outcomes and an ontic or epistemic role of the state. These issues have triggered various interpretations of quantum theory. They vary from refusing any connection between physical reality and a measurement process to insisting that a collapse of the wave-function is real and possibly involves consciousness. On the other hand, the actual mechanism of a measurement is not extensively discussed in these interpretations. This essay attempts to investigate the quantum measurement problem from the position of the scientific consensus. We begin with a short overview of the development of sensing in living organisms. This is performed for the purpose of stressing the relation between reality and our experience. We then briefly present different approaches to the measurement problem in chosen interpretations. We then state three philosophical assumptions for further consideration and present a decomposition of the measurement act into four stages: transformation, conversion, amplification and broadcasting, and, finally, perception. Each of these stages provides an intuition about the physical processes contributing to it. These conclusions are then used in a discussion about, e.g., objectivity, the implausibility of reversing a measurement, or the epistemic status of the wave-function. Finally, we argue that those in favor of some of the most popular interpretations can find an overlap between their beliefs and the consequences of considerations presented here.

Entropy•Feb 27, 2025•0 citations
An attempt is made to give a heuristic explanation of the distinguished role of measurement in the quantum theory. We question the notion of "naive" reductionism by stressing the difference between an isolated quantum and classical object. It is argued that the transition from the micro- to the macroscopic description should be made along some parameters not characterized by the quantum theory.
Abstract Measurement lies at the core of the quantum formalism. This may seem a statement of the intuitively obvious for any theoretical structure with a pretension to predict the outcomes of observations made or experiments performed on objects in the real world. But classical mechanics is a theorys of the physical properties of objects and their behaviour when exposed to different kinds of forces, and there is no particularly significant role for measurement other than a passive role involving the recording of those properties or behaviour. In contrast, measurement in quantum theory takes on a far deeper, almost ominous, significance
Macroscopic systems being composed of atoms and fields, there is no reason why they should not obey the quantum laws. It therefore seems quite natural to consider them as quantum systems, albeit extremely complex ones. Measurement constitutes a riddle, and a great many theories were put forward as attempts to solve this riddle. The number is so considerable indeed that to try and review them all would be an almost impossible undertaking. A few essentially quantum notions, such as quantum tunneling, have been shown quite indispensable for explaining a number of experimental facts concerning some systems of macroscopic size and complexity. Small differences necessarily exist between a system as it really is and its description by means of simple statements Moreover, elaborate experimental setups can in general be conceived of that, if used as measurement devices, would enhance these small differences.
Many attempts have been made to characterise and solve the infamous measurement problem of quantum mechanics by advocating, implicitly or explicitly, different realist perspectives. As a result, we are still uncertain where this problem and its corresponding solution are to be located in the realism-antirealism debate. On the basis of a well-known characterisation of scientific realism, this paper intends to fill this gap by arguing that the quantum description of the processes involved in typical measurements is problematic from the standpoint of semantic realism, which is a necessary but not sufficient condition for fully-fledged scientific realism.
This paper tries to get a grip on two seemingly conflicting intuitions about reductionism in quantum mechanics. On one hand it is received wisdom that quantum mechanics puts an end to ‘reductionism’. Quantum entanglement is responsible for such features of quantum mechanics as holism, the failure of supervenience, and emergence. While I agree with these claims, I will argue that it is only part of the story. Quantum mechanics provides us with thoroughgoing reductionist explanations. I will distinguish two kinds of microexplanation (or micro-‘reduction’). I will argue that even though quantum entanglement provides an example of the failure of one kind of microexplanation, it does not affect the other. Contrary to a recent paper by Kronz and Tiehen, I claim that the explanation of the dynamics of quantum mechanical systems is just as reductionist as it used to be in classical mechanics.
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.
The measurement problem in quantum mechanics (QM) is related to the inability to include learning about the properties of a quantum system by an agent in the formalism of quantum theory. It includes questions about the physical processes behind the measurement, uniqueness, and randomness of obtained outcomes and an ontic or epistemic role of the state. These issues have triggered various interpretations of quantum theory. They vary from refusing any connection between physical reality and a measurement process to insisting that a collapse of the wave-function is real and possibly involves consciousness. On the other hand, the actual mechanism of a measurement is not extensively discussed in these interpretations. This essay attempts to investigate the quantum measurement problem from the position of the scientific consensus. We begin with a short overview of the development of sensing in living organisms. This is performed for the purpose of stressing the relation between reality and our experience. We then briefly present different approaches to the measurement problem in chosen interpretations. We then state three philosophical assumptions for further consideration and present a decomposition of the measurement act into four stages: transformation, conversion, amplification and broadcasting, and, finally, perception. Each of these stages provides an intuition about the physical processes contributing to it. These conclusions are then used in a discussion about, e.g., objectivity, the implausibility of reversing a measurement, or the epistemic status of the wave-function. Finally, we argue that those in favor of some of the most popular interpretations can find an overlap between their beliefs and the consequences of considerations presented here.