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:1710.10291

A Physics Tragedy

Rodney A. Brooks

Published Oct 21, 2017• 0 citations
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

The measurement problem and three other vexing experiments in quantum physics are described. It is shown how Quantum Field Theory, as formulated by Julian Schwinger, provides simple solutions for all four experiments. It is also shown how this theory resolves many other problems of Quantum Mechanics and Relativity, including a new and simple derivation of E = mc2.

Related papers

A Solution to the Quantum Measurement Problem

Gray, Andrew

A new formulation of quantum mechanics is developed which does not require the concept of the wave-particle duality. Rather than assigning probabilities to outcomes, probabilities are instead assigned to entire fine-grained histories. The formulation is fully relativistic and applicable to multi-particle systems. It shall be shown that this new formulation makes the same experimental predictions as quantum field theory, but without having to rely upon the notion of a system evolving in a superposition of quantum states until collapsed by an observation. It is thus free from the problem of deciding what exactly constitutes an observation (the measurement problem) and may therefore be applied just as readily to the macroscopic world as to the microscopic.

arXiv:quant-ph/9712037•Dec 18, 1997•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

Mermin habitually answers opinions, real and abstract

Rodney Brooks

I am that friend of David Mermin’s “who was enchanted by the revelation that quantum fields were the real stuff that makes up the world.” I plead guilty to reification and offer the following defense.I started out, as I think we all did, with the notion that there is a reality out there and that space and time are part of it—not just “an extremely effective way to represent relations between distinct events.” When I read Arthur Eddington’s The Nature of the Physical World (J. M. Dent & Sons, 1942) in high school, I learned that reality was not what it seemed—that Eddington’s solid writing desk, for example, was mostly empty space. The next step in my understanding of reality came in college when I found that the electromagnetic field offered a more satisfying picture of the world than action at a distance, which even Isaac Newton derided. 1 1. H. Boorse, L. Motz, eds., The World of the Atom, Basic Books, New York (1966), p. 319. When I encountered quantum mechanics, of course, everything became confusion. However, along with David, I was fortunate to attend Julian Schwinger’s courses at Harvard University just after he had perfected his treatment of quantum field theory. 2 2. J. Schwinger, Ann. Phys. 2, 407 (1957). https://doi.org/10.1016/0003-4916(57)90015-5 I sat enthralled throughout the three-year series (1956–59), in which Schwinger developed QFT as a seemingly inevitable consequence of the most basic assumptions.However, I came away with a different understanding of QFT than David’s. I understood that the fields are physical properties of space that are described by field strengths—just as in classical physics, except that in QFT the state of the field at each point is represented by a vector in Hilbert space rather than by a pure number. That use of Hilbert space, which followed naturally from Schwinger’s “measurement algebra,” allows superpositions of values. The operators in Hilbert space, as I understood it, are mathematical tools that describe the evolution of the state vectors, and they are not to be reified.When I saw how QFT resolves the paradoxes of modern physics, it became irresistible. The special relativity paradoxes—for example, Lorentz contraction and time dilation—are a natural result of the way fields behave. 3 3. J. Schwinger wrote a six-part series on the theory of quantized fields: Phys. Rev. 82, 914 (1951); 91, 713 (1953); https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRev.82.914 91, 728 (1953); 92, 1283 (1953); 93, 615 (1954); 94, 1362 (1954). The spacetime curvature of general relativity, which I could never really visualize, does not exist in QFT; the gravitational field equations are equivalent to spacetime curvature for those who can visualize it, but equivalent is not the same as identical. 4 4. S. Weinberg, Gravitation and Cosmology: Principles and Applications of the General Theory of Relativity, Wiley, New York (1972), pp. vii–147. Finally, the mysterious wave–particle duality of quantum mechanics vanishes; in QFT, reality consists of fields and only fields.Because QFT is so neglected by the public (and by many physicists), I am writing a book that presents it without equations. A draft copy of the work, The Theory That Escaped Einstein, can be found through an internet search. Feedback is appreciated.For those who can’t kick the reification habit, QFT is the way to go. It is the only theory that offers a consistent and visualizable picture of reality. Reifiers of the world, unite! You have nothing to lose but your abstractions.REFERENCESSection:ChooseTop of pageREFERENCES <<1. H. Boorse, L. Motz, eds., The World of the Atom, Basic Books, New York (1966), p. 319. Google Scholar2. J. Schwinger, Ann. Phys. 2, 407 (1957). https://doi.org/10.1016/0003-4916(57)90015-5 , Google ScholarCrossref, ISI3. J. Schwinger wrote a six-part series on the theory of quantized fields: Phys. Rev. 82, 914 (1951); 91, 713 (1953); https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRev.82.914 , Google ScholarCrossref, ISI 91, 728 (1953); , Google Scholar 92, 1283 (1953); Google Scholar 93, 615 (1954); Google Scholar 94, 1362 (1954). Google Scholar4. S. Weinberg, Gravitation and Cosmology: Principles and Applications of the General Theory of Relativity, Wiley, New York (1972), pp. vii–147. Google Scholar© 2009 American Institute of Physics.

Physics Today•Sep 1, 2009•0 citations

Introduction

David Wallace

The basic thesis of this book is that there is no quantum measurement problem. I do not mean by this that the apparent paradoxes of quantum mechanics arise because we fail to recognize ‘that quantum theory does not describe physical reality’ (Fuchs and Peres 2000a). Quantum theory describes reality just fine, like any other scientific theory worth taking seriously: describing (and explaining) reality is what the scientific enterprise is about. Nor do I mean that we have found solutions to the problem, ways to modify or supplement quantum mechanics so that the paradoxes are removed. I don’t actually think that we have found any very satisfactory solutions in this sense (at least not in the relativistic domain) but that isn’t my theme: even if we did have these modifications, they would be ways of changing from quantum physics, which supposedly does have a measurement problem, to some other theory, which supposedly doesn’t.

Oxford University Press eBooks•May 24, 2012•3 citations

Grounding the randomness of quantum measurement

Gregg S. Jaeger

Julian Schwinger provided to physics a mathematical reconstruction of quantum mechanics on the basis of the characteristics of sequences of measurements occurring at the atomic level of physical structure. The central component of this reconstruction is an algebra of symbols corresponding to quantum measurements, conceived of as discrete processes, which serve to relate experience to theory; collections of outcomes of identically circumscribed such measurements are attributed expectation values, which constitute the predictive content of the theory. The outcomes correspond to certain phase parameters appearing in the corresponding symbols, which are complex numbers, the algebra of which he finds by a process he refers to as 'induction'. Schwinger assumed these (individually unpredictable) phase parameters to take random, uniformly distributed definite values within a natural range. I have previously suggested that the 'principle of plenitude' may serve as a basis in principle for the occurrence of the definite measured values that are those members of the collections of measurement outcomes from which the corresponding observed statistics derive (Jaeger 2015Found. Phys.45, 806-819. (doi:10.1007/s10701-015-9893-6)). Here, I evaluate Schwinger's assumption in the context of recent critiques of the notion of randomness and explicitly relate the randomness of these phases with the principle of plenitude and, in this way, provide a fundamental grounding for the objective, physically irreducible probabilities, conceived of as graded possibilities, that are attributed to measurement outcomes by quantum mechanics.

Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A Mathematical Physical and Engineering Sciences•Apr 19, 2016•16 citations

Thinking about Physics

Hercilio Rodolfo Rechenberg

The well known theoretical physicist and editor of the Journal of Mathematical Physics has written a handy book, with eight chapters devoted to the broader knowledge of and reflection about physical theories, notably quantum theory. After thinking about what is a physical theory, he addresses the problem of the state in quantum theory (a very central chapter of the book), the power of mathematics, the field - particle issue (the author pleads for the superiority of the field concept - the book is very indebted to Julian Schwinger's ideas), symmetry in physics, the problem of causality and probability, the five different arrows of time (from cause-effect ordering to the cosmological arrow), and finally turns to the presently quite often discussed relation of the quantum-mechanical description to reality. After one has learned that the author is not approaching the questions from a sharper historical point of view, and that he shares the prejudices of a mathematical physicist toward experiment, one thoroughly enjoys his elegant, competent and deep treatment. This reviewer wishes that every graduate student of physics should, at an early stage, read Newton's book (which could be done either at a stroke or piecewise) because it presents the essence of a great deal of modern physical theory in both a condensed and leisurely digestible form.

European Journal of Physics•Jun 19, 2000•3 citations
The measurement problem and three other vexing experiments in quantum physics are described. It is shown how Quantum Field Theory, as formulated by Julian Schwinger, provides simple solutions for all four experiments. It is also shown how this theory resolves many other problems of Quantum Mechanics and Relativity, including a new and simple derivation of E = mc2.
A new formulation of quantum mechanics is developed which does not require the concept of the wave-particle duality. Rather than assigning probabilities to outcomes, probabilities are instead assigned to entire fine-grained histories. The formulation is fully relativistic and applicable to multi-particle systems. It shall be shown that this new formulation makes the same experimental predictions as quantum field theory, but without having to rely upon the notion of a system evolving in a superposition of quantum states until collapsed by an observation. It is thus free from the problem of deciding what exactly constitutes an observation (the measurement problem) and may therefore be applied just as readily to the macroscopic world as to the microscopic.
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.
I am that friend of David Mermin’s “who was enchanted by the revelation that quantum fields were the real stuff that makes up the world.” I plead guilty to reification and offer the following defense.I started out, as I think we all did, with the notion that there is a reality out there and that space and time are part of it—not just “an extremely effective way to represent relations between distinct events.” When I read Arthur Eddington’s The Nature of the Physical World (J. M. Dent & Sons, 1942) in high school, I learned that reality was not what it seemed—that Eddington’s solid writing desk, for example, was mostly empty space. The next step in my understanding of reality came in college when I found that the electromagnetic field offered a more satisfying picture of the world than action at a distance, which even Isaac Newton derided. 1 1. H. Boorse, L. Motz, eds., The World of the Atom, Basic Books, New York (1966), p. 319. When I encountered quantum mechanics, of course, everything became confusion. However, along with David, I was fortunate to attend Julian Schwinger’s courses at Harvard University just after he had perfected his treatment of quantum field theory. 2 2. J. Schwinger, Ann. Phys. 2, 407 (1957). https://doi.org/10.1016/0003-4916(57)90015-5 I sat enthralled throughout the three-year series (1956–59), in which Schwinger developed QFT as a seemingly inevitable consequence of the most basic assumptions.However, I came away with a different understanding of QFT than David’s. I understood that the fields are physical properties of space that are described by field strengths—just as in classical physics, except that in QFT the state of the field at each point is represented by a vector in Hilbert space rather than by a pure number. That use of Hilbert space, which followed naturally from Schwinger’s “measurement algebra,” allows superpositions of values. The operators in Hilbert space, as I understood it, are mathematical tools that describe the evolution of the state vectors, and they are not to be reified.When I saw how QFT resolves the paradoxes of modern physics, it became irresistible. The special relativity paradoxes—for example, Lorentz contraction and time dilation—are a natural result of the way fields behave. 3 3. J. Schwinger wrote a six-part series on the theory of quantized fields: Phys. Rev. 82, 914 (1951); 91, 713 (1953); https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRev.82.914 91, 728 (1953); 92, 1283 (1953); 93, 615 (1954); 94, 1362 (1954). The spacetime curvature of general relativity, which I could never really visualize, does not exist in QFT; the gravitational field equations are equivalent to spacetime curvature for those who can visualize it, but equivalent is not the same as identical. 4 4. S. Weinberg, Gravitation and Cosmology: Principles and Applications of the General Theory of Relativity, Wiley, New York (1972), pp. vii–147. Finally, the mysterious wave–particle duality of quantum mechanics vanishes; in QFT, reality consists of fields and only fields.Because QFT is so neglected by the public (and by many physicists), I am writing a book that presents it without equations. A draft copy of the work, The Theory That Escaped Einstein, can be found through an internet search. Feedback is appreciated.For those who can’t kick the reification habit, QFT is the way to go. It is the only theory that offers a consistent and visualizable picture of reality. Reifiers of the world, unite! You have nothing to lose but your abstractions.REFERENCESSection:ChooseTop of pageREFERENCES <<1. H. Boorse, L. Motz, eds., The World of the Atom, Basic Books, New York (1966), p. 319. Google Scholar2. J. Schwinger, Ann. Phys. 2, 407 (1957). https://doi.org/10.1016/0003-4916(57)90015-5 , Google ScholarCrossref, ISI3. J. Schwinger wrote a six-part series on the theory of quantized fields: Phys. Rev. 82, 914 (1951); 91, 713 (1953); https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRev.82.914 , Google ScholarCrossref, ISI 91, 728 (1953); , Google Scholar 92, 1283 (1953); Google Scholar 93, 615 (1954); Google Scholar 94, 1362 (1954). Google Scholar4. S. Weinberg, Gravitation and Cosmology: Principles and Applications of the General Theory of Relativity, Wiley, New York (1972), pp. vii–147. Google Scholar© 2009 American Institute of Physics.
The basic thesis of this book is that there is no quantum measurement problem. I do not mean by this that the apparent paradoxes of quantum mechanics arise because we fail to recognize ‘that quantum theory does not describe physical reality’ (Fuchs and Peres 2000a). Quantum theory describes reality just fine, like any other scientific theory worth taking seriously: describing (and explaining) reality is what the scientific enterprise is about. Nor do I mean that we have found solutions to the problem, ways to modify or supplement quantum mechanics so that the paradoxes are removed. I don’t actually think that we have found any very satisfactory solutions in this sense (at least not in the relativistic domain) but that isn’t my theme: even if we did have these modifications, they would be ways of changing from quantum physics, which supposedly does have a measurement problem, to some other theory, which supposedly doesn’t.
Julian Schwinger provided to physics a mathematical reconstruction of quantum mechanics on the basis of the characteristics of sequences of measurements occurring at the atomic level of physical structure. The central component of this reconstruction is an algebra of symbols corresponding to quantum measurements, conceived of as discrete processes, which serve to relate experience to theory; collections of outcomes of identically circumscribed such measurements are attributed expectation values, which constitute the predictive content of the theory. The outcomes correspond to certain phase parameters appearing in the corresponding symbols, which are complex numbers, the algebra of which he finds by a process he refers to as 'induction'. Schwinger assumed these (individually unpredictable) phase parameters to take random, uniformly distributed definite values within a natural range. I have previously suggested that the 'principle of plenitude' may serve as a basis in principle for the occurrence of the definite measured values that are those members of the collections of measurement outcomes from which the corresponding observed statistics derive (Jaeger 2015Found. Phys.45, 806-819. (doi:10.1007/s10701-015-9893-6)). Here, I evaluate Schwinger's assumption in the context of recent critiques of the notion of randomness and explicitly relate the randomness of these phases with the principle of plenitude and, in this way, provide a fundamental grounding for the objective, physically irreducible probabilities, conceived of as graded possibilities, that are attributed to measurement outcomes by quantum mechanics.
The well known theoretical physicist and editor of the Journal of Mathematical Physics has written a handy book, with eight chapters devoted to the broader knowledge of and reflection about physical theories, notably quantum theory. After thinking about what is a physical theory, he addresses the problem of the state in quantum theory (a very central chapter of the book), the power of mathematics, the field - particle issue (the author pleads for the superiority of the field concept - the book is very indebted to Julian Schwinger's ideas), symmetry in physics, the problem of causality and probability, the five different arrows of time (from cause-effect ordering to the cosmological arrow), and finally turns to the presently quite often discussed relation of the quantum-mechanical description to reality. After one has learned that the author is not approaching the questions from a sharper historical point of view, and that he shares the prejudices of a mathematical physicist toward experiment, one thoroughly enjoys his elegant, competent and deep treatment. This reviewer wishes that every graduate student of physics should, at an early stage, read Newton's book (which could be done either at a stroke or piecewise) because it presents the essence of a great deal of modern physical theory in both a condensed and leisurely digestible form.