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

Santa Fe Workshop on Foundations of Quantum Mechanics Held in Santa Fe, New Mexico on May 27-31, 1991

T. D. Black, Michael Martin Nieto, Pilloff, H. S., Marlan O. Scully, Sinclair, Rolf M.

Published Jan 1, 1992• 1 citation
OpenAlex

Abstract

It is a surprise that a theory that seems to be in conflict with so much of the real world continues to serve as the underpinning for our understanding of that world. Quantum Mechanics has been with us in its present form since the mid-1920's, and still serves as one of the two basic frameworks on which all meaningful physical theories must rest. The question persists: Can quantum mechanics fail to predict phenomena we can observe with new precision, or does it possibly have limits on its applicability? Or is it an approximation to a more general theory? With the recent advances in experimental techniques and in theoretical thinking, it seemed appropriate to examine these questions anew through the mechanism of an informal conference. The idea for holding a workshop now came from the recent advances in both theoretical studies of quantum mechanics, and in the new classes of experiments that can provide new tests or improve significantly on old ones. The papers in these Proceedings are divided between theoretical studies and discussions of experiments. Most of the theoretical work describes the quantum mechanical analysis of new systems not hitherto analyzed. Half (or more) of the experimental papers describe new tests of the predictions of quantum theory, either by employing new precision on existing experiments or by exploring new ground.

Related papers

Foundations of quantum mechanics : Santa Fe Workshop, Santa Fe, New Mexico, 27-31 May 1991

T. D. Black

The advent of new experimental techniques has made possible a new generation of more precise experimental tests of fundamental quantum mechanics. This workshop addressed the confrontation of new and proposed experimental tests of quantum mechanics with standard and nonstandard quantum theory. The broad, cross-disciplinary view of the subject brought together eminent theorists and experimentalists from diverse fields

WORLD SCIENTIFIC eBooks•Jan 1, 1992•0 citations

Exploring the Foundations of Quantum Mechanics: Recent Developments and Open Questions

Arun Kumar

The foundations of quantum mechanics have been a subject of intense investigation and debate since the theory's inception. Recent developments in quantum technologies and theoretical frameworks have shed new light on foundational issues and raised intriguing questions about the nature of reality at the quantum level. recent advancements in our understanding of the foundational principles of quantum mechanics and discuss unresolved questions that continue to challenge our conceptual framework. Topics of interest include the measurement problem, quantum entanglement, the role of contextuality and nonlocality, interpretations of quantum theory, and the quest for a unified theory of quantum gravity. findings and ongoing debates in the field, we aim to provide a comprehensive overview of the current state of research in the foundations of quantum mechanics and stimulate further discussion and inquiry into these fundamental questions.

Journal of Quantum Science and Technology.•Mar 31, 2024•0 citations

Quantum coherence : proceedings of the international conference on fundamental aspects of quantum theory to Celebrate 30 years of the Aharonov-Bohm effect, University of South Carolina, Columbia, USA, 14-16 December 1989

Jeeva S. Anandan

The foundations of quantum mechanics has acquired tremendous importance in recent years for three reasons: First, a large number of experiments have tested concepts which previously were purely theoretical. Second, ideas from the foundations of quantum mechanics are being applied now to many fields such as condensed matter physics, quantum statistics, quantum cosmology and quantum gravity. Third, difficulties in constructing a quantum cosmology and theory of gravity have made many theorists examine the foundations of quantum theory to see if quantum mechanics itself needs to be modified. Very distinguished physicists from around the world gave talks on their recent research on a variety of theoretical and experimental aspects on these subjects at this conference.

WORLD SCIENTIFIC eBooks•Jan 1, 1990•1 citation

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

Quantum Theory without Observers—Part One

Sheldon Goldstein

Since its inception some 70 years ago and despite its extraordinary predictive successes, quantum mechanics has been plagued by conceptual difficulties. Plainly put, the basic problem is this: It is not at all clear what quantum mechanics is about. What, in fact, does quantum mechanics describe?

Physics Today•Mar 1, 1998•202 citations

GianCarlo Ghirardi

Angelo Bassi, Tullio Weber, Detlef Dürr

On 1 June 2018, theoretical physicist GianCarlo Ghirardi, known for his work on the foundations of quantum mechanics, died unexpectedly in his summer resort home in Grado, Italy. GianCarlo Ghirardi MASSIMO SILVANO, ICTP PHOTO ARCHIVES, 2005PPT|High resolutionGhirardi was born in Milan on 28 October 1935. A few years after his 1959 graduation from the University of Milan with a PhD in physics, he moved to Trieste. In 1964 he met Alberto Rimini and one of us (Weber), and they worked on scattering theory. They parted after a brief period but remained in touch. In 1973 they wrote a paper that gave a new interpretation of the decay process and for the first time advanced a consistent explanation of the exponential decay law.Meanwhile, Ghirardi became more and more attracted to the foundations of quantum mechanics. The catalyst for him had been the 1970 International School of Physics conference, Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, in Varenna, Italy. Also fueling his interest was the 1971 book Conceptual Foundations of Quantum Mechanics by Bernard D’Espagnat. He was fascinated by the depth of the subject, and he suggested to Rimini and Weber that they join him in working on it. They accepted, with some hesitation. During the next roughly 15 years, Ghirardi, Rimini, and Weber succeeded in establishing a unique and enthusiastic collaboration.The main issue was the measurement problem: Quantum mechanics cannot explain the reduction of the wavepacket produced by a measurement; it must be appended ad hoc. Since collapse is not consistent with the dynamics of the linear Schrödinger equation, Ghirardi, Rimini, and Weber considered making the Schrödinger equation nonlinear. In 1984 they came up with an idea that works: Observing that all measurements involve measurements of the position of some sort of indicator, they imposed on the wavefunction a spatial localization that affects any particle, isolated or constituent, of any physical system.They wrote the desired wave equation effortlessly. It was stochastic and nonlinear, with the stochastic noise acting as a series of localizations occurring in time according to a Poisson distribution with some mean frequency. The nature and origin of the stochasticity were left undetermined. The remaining problem was to understand the equation’s physical import: What happens for a system of N particles? They found that the frequency of localizations becomes N times larger, meaning that the new dynamics mimics that of the Schrödinger equation for a small number of particles and that of the classical world for a large number. They called the modification quantum mechanics with spontaneous localization.Ghirardi, Rimini, and Weber submitted an abridged version of their paper for a 1984 workshop on quantum probability and applications held in Heidelberg, Germany. The proceedings were published in 1985; the final version appeared in Physical Review D in July 1986.The preprint, which came out in 1985, achieved wide circulation. In February 1986 Ghirardi, Rimini, and Weber, to their great surprise, received a letter from John Bell that began, “I read with very great interest and admiration your paper,” and informed them that he was preparing a review talk based on their work. Bell presented it at Imperial College London the following year, at a conference celebrating the centenary of the birth of Erwin Schrödinger. It was then that he named the theory GRW, an acronym that has been in use ever since.The GRW theory solves the quantum mechanics measurement problem by eliminating the need to appeal to an observer. But before GRW, two other quantum theories solved the same problem: Bohmian mechanics and many worlds, both from the 1950s. Nevertheless, GRW had a huge effect on physics, mainly for two reasons. First, Bohmian mechanics and many worlds were considered to be interpretations of quantum theory that offered no new predictions, but GRW was not. It was by all standards a new theory that made new predictions. After all, it destroyed one of the pillars of quantum theory: the linearity of wavefunction evolution. For the majority of physicists who acknowledged the measurement problem, GRW was a serious proposal with experimental implications, even if the technology was not yet in place to test them.Second, and more on the theoretical side, the theory seemed to ease some of the tension between relativity and quantum physics. Quoting Bell, from his Schrödinger centenary contribution, “I am particularly struck by the fact that the model is as Lorentz invariant as it could be in the nonrelativistic version. It takes away the ground of my fear that any exact formulation of quantum mechanics must conflict with fundamental invariance.” Indeed, a fully Lorentz invariant version of GRW had been constructed in 2006.Research on GRW is still vibrant, and the experimental community is now hunting its spontaneous collapses, which might explain why the microscopic quantum world seems not to reach the human scale.In addition to his journal editorial work, Ghirardi wrote a well-received popular book on quantum physics and had just finished a voluminous book on symmetries in nature, a subject that intrigued him throughout his scientific life. A theoretical physics professor at the University of Trieste for 42 years, Ghirardi will be remembered for his mentorship, sharp intellect, and inspiring passion for science.© 2018 American Institute of Physics.

Physics Today•Oct 1, 2018•0 citations
It is a surprise that a theory that seems to be in conflict with so much of the real world continues to serve as the underpinning for our understanding of that world. Quantum Mechanics has been with us in its present form since the mid-1920's, and still serves as one of the two basic frameworks on which all meaningful physical theories must rest. The question persists: Can quantum mechanics fail to predict phenomena we can observe with new precision, or does it possibly have limits on its applicability? Or is it an approximation to a more general theory? With the recent advances in experimental techniques and in theoretical thinking, it seemed appropriate to examine these questions anew through the mechanism of an informal conference. The idea for holding a workshop now came from the recent advances in both theoretical studies of quantum mechanics, and in the new classes of experiments that can provide new tests or improve significantly on old ones. The papers in these Proceedings are divided between theoretical studies and discussions of experiments. Most of the theoretical work describes the quantum mechanical analysis of new systems not hitherto analyzed. Half (or more) of the experimental papers describe new tests of the predictions of quantum theory, either by employing new precision on existing experiments or by exploring new ground.
The foundations of quantum mechanics have been a subject of intense investigation and debate since the theory's inception. Recent developments in quantum technologies and theoretical frameworks have shed new light on foundational issues and raised intriguing questions about the nature of reality at the quantum level. recent advancements in our understanding of the foundational principles of quantum mechanics and discuss unresolved questions that continue to challenge our conceptual framework. Topics of interest include the measurement problem, quantum entanglement, the role of contextuality and nonlocality, interpretations of quantum theory, and the quest for a unified theory of quantum gravity. findings and ongoing debates in the field, we aim to provide a comprehensive overview of the current state of research in the foundations of quantum mechanics and stimulate further discussion and inquiry into these fundamental questions.
The foundations of quantum mechanics has acquired tremendous importance in recent years for three reasons: First, a large number of experiments have tested concepts which previously were purely theoretical. Second, ideas from the foundations of quantum mechanics are being applied now to many fields such as condensed matter physics, quantum statistics, quantum cosmology and quantum gravity. Third, difficulties in constructing a quantum cosmology and theory of gravity have made many theorists examine the foundations of quantum theory to see if quantum mechanics itself needs to be modified. Very distinguished physicists from around the world gave talks on their recent research on a variety of theoretical and experimental aspects on these subjects at this conference.
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
On 1 June 2018, theoretical physicist GianCarlo Ghirardi, known for his work on the foundations of quantum mechanics, died unexpectedly in his summer resort home in Grado, Italy. GianCarlo Ghirardi MASSIMO SILVANO, ICTP PHOTO ARCHIVES, 2005PPT|High resolutionGhirardi was born in Milan on 28 October 1935. A few years after his 1959 graduation from the University of Milan with a PhD in physics, he moved to Trieste. In 1964 he met Alberto Rimini and one of us (Weber), and they worked on scattering theory. They parted after a brief period but remained in touch. In 1973 they wrote a paper that gave a new interpretation of the decay process and for the first time advanced a consistent explanation of the exponential decay law.Meanwhile, Ghirardi became more and more attracted to the foundations of quantum mechanics. The catalyst for him had been the 1970 International School of Physics conference, Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, in Varenna, Italy. Also fueling his interest was the 1971 book Conceptual Foundations of Quantum Mechanics by Bernard D’Espagnat. He was fascinated by the depth of the subject, and he suggested to Rimini and Weber that they join him in working on it. They accepted, with some hesitation. During the next roughly 15 years, Ghirardi, Rimini, and Weber succeeded in establishing a unique and enthusiastic collaboration.The main issue was the measurement problem: Quantum mechanics cannot explain the reduction of the wavepacket produced by a measurement; it must be appended ad hoc. Since collapse is not consistent with the dynamics of the linear Schrödinger equation, Ghirardi, Rimini, and Weber considered making the Schrödinger equation nonlinear. In 1984 they came up with an idea that works: Observing that all measurements involve measurements of the position of some sort of indicator, they imposed on the wavefunction a spatial localization that affects any particle, isolated or constituent, of any physical system.They wrote the desired wave equation effortlessly. It was stochastic and nonlinear, with the stochastic noise acting as a series of localizations occurring in time according to a Poisson distribution with some mean frequency. The nature and origin of the stochasticity were left undetermined. The remaining problem was to understand the equation’s physical import: What happens for a system of N particles? They found that the frequency of localizations becomes N times larger, meaning that the new dynamics mimics that of the Schrödinger equation for a small number of particles and that of the classical world for a large number. They called the modification quantum mechanics with spontaneous localization.Ghirardi, Rimini, and Weber submitted an abridged version of their paper for a 1984 workshop on quantum probability and applications held in Heidelberg, Germany. The proceedings were published in 1985; the final version appeared in Physical Review D in July 1986.The preprint, which came out in 1985, achieved wide circulation. In February 1986 Ghirardi, Rimini, and Weber, to their great surprise, received a letter from John Bell that began, “I read with very great interest and admiration your paper,” and informed them that he was preparing a review talk based on their work. Bell presented it at Imperial College London the following year, at a conference celebrating the centenary of the birth of Erwin Schrödinger. It was then that he named the theory GRW, an acronym that has been in use ever since.The GRW theory solves the quantum mechanics measurement problem by eliminating the need to appeal to an observer. But before GRW, two other quantum theories solved the same problem: Bohmian mechanics and many worlds, both from the 1950s. Nevertheless, GRW had a huge effect on physics, mainly for two reasons. First, Bohmian mechanics and many worlds were considered to be interpretations of quantum theory that offered no new predictions, but GRW was not. It was by all standards a new theory that made new predictions. After all, it destroyed one of the pillars of quantum theory: the linearity of wavefunction evolution. For the majority of physicists who acknowledged the measurement problem, GRW was a serious proposal with experimental implications, even if the technology was not yet in place to test them.Second, and more on the theoretical side, the theory seemed to ease some of the tension between relativity and quantum physics. Quoting Bell, from his Schrödinger centenary contribution, “I am particularly struck by the fact that the model is as Lorentz invariant as it could be in the nonrelativistic version. It takes away the ground of my fear that any exact formulation of quantum mechanics must conflict with fundamental invariance.” Indeed, a fully Lorentz invariant version of GRW had been constructed in 2006.Research on GRW is still vibrant, and the experimental community is now hunting its spontaneous collapses, which might explain why the microscopic quantum world seems not to reach the human scale.In addition to his journal editorial work, Ghirardi wrote a well-received popular book on quantum physics and had just finished a voluminous book on symmetries in nature, a subject that intrigued him throughout his scientific life. A theoretical physics professor at the University of Trieste for 42 years, Ghirardi will be remembered for his mentorship, sharp intellect, and inspiring passion for science.© 2018 American Institute of Physics.