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:1603.03941 · Entropy

Measurement, Interpretation and Information

Olímpia Lombardi, Sebastián Fortín, Cristian López

Published Oct 28, 2015• 28 citations
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

During many years since the birth of quantum mechanics, instrumentalist interpretations prevailed: the meaning of the theory was expressed in terms of measurements results. However, in the last decades, several attempts to interpret it from a realist viewpoint have been proposed. Among them, modal interpretations supply a realist non-collapse account, according to which the system always has definite properties and the quantum state represents possibilities, not actualities. But the traditional modal interpretations faced some conceptual problems when addressing imperfect measurements. The modal-Hamiltonian interpretation, on the contrary, proved to be able to supply an adequate account of the measurement problem, both in its ideal and its non-ideal versions. Moreover, in the non-ideal case, it gives a precise criterion to distinguish between reliable and non-reliable measurements. Nevertheless, that criterion depends on the particular state of the measured system, and this might be considered as a shortcoming of the proposal. In fact, one could ask for a criterion of reliability that does not depend on the features of what is measured but only on the properties of the measurement device. The aim of this article is precisely to supply such a criterion: we will adopt an informational perspective for this purpose.During many years since the birth of quantum mechanics, instrumentalistinterpretations prevailed: the meaning of the theory was expressed in terms of measurementsresults. However, in the last decades, several attempts to interpret it from a realist viewpointhave been proposed. Among them, modal interpretations supply a realist non-collapseaccount, according to which the system always has definite properties and the quantum staterepresents possibilities, not actualities. But the traditional modal interpretations faced someconceptual problems when addressing imperfect measurements. The modal-Hamiltonianinterpretation, on the contrary, proved to be able to supply an adequate account of themeasurement problem, both in its ideal and its non-ideal versions. Moreover, in the non-idealcase, it gives a precise criterion to distinguish between reliable and non-reliable measurements.Nevertheless, that criterion depends on the particular state of the measured system, and thismight be considered as a shortcoming of the proposal. In fact, one could ask for a criterionof reliability that does not depend on the features of what is measured but only on theproperties of the measurement device. The aim of this article is precisely to supply such acriterion: we will adopt an informational perspective for this purpose.

DOI
10.3390/e17117310

Related papers

A modal-Hamiltonian interpretation of quantum mechanics

Olímpia Lombardi, Mario Castagnino

The aim of this paper is to introduce a new member of the family of the modal interpretations of quantum mechanics. In this modal-Hamiltonian interpretation, the Hamiltonian of the quantum system plays a decisive role in the property-ascription rule that selects the definite-valued observables whose possible values become actual. We show that this interpretation is effective for solving the measurement problem, both in its ideal and its non-ideal versions, and we argue for the physical relevance of the property-ascription rule by applying it to well-known physical situations. Moreover, we explain how this interpretation supplies a description of the elemental categories of the ontology referred to by the theory, where quantum systems turn out to be bundles of possible properties.

arXiv:quant-ph/0610121•Oct 15, 2006•1 citation

Revisiting the Measurement Problem

Olímpia Lombardi

Abstract Chapter 6 was devoted to argue that the MHI offers a solution to the measurement problem for both ideal and non-ideal measurements, and to show how it provides a distinction between reliable and non-reliable measurements in the non-ideal case. However, in the last decades more complex measurement scenarios have been considered, some as old as the so-called Wigner’s friend experiment, and others recently designed to test the theoretical predictions of quantum mechanics. For this reason, in the present chapter, the measurement problem is revisited from the perspective of the challenges that those scenarios pose to interpretation.

•Feb 19, 2026•0 citations

The role of the Hamiltonian in the interpretation of quantum mechanics

Mario Castagnino, Olímpia Lombardi

In this paper we propose a new realist, non-collapse interpretation of quantum mechanics, which moves away from the prevailing trend in the subject by paying special attention to the physical relevance of the interpretation. In particular, our proposal endows the Hamiltonian of the system, systematically ignored in the traditional interpretations, with a central role: it distinguishes between systems and subsystems and is the main ingredient in the selection of the definite-valued observables. We show how this interpretation solves the measurement problem, both in the ideal and in the non-ideal version, and we argue for the physical relevance of the new definite-value assignment.

Journal of Physics Conference Series•Aug 1, 2008•16 citations

Wavefunction Tails in the Modal Interpretation

Michael Dickson

Consider the general form of the state of a quantum system, (eq. 1), where the are (non-degenerate) eigenvectors of an operator, A, corresponding to an observable, A. According to the standard interpretation of quantum mechanics (the precise details of which do not concern me here), A does not have a definite value on the system in the state . But now suppose we measure A by coupling the system to a measuring apparatus. The composite system is then (eq. 2) where the are the indicator-states of the apparatus. Again, the standard interpretation tells us that the apparatus is not in a definite indicator-state. But how can this be? Measurements do have definite results. The apparatus is always in a definite state. I have just reviewed one version of the measurement problem. The modal interpretation of quantum mechanics proposes a solution.

PSA Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association•Jan 1, 1994•53 citations

Measurement and Quantum States

Yorick Hardy, Willi-Hans Steeb

The interpretation of measurements in quantum mechanics is still under discussion (Healey [84], Bell [9], Redhead [136]). Besides the Copenhagen interpretation we have the many-worlds interpretations (Everett interpretations), the modal interpretations, the decoherence interpretations, the interpretations in terms of (nonlocal) hidden variables, the quantum logical interpretations. These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Birkhäuser Basel eBooks•Jan 1, 2001•0 citations

Quantum (Statistical) Mechanics, Measurement and Information

Roger Balian

Ever since the beginning of quantum mechanics, the measurement problem has been a subject of sometimes discontinued but nevertheless recurrent concern. As students, most physicists have raised questions about it, but the spectacular and renewed successes of quantum theory were a strong incentive for them to work out applications without further worrying about foundations. In each generation, however, some dissatisfaction reemerges, which leads to slow progress, and we may expect that the measurement problem will some day be cleared up rather than forgotten. The situation recalls statistical mechanics, the foundations of which still give rise to scientific discussions, in spite of more than one century’s achievements. Actually, the paradoxes of irreversibility and of Maxwell’s demon share some common features with quantum measurements, to wit, they involve probabilities in a crucial fashion and their explanation requires elucidating the role of the observer.

CRC Press eBooks•Oct 19, 2017•0 citations
During many years since the birth of quantum mechanics, instrumentalist interpretations prevailed: the meaning of the theory was expressed in terms of measurements results. However, in the last decades, several attempts to interpret it from a realist viewpoint have been proposed. Among them, modal interpretations supply a realist non-collapse account, according to which the system always has definite properties and the quantum state represents possibilities, not actualities. But the traditional modal interpretations faced some conceptual problems when addressing imperfect measurements. The modal-Hamiltonian interpretation, on the contrary, proved to be able to supply an adequate account of the measurement problem, both in its ideal and its non-ideal versions. Moreover, in the non-ideal case, it gives a precise criterion to distinguish between reliable and non-reliable measurements. Nevertheless, that criterion depends on the particular state of the measured system, and this might be considered as a shortcoming of the proposal. In fact, one could ask for a criterion of reliability that does not depend on the features of what is measured but only on the properties of the measurement device. The aim of this article is precisely to supply such a criterion: we will adopt an informational perspective for this purpose.During many years since the birth of quantum mechanics, instrumentalistinterpretations prevailed: the meaning of the theory was expressed in terms of measurementsresults. However, in the last decades, several attempts to interpret it from a realist viewpointhave been proposed. Among them, modal interpretations supply a realist non-collapseaccount, according to which the system always has definite properties and the quantum staterepresents possibilities, not actualities. But the traditional modal interpretations faced someconceptual problems when addressing imperfect measurements. The modal-Hamiltonianinterpretation, on the contrary, proved to be able to supply an adequate account of themeasurement problem, both in its ideal and its non-ideal versions. Moreover, in the non-idealcase, it gives a precise criterion to distinguish between reliable and non-reliable measurements.Nevertheless, that criterion depends on the particular state of the measured system, and thismight be considered as a shortcoming of the proposal. In fact, one could ask for a criterionof reliability that does not depend on the features of what is measured but only on theproperties of the measurement device. The aim of this article is precisely to supply such acriterion: we will adopt an informational perspective for this purpose.
The aim of this paper is to introduce a new member of the family of the modal interpretations of quantum mechanics. In this modal-Hamiltonian interpretation, the Hamiltonian of the quantum system plays a decisive role in the property-ascription rule that selects the definite-valued observables whose possible values become actual. We show that this interpretation is effective for solving the measurement problem, both in its ideal and its non-ideal versions, and we argue for the physical relevance of the property-ascription rule by applying it to well-known physical situations. Moreover, we explain how this interpretation supplies a description of the elemental categories of the ontology referred to by the theory, where quantum systems turn out to be bundles of possible properties.
Abstract Chapter 6 was devoted to argue that the MHI offers a solution to the measurement problem for both ideal and non-ideal measurements, and to show how it provides a distinction between reliable and non-reliable measurements in the non-ideal case. However, in the last decades more complex measurement scenarios have been considered, some as old as the so-called Wigner’s friend experiment, and others recently designed to test the theoretical predictions of quantum mechanics. For this reason, in the present chapter, the measurement problem is revisited from the perspective of the challenges that those scenarios pose to interpretation.
In this paper we propose a new realist, non-collapse interpretation of quantum mechanics, which moves away from the prevailing trend in the subject by paying special attention to the physical relevance of the interpretation. In particular, our proposal endows the Hamiltonian of the system, systematically ignored in the traditional interpretations, with a central role: it distinguishes between systems and subsystems and is the main ingredient in the selection of the definite-valued observables. We show how this interpretation solves the measurement problem, both in the ideal and in the non-ideal version, and we argue for the physical relevance of the new definite-value assignment.
Consider the general form of the state of a quantum system, (eq. 1), where the are (non-degenerate) eigenvectors of an operator, A, corresponding to an observable, A. According to the standard interpretation of quantum mechanics (the precise details of which do not concern me here), A does not have a definite value on the system in the state . But now suppose we measure A by coupling the system to a measuring apparatus. The composite system is then (eq. 2) where the are the indicator-states of the apparatus. Again, the standard interpretation tells us that the apparatus is not in a definite indicator-state. But how can this be? Measurements do have definite results. The apparatus is always in a definite state. I have just reviewed one version of the measurement problem. The modal interpretation of quantum mechanics proposes a solution.
The interpretation of measurements in quantum mechanics is still under discussion (Healey [84], Bell [9], Redhead [136]). Besides the Copenhagen interpretation we have the many-worlds interpretations (Everett interpretations), the modal interpretations, the decoherence interpretations, the interpretations in terms of (nonlocal) hidden variables, the quantum logical interpretations. These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
Ever since the beginning of quantum mechanics, the measurement problem has been a subject of sometimes discontinued but nevertheless recurrent concern. As students, most physicists have raised questions about it, but the spectacular and renewed successes of quantum theory were a strong incentive for them to work out applications without further worrying about foundations. In each generation, however, some dissatisfaction reemerges, which leads to slow progress, and we may expect that the measurement problem will some day be cleared up rather than forgotten. The situation recalls statistical mechanics, the foundations of which still give rise to scientific discussions, in spite of more than one century’s achievements. Actually, the paradoxes of irreversibility and of Maxwell’s demon share some common features with quantum measurements, to wit, they involve probabilities in a crucial fashion and their explanation requires elucidating the role of the observer.