Some interpretations of quantum mechanics try to describe the probabilistic nature of quantum measurements in a way that allows a system in a pure state to always have precise (if not simultaneously knowable) values for all its observable variables. In what might be called a simple ensemble interpretation, the quantum mechanical state vector is assumed to define a statistical ensemble of identically prepared systems, each of which has precise values for all its observable variables, and the act of measurement is equivalenced to a straightforward sampling of that ensemble. It is shown here, in a manner that should be suitable for a first course in quantum mechanics, that a simple ensemble interpretation is not possible for some quantum systems, and hence is untenable as a general premise. The analysis is essentially a repackaging of the Bell argument against hidden variables, although hidden variables are never invoked here.
Some interpretations of quantum mechanics try to describe the probabilistic nature of quantum measurements in a way that allows a system in a pure state to always have precise (if not simultaneously knowable) values for all its observable variables. In what might be called a simple ensemble interpretation, the quantum mechanical state vector is assumed to define a statistical ensemble of identically prepared systems, each of which has precise values for all its observable variables, and the act of measurement is equivalenced to a straightforward sampling of that ensemble. It is shown here, in a manner that should be suitable for a first course in quantum mechanics, that a simple ensemble interpretation is not possible for some quantum systems, and hence is untenable as a general premise. The analysis is essentially a repackaging of the Bell argument against hidden variables, although hidden variables are never invoked here.
The Statistical Interpretation of quantum theory is formulated for the purpose of providing a sound interpretation using a minimum of assumptions. Several arguments are advanced in favor of considering the quantum state description to apply only to an ensemble of similarily prepared systems, rather than supposing, as is often done, that it exhaustively represents an individual physical system. Most of the problems associated with the quantum theory of measurement are artifacts of the attempt to maintain the latter interpretation. The introduction of hidden variables to determine the outcome of individual events is fully compatible with the statistical predictions of quantum theory. However, a theorem due to Bell seems to require that any such hidden-variable theory which reproduces all of quantum mechanics exactly (i.e., not merely in some limiting case) must possess a rather pathological character with respect to correlated, but spacially separated, systems.
This year we celebrate 100 years of quantum mechanics (QM). Incorrect interpretations of QM and incorrect mental models of the invisible details of quantum phenomena lead to paradoxes. To explain these, we advocate the statistical contextual interpretation (SCI) of quantum mechanics. State vectors (wave functions) and various operators are purely mathematical entities that permit quantitative probabilistic predictions. “State vector” describes an ensemble of identically prepared physical systems, and a specific “operator” represents a class of equivalent measurements of a physical observable. A collapse of wavefunction is not a mysterious and instantaneous physical process; a collapsed quantum state describes a new ensemble of physical systems prepared in a particular way. A value of a physical observable, such as a spin projection, associated with a pure quantum ensemble is a characteristic of this ensemble created by its interaction with measuring instruments. Probabilities are objective properties of random experiments in which empirical frequencies stabilize. Following Einstein, SCI rejects the claim that QM provides a complete description of individual physical systems, but it remains agnostic about whether a more detailed subquantum description can be found or is necessary. In conformity with Bohr contextuality, SCI rejects Bell-local and Bell-causal hidden variable models. Nevertheless, by incorporating into a probabilistic model contextual hidden variable measuring instruments, long distance quantum correlations studied in Bell tests can be explained without evoking quantum nonlocality or retro-causality. SCI allows the explanation of several quantum phenomena without evoking quantum magic. SCI does not claim to provide a complete description of quantum phenomena; in fact, it is unknown whether quantum probabilities even provide a complete description of existing experimental data. Time series of experimental data may contain much more information than is obtained using empirical frequencies and histograms. Therefore, predictable completeness of QM must be tested and not taken for granted.
In this paper, we shall show how the theory of measurements is to be understood from the point of view of a physical interpretation of the quantum theory in terms of "hidden" variables, developed in a previous paper. We find that in principle, these "hidden" variables determine the precise results of each individual measurement process. In practice, however, in measurements that we now know how to carry out, the observing apparatus disturbs the observed system in an unpredictable and uncontrollable way, so that the uncertainty principle is obtained as a practical limitation on the possible precision of measurements. This limitation is not, however, inherent in the conceptual structure of our interpretation. We shall see, for example, that simultaneous measurements of position and momentum having unlimited precision would in principle be possible if, as suggested in the previous paper, the mathematical formulation of the quantum theory needs to be modified at very short distances in certain ways that are consistent with our interpretation but not with the usual interpretation.We give a simple explanation of the origin of quantum-mechanical correlations of distant objects in the hypothetical experiment of Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen, which was suggested by these authors as a criticism of the usual interpretation.Finally, we show that von Neumann's proof that quantum theory is not consistent with hidden variables does not apply to our interpretation, because the hidden variables contemplated here depend both on the state of the measuring apparatus and the observed system and therefore go beyond certain of von Neumann's assumptions.In two appendixes, we treat the problem of the electromagnetic field in our interpretation and answer certain additional objections which have arisen in the attempt to give a precise description for an individual system at the quantum level.
The Question of the Completeness of Quantum Mechanics When a classical system is in a pure state, that is, when its preparation represents maximal information, the value of every physical quantity is uniquely predicted. In other words, classical pure states are dispersion-free, and classical mechanics is deterministic. Only in case the state is nonpure, thus representing nonmaximal information about the system, does probability enter into the theory. Things are different with quantum systems. Even in case the state of the system is pure, it is impossible to predict a definite value of every physical quantity: only the probability distributions of the physical quantities are given. Pure quantum states have dispersion (though, of course, they can be dispersion-free for particular physical quantities), and probability enters into quantum theory at a much more fundamental level. The basic idea of so-called hidden-variable theories is to reject the fundamental role of probability in quantum theory and to argue that probability arises because quantum states, even the pure ones, do not represent the ultimate information about the system. Accordingly, it is conjectured that there are certain hidden variables, not yet subject to experimental detection, which would complete the information carried by the quantum states, thus giving rise to so precise a knowledge of the system that probabilities would disappear and precise values of all physical quantities would be uniquely determined.
Introduction To know the quantum mechanical state of a system implies, in general, only statistical restrictions on the results of measurements. It seems interesting to ask if this statistical element be thought of as arising, as in classical statistical mechanics, because the states in question are averages over better defined states for which individually the results would be quite determined. These hypothetical ‘dispersion free’ states would be specified not only by the quantum mechanical state vector but also by additional ‘hidden variables’ – ‘hidden’ because if states with prescribed values of these variables could actually be prepared, quantum mechanics would be observably inadequate. Whether this question is indeed interesting has been the subject of debate. The present paper does not contribute to that debate. It is addressed to those who do find the question interesting, and more particularly to those among them who believe that ‘the question concerning the existence of such hidden variables received an early and rather decisive answer in the form of von Neumann's proof on the mathematical impossibility of such variables in quantum theory.’ An attempt will be made to clarify what von Neumann and his successors actually demonstrated. This will cover, as well as von Neumann's treatment, the recent version of the argument by Jauch and Piron, and the stronger result consequent on the work of Gleason. It will be urged that these analyses leave the real question untouched.
Historical remarks The quantum mechanical formalism discovered by Heisenberg [Heis 25] an Schrödinger [Schrö 26] in 1925 was first interpreted in a statistical sense by Born [Born 26]. The formal expressions p (φ, a i ) = |(φ,φ ai )| 2 , i ∈ N, were interpreted as the probabilities that a quantum system S with preparation φ possesses the value a i that belongs to the state φ ai . This original Born interpretation, which was formulated for scattering processes, was, however, not tenable in the general case. The probabilities must not be related to the system S in state φ, since in the preparation φ the value a i of an observable A is in general not subjectively unknown but objectively undecided. Instead, one has to interpret the formal expressions p ( a i , a i ) as the probabilities of finding the value a i after measurement of the observable A of the system S with preparation φ. In this improved version, the statistical or Born interpretation is used in the present-day literature. On the one hand, the statistical (Born) interpretation of quantum mechanics is usually taken for granted, and the formalism of quantum mechanics is considered as a theory that provides statistical predictions referring to a sufficiently large ensemble of identically prepared systems S (φ) after the measurement of the observable in question. On the other hand, the meaning of the same formal terms p (φ, a i ) for an individual system is highly problematic.