The following analysis attempts to provide a general account of the multiple solutions given to the quantum measurement problem in terms of causality. Leaving aside instrumentalism which restricts its understanding of quantum mechanics to the algorithmic prediction of measurement outcomes, the many approaches which try to give an answer can be distinguished by their explanation based on the efficient cause —recovering in this way a classical physical description— or based on the final cause —which goes back to the hylomorphic tradition. Going beyond the limits of these two schemes we call the attention to an ‘inversion of the measurement problem’ and its proposed solution based on the immanent cause. By replacing both the final and efficient causes by the immanent cause we attempt to lay down new conditions for representing quantum superpositions in a realist way which coherently relates the quantum formalism with outcomes.
The following analysis attempts to provide a general account of the multiple solutions given to the quantum measurement problem in terms of causality. Leaving aside instrumentalism which restricts its understanding of quantum mechanics to the algorithmic prediction of measurement outcomes, the many approaches which try to give an answer can be distinguished by their explanation based on the efficient cause —recovering in this way a classical physical description— or based on the final cause —which goes back to the hylomorphic tradition. Going beyond the limits of these two schemes we call the attention to an ‘inversion of the measurement problem’ and its proposed solution based on the immanent cause. By replacing both the final and efficient causes by the immanent cause we attempt to lay down new conditions for representing quantum superpositions in a realist way which coherently relates the quantum formalism with outcomes.
Abstract In this paper we provide a general account of the causal models which attempt to provide a solution to the famous measurement problem of Quantum Mechanics (QM). We will argue that—leaving aside instrumentalism which restricts the physical meaning of QM to the algorithmic prediction of measurement outcomes—the many interpretations which can be found in the literature can be distinguished through the way they model the measurement process, either in terms of theefficient causeor in terms of thefinal cause. We will discuss and analyze why both, ‘final cause’ and ‘efficient cause’ models, face severe difficulties to solve the measurement problem. In contradistinction to these schemes we will present a new model based on theimmanent causewhich, we will argue, provides an intuitive understanding of the measurement process in QM.
In this work we analyze the deep link between the 20th Century positivist re-foundation of physics and the famous measurement problem of quantum mechanics. We attempt to show why this is not an "obvious" nor "self evident" problem for the theory of quanta, but rather a direct consequence of the empirical-positivist understanding of physical theories when applied to the orthodox quantum formalism. In contraposition, we discuss a representational realist account of both physical 'theories' and 'measurement' which goes back to the works of Einstein, Heisenberg and Pauli. After presenting a critical analysis of Bohr's definitions of 'measurement' we continue to discuss the way in which several contemporary approaches to QM --such as decoherence, modal interpretations and QBism-- remain committed to Bohr's general methodology. Finally, in order to expose the many inconsistencies present within the (empirical-positivist) presuppositions responsible for creating the quantum measurement problem, we show how through these same set of presuppositions it is easy to derive a completely analogous paradox for the case of classical mechanics.
Quantum mechanics is based on Schrodinger’s wave function with linear superposition of vectors in a Hilbert space. Due to superposition, multiple physical states are considered simultaneously for the same time point, but when the corresponding quantum mechanical experiments are realized, there is only one outcome and not a superposition of pointer positions. This observation characterizes the quantum mechanical measurement problem, which for about a century found multiple interpretations, which can be classified as potentiality, as proposed by Heisenberg, or as real physical entities, for instance fields. Potentialities are yet inexistent in reality and unobservable in the present, since they represent a possible future. Thus, they can only be an intra-mental representation of a future process and not a physical extra-mental process ongoing in the present. There is coexistence of a physical object observable in reality and a mental prediction by an observer concerning the future behavior of this object. The characterization of quantum mechanical formalism by some physicists corresponds to a prediction and therefore to a mental representation of the future behavior of elementary particles and not to a description of an ongoing extra-mental process. Prediction in life and science has some characteristics, which resemble the measurement problem, since it undergoes a “multiple to one” reduction of mental potentialities to only one observable real outcome. Besides quantum mechanics, such reductions can also be found with many kinds of predictions, in classical physics for regular and irregular dynamical processes and in humans for programming future actions. Superposition in classical physics only concerns variable effects, but in quantum mechanics includes variable effects and non-localizable causes. Quantum mechanics, interpreted as prediction of future outcomes with multiple potentialities but only one realization, would resemble the general prediction problem in life and science and thereby loos its weird aspects.
The quantum measurement problem remains a central unresolved issue in theoretical physics, arising from the incompatibility between unitary quantum dynamics and the emergence of definite measurement outcomes. Closely related is the question of the physical status of the wavefunction within contemporary quantum theory. This review critically surveys leading approaches to the measurement problem, focusing on their formal consistency, physical assumptions, and empirical implications. We examine the standard measurement framework, the role of environment-induced decoherence and quantum Darwinism, and the restrictions imposed by no-go theorems such as Bell, Kochen–Specker, and Pusey–Barrett–Rudolph. Interpretations including Everettian many-worlds, Bohmian mechanics, spontaneous collapse models, relational quantum mechanics, QBist approaches, and Copenhagen-type frameworks are assessed in terms of their ability to account for classical definiteness without sacrificing empirical adequacy. We also review experimental efforts probing macroscopic superpositions and collapse dynamics. The analysis indicates that, despite its predictive success, quantum theory lacks a complete physical account of outcome selection. This suggests that the measurement problem reflects a fundamental structural limitation of current theory, motivating either new physical principles or a redefinition of the wavefunction’s ontological role.
Quantum theory describes our universe incredibly successfully. To our classically-inclined brains, however, it is a bizarre description that requires a reimagining of what fundamental reality, or “ontology”, could look like. This thesis examines different ontological features in light of the success of quantum theory, what it requires, and what it rules out. While these investigations are primarily foundational, they also have relevance to quantum information, quantum communication, and experiments on quantum systems. The way that quantum theory describes the state of a system is one of its most unintuitive features. It is natural, therefore, to ask whether a similarly strange description of states is required on an ontological level. This thesis proves that almost all quantum superposition states for d > 3 dimensions must be real—that is, present in the ontology in a well-defined sense. This is a strong requirement which prevents intuitive explanations of the many quantum phenomena which are based on superpositions. A new theorem is also presented showing that quantum theory is incompatible with macro-realist ontologies, where certain physical quantities must always have definite values. This improves on the Leggett-Garg argument, which also aims to prove incompatibility with macro-realism but contains loopholes. Variations on both of these results that are error-tolerant (and therefore amenable to experimentation) are presented, as well as numerous related theorems showing that the ontology of quantum states must be somewhat similar to the quantum states themselves in various specific ways. Extending these same methods to quantum communication, a simple proof is found showing that an exponential number of classical bits are required to communicate a linear number of qubits. That is, classical systems are exponentially bad at storing quantum data. Causal influences are another part of ontology where quantum theory demands a revision of our classical notions. This follows from the outcomes of Bell experiments, as rigorously shown in recent analyses. Here, the task of constructing a native quantum framework for reasoning about causal influences is tackled. This is done by first analysing the simple example of a common cause, from which a quantum version of Reichenbach’s principle is identified. This quantum principle relies on an identification of quantum conditional independence which can be defined in four ways, each naturally generalising a corresponding definition for classical conditional independence. Not only does this allow one to reason about common causes in a quantum experiments, but it can also be generalised to a full framework of quantum causal models (mirroring how classical causal models generalise Reichenbach’s principle). This new definition of quantum causal models is illustrated by examples and strengthened by it’s foundation on a robust quantum Reichenbach’s principle. An unusual, but surprisingly fruitful, setting for considering quantum ontology is found by considering time travel to the past. This provides a testbed for different ontological concepts in quantum theory and new ways to compare classical and quantum frameworks. It is especially useful for comparing computational properties. In particular, time travel introduces non-linearity to quantum theory, which brings (sometimes implicit) ontological assumptions to the fore while introducing strange new abilities. Here, a model for quantum time travel is presented which arguably has fewer objectionable features than previous attempts, while remaining similarly well-motivated. This model is discussed and compared with previous quantum models, as well as with the classical case. Together, these threads of investigation develop a better understanding of how quantum theory affects possible ontologies and how ontological prejudices influence quantum theory.
Abstract In rough terms, the quantum measurement problem is the problem of explaining how, when a system in a superposition state is measured, the pointer observable of the measuring apparatus is always found in a definite value. Although quantum mechanics involves several interpretative challenges, the measurement problem has been the main focus of the interest of physicists and philosophers working on the foundations of the theory: most interpretations were designed specifically to solve it. In this chapter, it is shown that the MHI offers a solution to the measurement problem for both ideal and non-ideal measurements, and that, in the non-ideal case, the interpretation distinguishes between reliable and non-reliable measurements. I have also explained how the MHI accounts for consecutive measurements. Finally, it is emphasized that the MHI approach provides a new, more physical understanding of the concept of quantum measurement.