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:1905.06603

A Brief Review of the "ETH-Approach to Quantum Mechanics"

Froehlich, Juerg

Published May 16, 2019• 1 citation
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

To begin with, some of the conundrums concerning Quantum Mechanics and its interpretation(s) are recalled. Subsequently, a sketch of the "ETH-Approach to Quantum Mechanics" is presented. This approach yields a logically coherent quantum theory of "events" featured by physical systems and of direct or projective measurements of physical quantities, without the need to invoke "observers". It enables one to determine the stochastic time evolution of states of physical systems. We also briefly comment on the quantum theory of indirect or weak measurements, which is much easier to understand and more highly developed than the theory of direct (projective) measurements. A relativistic form of the ETH-Approach will be presented in a separate paper.

DOI
10.48550/arxiv.1905.06603

Related papers

A “garden of forking paths” – The quantum mechanics of histories of events

Philippe Blanchard, Jürg Martin Fröhlich, Baptiste Schubnel

This is a survey of a novel approach, called “ETH approach”, to the quantum theory of events happening in isolated physical systems and to the effective time evolution of states of systems featuring events. In particular, we attempt to present a clear explanation of what is meant by an “event” in quantum mechanics and of the significance of this notion. We then outline a theory of direct (projective) and indirect observations or recordings of physical quantities and events. Some key ideas underlying our general theory are illustrated by studying a simple quantum-mechanical model of a mesoscopic system.

arXiv:1603.09664•Nuclear Physics B•Apr 12, 2016•27 citations

A Completion of Quantum Mechanics

Jürg Martin Fröhlich, Zhou Gang, Alessandro Pizzo

A proposal of how to complete non-relativistic quantum mechanics to a physically meaningful, mathematically precise and logically coherent theory is reviewed. Our proposal leads to a general, non-linear stochastic law for the time-evolution of states of individual physical systems. An application of the general formalism to the quantum theory of fluorescence of an atom coupled to the radiation field is sketched. Some remarks on relativistic quantum theory conclude our review.

arXiv:2303.11112•Mar 20, 2023•1 citation

The Time-Evolution of States in Quantum Mechanics according to the ETH-Approach

Jürg Martin Fröhlich, Alessandro Pizzo

Abstract It is argued that the Schrödinger equation does not yield a correct description of the quantum-mechanical time evolution of states of isolated physical systems featuring events. A general statistical law replacing unitary Schrödinger evolution of states is then formulated within the so-called ETH-Approach to Quantum Mechanics. This law eliminates the infamous “measurement problem.” Our general concepts and results are illustrated by an analysis of simple models describing a very heavy atom coupled to the quantized radiation field. In the limit where the speed of light tends to infinity these models can be treated quite explicitly.

Communications in Mathematical Physics•Oct 23, 2021•11 citations

On the Interpretation and Philosophical Foundation of Quantum Mechanics

Anton Zeilinger

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

•Jan 1, 2008•26 citations

Emerging interpretations of quantum mechanics and recent progress in quantum measurement

M L Clarke

The focus of this paper is to provide a brief discussion on the quantum measurement process, by reviewing select examples highlighting recent progress towards its understanding. The areas explored include an outline of the measurement problem, the standard interpretation of quantum mechanics, quantum to classical transition, types of measurement (including weak and projective measurements) and newly emerging interpretations of quantum mechanics (decoherence theory, objective reality, quantum Darwinism and quantum Bayesianism).

European Journal of Physics•Dec 13, 2013•5 citations

Quantum mechanics

Carlo Rovelli C

Quantum mechanics (QM) is not just a theory of micro-objects: it is our current fundamental theory of motion. It expresses a deeper understanding of Nature than classical mechanics. Precisely as classical mechanics, the conventional formulation of QM describes evolution of states and observables in time. Precisely as classical mechanics, this is not sufficient to deal with general relativistic systems, because these systems do not describe evolution in time; they describe correlations between observables. Therefore, a formulation of QM slightly more general than the conventional one – or a quantum version of the relativistic classical mechanics discussed in the previous chapter – is needed. In this chapter I discuss the possibility of such a formulation. In the last section I discuss the general physical interpretation of QM. QM can be formulated in a number of more or less equivalent formalisms: canonical (Hilbert spaces and self-adjoint operators), covariant (Feynman's sum-over-histories), algebraic (states as linear functionals over an abstract algebra of observables) and others. Generally, but not always, we are able to translate these formalisms into one another, but often what is easy in one formulation is difficult in another. A generalrelativistic sum-over-histories formalism has been developed by Jim Hartle. Here I focus on the canonical formalism, because the canonical formalism has provided the mathematical completeness and precision needed to explicitly construct the mathematical apparatus of quantum gravity. Later I will consider alternative formalisms.

Cambridge University Press eBooks•Nov 15, 2004•0 citations
To begin with, some of the conundrums concerning Quantum Mechanics and its interpretation(s) are recalled. Subsequently, a sketch of the "ETH-Approach to Quantum Mechanics" is presented. This approach yields a logically coherent quantum theory of "events" featured by physical systems and of direct or projective measurements of physical quantities, without the need to invoke "observers". It enables one to determine the stochastic time evolution of states of physical systems. We also briefly comment on the quantum theory of indirect or weak measurements, which is much easier to understand and more highly developed than the theory of direct (projective) measurements. A relativistic form of the ETH-Approach will be presented in a separate paper.
This is a survey of a novel approach, called “ETH approach”, to the quantum theory of events happening in isolated physical systems and to the effective time evolution of states of systems featuring events. In particular, we attempt to present a clear explanation of what is meant by an “event” in quantum mechanics and of the significance of this notion. We then outline a theory of direct (projective) and indirect observations or recordings of physical quantities and events. Some key ideas underlying our general theory are illustrated by studying a simple quantum-mechanical model of a mesoscopic system.
Abstract It is argued that the Schrödinger equation does not yield a correct description of the quantum-mechanical time evolution of states of isolated physical systems featuring events. A general statistical law replacing unitary Schrödinger evolution of states is then formulated within the so-called ETH-Approach to Quantum Mechanics. This law eliminates the infamous “measurement problem.” Our general concepts and results are illustrated by an analysis of simple models describing a very heavy atom coupled to the quantized radiation field. In the limit where the speed of light tends to infinity these models can be treated quite explicitly.
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
The focus of this paper is to provide a brief discussion on the quantum measurement process, by reviewing select examples highlighting recent progress towards its understanding. The areas explored include an outline of the measurement problem, the standard interpretation of quantum mechanics, quantum to classical transition, types of measurement (including weak and projective measurements) and newly emerging interpretations of quantum mechanics (decoherence theory, objective reality, quantum Darwinism and quantum Bayesianism).
Quantum mechanics (QM) is not just a theory of micro-objects: it is our current fundamental theory of motion. It expresses a deeper understanding of Nature than classical mechanics. Precisely as classical mechanics, the conventional formulation of QM describes evolution of states and observables in time. Precisely as classical mechanics, this is not sufficient to deal with general relativistic systems, because these systems do not describe evolution in time; they describe correlations between observables. Therefore, a formulation of QM slightly more general than the conventional one – or a quantum version of the relativistic classical mechanics discussed in the previous chapter – is needed. In this chapter I discuss the possibility of such a formulation. In the last section I discuss the general physical interpretation of QM. QM can be formulated in a number of more or less equivalent formalisms: canonical (Hilbert spaces and self-adjoint operators), covariant (Feynman's sum-over-histories), algebraic (states as linear functionals over an abstract algebra of observables) and others. Generally, but not always, we are able to translate these formalisms into one another, but often what is easy in one formulation is difficult in another. A generalrelativistic sum-over-histories formalism has been developed by Jim Hartle. Here I focus on the canonical formalism, because the canonical formalism has provided the mathematical completeness and precision needed to explicitly construct the mathematical apparatus of quantum gravity. Later I will consider alternative formalisms.