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:1809.09554 · Universe

Is the Copenhagen Interpretation Inapplicable to Quantum Cosmology?

Tatyana P. Shestakova

Published Aug 19, 2020• 6 citations
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

It is generally accepted that the Copenhagen interpretation is inapplicable to quantum cosmology, by contrast with the many worlds interpretation. I shall demonstrate that the two basic principles of the Copenhagen interpretation, the principle of wholeness and the principle of complementarity, do make sense in quantum gravity, since we can judge about quantum gravitational processes in the very early Universe by their vestiges in our macroscopic Universe. I shall present the extended phase space approach to quantum gravity and show that it can be interpreted in the spirit of the Everett’s “relative states” formulation, while there is no contradiction between the “relative states” formulation and the mentioned basic principles of the Copenhagen interpretation.

DOI
10.3390/universe6090128

Related papers

The Impact of Cosmology on Quantum Mechanics

James B. Hartle

When quantum mechanics was developed in the '20s of the last century another revolution in physics was just starting. It began with the discovery that the universe is expanding. For a long time quantum mechanics and cosmology developed independently of one another. Yet the very discovery of the expansion would eventually draw the two subjects together because it implied the big bang where quantum mechanics wasimportant for cosmology and for understanding and predicting our observations of the universe today. Textbook (Copenhagen) formulations of quantum mechanics are inadequate for cosmology for at least four reasons: 1) They predict the outcomes of measurements made by observers. But in the very early universe no measurements were being made and no observers were around to make them. 2) Observers were outside of the system being measured. But we are interested in a theory of the whole universe where everything, including observers, are inside. 3) Copenhagen quantum mechanics could not retrodict the past. But retrodicting the past to understand how the universe began is the main task of cosmology. 4) Copenhagen quantum mechanics required a fixed classical spacetime geometry not least to give meaning to the time in the Schrödinger equation. But in the very early universe spacetime is fluctuating quantum mechanically (quantum gravity) and without definite value. A formulation of quantum mechanics general enough for cosmology was started by Everett and developed by many. That effort has given us a more general framework that is adequate for cosmology --- decoherent (or consistent) histories quantum theory in the context of semiclassical quantum gravity. Copenhagen quantum theory is an approximation to this more general quantum framework that is appropriate for measurement situations. We discuss whether further generalization may still be required.

arXiv:1901.03933•Jan 13, 2019•1 citation

Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. A view of our universe

Ingvar Lindgren, J. Weiland

The interpretation of quantum mechanics has been disputed ever since the advent of the theory in the 1920’s. Famous are the discussions over long time between Einstein and Bohr. Einstein refused to accept the so‐called Copenhagen interpretation, where the wave function collapses at a measurement and where the outcome of the measurement is essentially accidental (“God does not play dice”). Alternative interpretations have appeared, but the Copenhagen school has dominated the thoughts throughout the decades. One interesting interpretation was formulated in 1957 by Hugh Everett at Princeton, a student of John Wheeler, which abandons the wave‐function collapse. In this model the universe is governed entirely by the Schrödinger equation, which does not allow for any collapse. In Everett’s model after a measurement the wave function is separated into different branches that do not interact. This model was left unnoticed for long time until Bryce DeWitt took it up in 1970 and termed it “Many‐Worlds Interpretation”, a term that in some sense is misleading. Everett’s model is incomplete, and it was later supplemented by the theory of decoherence, which explains how the different branches decouple as a result of the interaction with the environment. This extended model has in recent years gained increased respect, and some believe that it is the only model made available so far that is fully consistent with quantum mechanics. This interpretation can also shed some light on the development of the universe and, in particular, on the so‐called Anthropic principle, which puts human beings at the center of the development.

AIP conference proceedings•Jan 1, 2009•0 citations

Emergence of a classical Universe from quantum gravity and cosmology

Claus Kiefer

I describe how we can understand the classical appearance of our world from a universal quantum theory. The essential ingredient is the process of decoherence. I start with a general discussion in ordinary quantum theory and then turn to quantum gravity and quantum cosmology. There is a whole hierarchy of classicality from the global gravitational field to the fluctuations in the cosmic microwave background, which serve as the seeds for the structure in the Universe.

Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A Mathematical Physical and Engineering Sciences•Aug 20, 2012•9 citations

Relational Quantum Cosmology

Francesca Vidotto

Conceptual Problems in Quantum Cosmology The application of quantum theory to cosmology raises a number of conceptual questions, such as the role of the quantum-mechanical notion of “observer” or the absence of a time variable in the Wheeler–DeWitt equation. I point out that a relational formulation of quantum mechanics, and more in general the observation that evolution is always relational, provides a coherent solution to this tangle of problems. A number of confusing issues appear when we try to apply quantum mechanics to cosmology. Quantum mechanics, for instance, is generally formulated in terms of an observer making measurements on a system. In a laboratory experiment, it is easy to identify the system and the observer: but what is the observer in quantum cosmology? Is it part of the same universe described by the cosmological theory, or should we think of it as external to the universe? Furthermore, the basic quantum dynamical equation describing a system including gravity is not the Schrödinger equation, but rather the Wheeler–DeWitt equation, which has no time parameter: is this related to the absence of an observer external to the universe? How do we describe the quantum dynamics of the universe without a time variable in the dynamical equation and without an observer external to the universe? I suggest that clarity on these issues can be obtained by simply recognizing the relational nature of quantum mechanics and more in general the relational nature of physical evolution. In the context of quantum theory, this nature is emphasized by the so-called relational interpretation of quantum mechanics (Rovelli, 1996). The relational nature of evolution, on the other hand, has been pointed out by the partial-observable formulation of general covariant dynamics (Rovelli, 2002). A central observation is that there is a common confusion between two different meanings of the expression “cosmology”. This is discussed below, in Section 15.1.1. A considerable amount of the difficulties mentioned above stems, I argue, from this confusion. The discussion clarifies on the role of the quantum mechanical observer in cosmology, which is considered in Section 15.1.2. In Section 15.2, I briefly describe the relational interpretation of quantum mechanics and some related aspects of quantum theory.

arXiv:1508.05543•Cambridge University Press eBooks•Jan 1, 2017•14 citations

Quantum Darwinism and the Existential Interpretation

Wojciech Hubert Zurek

There are two widely known interpretations of quantum theory: Bohr’s Copenhagen interpretation and Everett’s interpretation. The focus of Chapter 9 is to assess, within the context they provide, the interpretation-independent advances discussed in this book. We want to see whether the advances that include decoherence and quantum Darwinism fit these two established and widely known points of view. In fact, it is surprising that (with minor but significant adjustments) decoherence and quantum Darwinism fit very naturally, addressing questions that were recognized as open and important. We then discuss the existential interpretation. It can be seen as a continuation of the Copenhagen interpretation, with the Universe consisting of quantum and classical realms, but with classicality that is emergent, rather than preordained. It is also compatible with Everett’s interpretation, since quantum states and evolutions are all that is needed. However, unlike the Many Worlds interpretation (which regards the quantum state of the Universe as objectively existing, akin to a classical point in phase space or a classical electromagnetic field), the existential interpretation recognizes that quantum states combine information and existence—they are epiontic. The mix of existence and information they represent fits the relative states reading of Everett’s approach.

Cambridge University Press eBooks•Mar 6, 2025•0 citations

Interpreting the quantum mechanics of cosmology

David Wallace

Quantum theory plays an increasingly significant role in contemporary early-universe cosmology, most notably in the inflationary origins of the fluctuation spectrum of the microwave background radiation. I consider the two main strategies for interpreting (as opposed to modifying or supplementing) standard quantum mechanics in the light of cosmology. I argue that the conceptual difficulties of the approaches based around an irreducible role for measurement - already very severe - become intolerable in a cosmological context, whereas the approach based around Everett's original idea of treating quantum systems as closed systems handles cosmological quantum theory satisfactorily. Contemporary cosmology, which indeed applies standard quantum theory without supplementation or modification, is thus committed - tacitly or explicitly - to the Everett interpretation.

Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A•Jan 21, 2026•1 citation
It is generally accepted that the Copenhagen interpretation is inapplicable to quantum cosmology, by contrast with the many worlds interpretation. I shall demonstrate that the two basic principles of the Copenhagen interpretation, the principle of wholeness and the principle of complementarity, do make sense in quantum gravity, since we can judge about quantum gravitational processes in the very early Universe by their vestiges in our macroscopic Universe. I shall present the extended phase space approach to quantum gravity and show that it can be interpreted in the spirit of the Everett’s “relative states” formulation, while there is no contradiction between the “relative states” formulation and the mentioned basic principles of the Copenhagen interpretation.
When quantum mechanics was developed in the '20s of the last century another revolution in physics was just starting. It began with the discovery that the universe is expanding. For a long time quantum mechanics and cosmology developed independently of one another. Yet the very discovery of the expansion would eventually draw the two subjects together because it implied the big bang where quantum mechanics wasimportant for cosmology and for understanding and predicting our observations of the universe today. Textbook (Copenhagen) formulations of quantum mechanics are inadequate for cosmology for at least four reasons: 1) They predict the outcomes of measurements made by observers. But in the very early universe no measurements were being made and no observers were around to make them. 2) Observers were outside of the system being measured. But we are interested in a theory of the whole universe where everything, including observers, are inside. 3) Copenhagen quantum mechanics could not retrodict the past. But retrodicting the past to understand how the universe began is the main task of cosmology. 4) Copenhagen quantum mechanics required a fixed classical spacetime geometry not least to give meaning to the time in the Schrödinger equation. But in the very early universe spacetime is fluctuating quantum mechanically (quantum gravity) and without definite value. A formulation of quantum mechanics general enough for cosmology was started by Everett and developed by many. That effort has given us a more general framework that is adequate for cosmology --- decoherent (or consistent) histories quantum theory in the context of semiclassical quantum gravity. Copenhagen quantum theory is an approximation to this more general quantum framework that is appropriate for measurement situations. We discuss whether further generalization may still be required.
The interpretation of quantum mechanics has been disputed ever since the advent of the theory in the 1920’s. Famous are the discussions over long time between Einstein and Bohr. Einstein refused to accept the so‐called Copenhagen interpretation, where the wave function collapses at a measurement and where the outcome of the measurement is essentially accidental (“God does not play dice”). Alternative interpretations have appeared, but the Copenhagen school has dominated the thoughts throughout the decades. One interesting interpretation was formulated in 1957 by Hugh Everett at Princeton, a student of John Wheeler, which abandons the wave‐function collapse. In this model the universe is governed entirely by the Schrödinger equation, which does not allow for any collapse. In Everett’s model after a measurement the wave function is separated into different branches that do not interact. This model was left unnoticed for long time until Bryce DeWitt took it up in 1970 and termed it “Many‐Worlds Interpretation”, a term that in some sense is misleading. Everett’s model is incomplete, and it was later supplemented by the theory of decoherence, which explains how the different branches decouple as a result of the interaction with the environment. This extended model has in recent years gained increased respect, and some believe that it is the only model made available so far that is fully consistent with quantum mechanics. This interpretation can also shed some light on the development of the universe and, in particular, on the so‐called Anthropic principle, which puts human beings at the center of the development.
Conceptual Problems in Quantum Cosmology The application of quantum theory to cosmology raises a number of conceptual questions, such as the role of the quantum-mechanical notion of “observer” or the absence of a time variable in the Wheeler–DeWitt equation. I point out that a relational formulation of quantum mechanics, and more in general the observation that evolution is always relational, provides a coherent solution to this tangle of problems. A number of confusing issues appear when we try to apply quantum mechanics to cosmology. Quantum mechanics, for instance, is generally formulated in terms of an observer making measurements on a system. In a laboratory experiment, it is easy to identify the system and the observer: but what is the observer in quantum cosmology? Is it part of the same universe described by the cosmological theory, or should we think of it as external to the universe? Furthermore, the basic quantum dynamical equation describing a system including gravity is not the Schrödinger equation, but rather the Wheeler–DeWitt equation, which has no time parameter: is this related to the absence of an observer external to the universe? How do we describe the quantum dynamics of the universe without a time variable in the dynamical equation and without an observer external to the universe? I suggest that clarity on these issues can be obtained by simply recognizing the relational nature of quantum mechanics and more in general the relational nature of physical evolution. In the context of quantum theory, this nature is emphasized by the so-called relational interpretation of quantum mechanics (Rovelli, 1996). The relational nature of evolution, on the other hand, has been pointed out by the partial-observable formulation of general covariant dynamics (Rovelli, 2002). A central observation is that there is a common confusion between two different meanings of the expression “cosmology”. This is discussed below, in Section 15.1.1. A considerable amount of the difficulties mentioned above stems, I argue, from this confusion. The discussion clarifies on the role of the quantum mechanical observer in cosmology, which is considered in Section 15.1.2. In Section 15.2, I briefly describe the relational interpretation of quantum mechanics and some related aspects of quantum theory.
There are two widely known interpretations of quantum theory: Bohr’s Copenhagen interpretation and Everett’s interpretation. The focus of Chapter 9 is to assess, within the context they provide, the interpretation-independent advances discussed in this book. We want to see whether the advances that include decoherence and quantum Darwinism fit these two established and widely known points of view. In fact, it is surprising that (with minor but significant adjustments) decoherence and quantum Darwinism fit very naturally, addressing questions that were recognized as open and important. We then discuss the existential interpretation. It can be seen as a continuation of the Copenhagen interpretation, with the Universe consisting of quantum and classical realms, but with classicality that is emergent, rather than preordained. It is also compatible with Everett’s interpretation, since quantum states and evolutions are all that is needed. However, unlike the Many Worlds interpretation (which regards the quantum state of the Universe as objectively existing, akin to a classical point in phase space or a classical electromagnetic field), the existential interpretation recognizes that quantum states combine information and existence—they are epiontic. The mix of existence and information they represent fits the relative states reading of Everett’s approach.
Quantum theory plays an increasingly significant role in contemporary early-universe cosmology, most notably in the inflationary origins of the fluctuation spectrum of the microwave background radiation. I consider the two main strategies for interpreting (as opposed to modifying or supplementing) standard quantum mechanics in the light of cosmology. I argue that the conceptual difficulties of the approaches based around an irreducible role for measurement - already very severe - become intolerable in a cosmological context, whereas the approach based around Everett's original idea of treating quantum systems as closed systems handles cosmological quantum theory satisfactorily. Contemporary cosmology, which indeed applies standard quantum theory without supplementation or modification, is thus committed - tacitly or explicitly - to the Everett interpretation.