The interpretation of quantum mechanics has been discussed since this theme first was brought up by Einstein and Bohr. This article describes a proposal for a new foundation of quantum theory, partly drawing upon ideas from statistical inference theory. The approach can be said to have an intuitive basis: The quantum states of a physical system are under certain conditions in one-to-one correspondence with the following: 1. Focus on a concrete question to nature and then 2. Give a definite answer to this question. This foundation implies an epistemic interpretation, depending upon the observer, but the objective world is restored when all observers agree on their observations on some variables. The article contains a survey of parts of the authors books on epistemic processes, which give more details about the theory. At the same time, the article extends some of the discussion in the books, and at places makes it more precise.
The interpretation of quantum mechanics has been discussed since this theme first was brought up by Einstein and Bohr. This article describes a proposal for a new foundation of quantum theory, partly drawing upon ideas from statistical inference theory. The approach can be said to have an intuitive basis: The quantum states of a physical system are under certain conditions in one-to-one correspondence with the following: 1. Focus on a concrete question to nature and then 2. Give a definite answer to this question. This foundation implies an epistemic interpretation, depending upon the observer, but the objective world is restored when all observers agree on their observations on some variables. The article contains a survey of parts of the authors books on epistemic processes, which give more details about the theory. At the same time, the article extends some of the discussion in the books, and at places makes it more precise.
When investigating various interpretations of quantum mechanics one notices that each interpretation contains an element which escapes a complete and full description. This element is always associated with the stochasticity of the individual event in the quantum measurement process. It appears that the implications of this limit to any description of the world has not been sufficiently appreciated with notable exceptions of, for example, Heisenberg, Pauli and Wheeler. If we assume that a deeper foundation of quantum mechanics is possible, the question arises which features such a philosophical foundation might have. It is suggested that the objective randomness of the individual quantum event is a necessity of a description of the world in view of the significant influence the observer in quantum mechanics has. It is also suggested that the austerity of the Copenhagen interpretation should serve as a guiding principle in a search for deeper understanding. In recent years, a significant increase of interest in the foundations of quantum mechanics can be observed. This increase is certainly related to the immense progress made during the last two decades in experiments with individual quantum systems. This technological progress has made it possible to really perform more and more of the famous gedanken experiments which were so important in the early days of the theory. Not only did these experiments confirm the theory in every detail, they also opened up avenues for new experimental directions which might even lead some day to new technology. While such applications are certainly still far away, areas like quantum cryptography[1], quantum computation[2] and interaction-free measurement[3], just to name a few examples, certainly deserve the attention they receive. All this activity has also drawn more attention to the problems of understanding and interpreting quantum mechanics. It seems that there, a definitive consensus has not yet been reached. As witnesses quote authorities like Feynman as saying[4]: I think can safely say that nobody today understands quantum mechanics, whereby he apparently included himself, or like Roger Penrose[5], who describes his opinion remarking that while the theory agrees incredibly well with experiment and while it is of profound mathematical beauty, it makes absolutely no sense. Why did even physicists who have contributed so significantly to quantum theory Feynman was even rewarded the Nobel Prize for one of its mathematical formulations choose such emphatic and strong formulations? Why is it that the average physicist hears very little about such problems during his/her education? Why is the comprehension of the theory very often focused on formalism while questions that probe for deeper meaning are usually not tackled? To take a closer look at the situation, let us turn to a brief analysis of the interpretation of quantum mechanics. We note that there are at least two levels of interpreting a formalism, a physical theory. The first, basic, level supplies the rules that determine which element of the formalism corresponds to which measurable quantity or to which observable fact in a concrete experimental situation. Theses rules are a large, mostly not explicated but only implicit, set of instructions. These instructions concern the manner of working with the statements of the theory in order to obtain predictions for future experiments or events, and they concern the instructions on how to proceed in experiment in order to demonstrate or test a theoretical
A different approach towards quantum theory is proposed in this paper. The basis is taken to be conceptual variables, physical variables that may be accessible or inaccessible, i.e., it may be possible or impossible to assign numerical values to them. In an epistemic process, the accessible variables are just ideal observations as observed by an actor or by some communicating actors. Group actions are defined on these variables, and using group representation theory this is the basis for developing the Hilbert space formalism here. Operators corresponding to accessible conceptual variables are derived as a result of the formalism, and in the discrete case it is argued that the possible physical values are the eigenvalues of these operators. The Born formula is derived under specific assumptions. The whole discussion here is a supplement to the author's book [1]. The interpretation of quantum states (or eigenvector spaces) implied by this approach is as focused questions to nature together with sharp answers to those questions. Resolutions if the identity are then connected to the questions themselves; these may be complementary in the sense defined by Bohr. This interpretation may be called a general epistemic interpretation of quantum theory. It is similar to Zwirn's recent Convival Solipsism, and also to QBism, and more generally, can be seen as a concrete implementation of Rovelli's Relational Quantum Mechanics. The focus in the present paper is, however, as much on foundation as on interpretation. But the simple consequences of an epistemic interpretation for some so called quantum paradoxes are discussed. Connections to statistical inference theory are discussed in a preliminary way, both through an example and through a brief discussion of quantum measurement theory.
In this article, the weakest possible theorem giving a foundation behind the Hilbert space formalism of quantum theory is stated. The necessary postulates are formulated, and the mathematics is spelled out in detail. It is argued that, from this approach, a general epistemic interpretation of quantum mechanics is natural. Some applications to the Bell experiment and to decision theory are briefly discussed. The article represents the conclusion of a series of articles and books on quantum foundations.
Abstract A new approach to quantum theory is proposed in this paper. The basis is taken to be theoretical variables, variables that may be accessible or inaccessible, i.e., it may be possible or impossible for an observer to assign arbitrarily sharp numerical values to them. In an epistemic process, the accessible variables are just ideal observations connected to an observer or to some communicating observers. Group actions are defined on these variables, and group representation theory is the basis for developing the Hilbert space formalism here. Operators corresponding to accessible theoretical variables are derived, and in the discrete case, it is proved that the possible physical values are the eigenvalues of these operators. The focus of the paper is some mathematical theorems paving the ground for the proposed foundation of quantum theory. It is shown here that the groups and transformations needed in this approach can be constructed explicitly in the case where the accessible variables are finite-dimensional. This simplifies the theory considerably: To reproduce the Hilbert space formulation, it is enough to assume the existence of two complementary variables. The interpretation inferred from the proposed foundation here may be called a general epistemic interpretation of quantum theory. A special case of this interpretation is QBism; it also has a relationship to several other interpretations.
In this article, the weakest possible theorem providing a foundation for the Hilbert space formalism of quantum theory is stated. The necessary postulates are formulated, and the mathematics is spelt out in detail. It is argued that, from this approach, a general epistemic interpretation of quantum mechanics is natural. Some applications to the Bell experiment and to decision theory are briefly discussed. The article represents the conclusion of a series of articles and books on quantum foundations.
This article surveys a selection of key conceptual and interpretational developments in quantum mechanics, tracing the theory from its foundational postulates to contemporary discussions of measurement, nonlocality, and the emergence of classicality. Beginning with the structure of Hilbert space and the postulates governing state evolution and measurement, the epistemic stance of the Copenhagen interpretation and its modern reformulations are examined. The Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen argument, Bell’s theorem, and Hardy’s paradox are then discussed as probes of locality and realism, alongside the deterministic but explicitly nonlocal de Broglie–Bohm theory. The measurement problem and the implications of contextuality are analyzed in relation to objective collapse models, which introduce new physical dynamics to account for definite outcomes. Finally, the role of decoherence in the suppression of interference and the emergence of classical behavior is explored, together with the interpretational frameworks of many-worlds and consistent histories. This material aims to provide a coherent introductory overview of how several of the most prominent interpretations address the central concern of what quantum mechanics tells us about the nature of physical reality.