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

Physics Today

Measured responses to quantum Bayesianism

Art Hobson

Published Nov 30, 2012• 1 citation
Publisher

Abstract

Because it’s important that physicists discuss the problems of quantum foundations, I was delighted to see David Mermin’s commentary on “fixing the shifty split.” But I must disagree with my friend’s view.There are multiple ways of interpreting probabilities.11. A. Hobson, Concepts in Statistical Mechanics, Gordon and Breach, New York (1971), p. 27. In quantum physics, the Bayesian “degree of belief” interpretation can be appropriate for mixed states, but only the frequentist or “ensemble” interpretation applies to the pure states that Mermin discusses.A recent paper by Matthew Pusey and coauthors22. M. F. Pusey, J. Barrett, T. Rudolph, http://arxiv.org/abs/1111.3328v1. concludes that if two different pure quantum states are assigned to a single physical situation, one of the states is objectively wrong. The proof’s main assumption is that any quantum system has some set of real physical properties, labeled λ. Pusey and coauthors show that two different pure states cannot represent the same λ. So, although their paper implies but does not assume that quantum states are physically real, it does assume that each specific physical situation has behind it some kind of physical reality. Chris Fuchs, quoted favorably by Mermin, might dispute the notion that some kind of physical reality actually exists, but most physicists are probably sufficiently realist to grant that notion. Without such a notion, science lies somewhere between solipsism and superstition.Whenever I hear subjective interpretations of quantum physics, I wonder about such questions as the one Mermin quotes from Albert Einstein: Can a mouse collapse a wavefunction? Mermin’s Bayesian response, that a mouse cannot but a physics student can, doesn’t reassure me. Were wavefunctions not collapsing before there were physicists?The “Wigner’s friend” paradox, as described in Mermin’s commentary, doesn’t need a subjective interpretation to find a solution. In fact, Eugene Wigner abandoned his interpretation around 1970 once he became aware of the ideas underlying quantum decoherence.33. M. Schlosshauer, Decoherence and the Quantum-to-Classical Transition, Springer, Berlin (2007), p. 364. Suppose Wigner’s friend makes a measurement, the outcome of which is known to the friend but not to Wigner. Regardless of whether the outcome is known, and in fact regardless of the presence of the friend, the measurement device must decohere the quantum system that’s being measured, putting the system into a mixed state of the either/or form, with no interferences, just like a coin that’s been flipped. A definite outcome has thus occurred, and Wigner and his friend will both agree on this. Neither the friend nor Wigner affects the outcome. She has simply “looked” and now knows the outcome, while Wigner doesn’t know. That is not paradoxical and does not require a revision of our understanding of pure quantum states.There’s no reason to give up on a realist interpretation of quantum physics, much less a realist interpretation of nature itself.REFERENCESSection:ChooseTop of pageREFERENCES <<1. A. Hobson, Concepts in Statistical Mechanics, Gordon and Breach, New York (1971), p. 27. Google Scholar2. M. F. Pusey, J. Barrett, T. Rudolph, http://arxiv.org/abs/1111.3328v1. Google Scholar3. M. Schlosshauer, Decoherence and the Quantum-to-Classical Transition, Springer, Berlin (2007), p. 364. Google Scholar© 2012 American Institute of Physics.

DOI
10.1063/pt.3.1801

Related papers

Measured responses to quantum Bayesianism

Michael Nauenberg

Some time ago, John Bell and I wrote a tongue-in-cheek article on the interpretation of quantum mechanics;11. J. S. Bell, M. Nauenberg, in Preludes in Theoretical Physics, A. de Shalit, H. Feshbach, L. van Hove, eds., North Holland, Amsterdam (1966), p. 270;reprinted in J. S. Bell, Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics, Cambridge U. Press, New York (1987), p. 24. in it we remarked that only a minority of physicists had any interest in the topic and that the typical physicist thought he would understand it “if ever he can spare twenty minutes to think about it.” According to David Mermin, however, that situation has changed dramatically, and “new interpretations [of quantum mechanics] appear every year.”Actually, most textbooks on the subject continue to be based on the well-established Born interpretation of quantum mechanics, which postulates that the absolute square of the Schrödinger wavefunction, projected onto a particular quantum state, gives the probability for the occurrence of that state after an appropriate measurement has been made. Mermin indicated that the problem with the Born interpretation involves a confusion, “prevalent among physicists,” regarding the nature of probability. He presented his preference for a “personalist Bayesian view,” which leads separate “agents,” like Eugene Wigner and his friend, to make different probability assignments based on their beliefs. But as Richard Feynman remarked, “Nature does not know what you are looking at, and she behaves the way she is going to behave whether you bother to take down the data or not.”22. R. P. Feynman, R. B. Leighton, M. Sands, The Feynman Lectures on Physics, vol. 3, Addison-Wesley, Redwood City, CA (1989), p. 3–7.Indeed, as applied to experiments, probability simply corresponds to the relative frequency for the occurrence of a given final state after identical states are prepared initially and measurements are made by appropriate detectors—devices that, through an irreversible macroscopic process, provide a permanent record of the outcome. Hence, the results of an experiment are independent of any observers, whose only role is to set up appropriate measurement devices, calculate the probabilities from quantum theory, and then write papers based on the recorded results.As Max Born also emphasized, in classical mechanics the situation is analogous, when one takes into account that in practice initial conditions in an experiment are known only imprecisely.33. M. Born, Dan. Mat. Fys. Medd. 30 (2), 1 (1955). Hence the observed evolution of the system is also determined by a probability function that satisfies the Liouville equation. But in that case, after a measurement is performed, no one talks about the “collapse” of this classical function, whereas in quantum mechanics it is common to use that controversial expression for the Schrödinger wavefunction.Mermin discussed a “shifty split” between the classical and the quantum domain, a split that supposedly “haunts quantum mechanics.” He claimed that “regardless of what is split from what, all versions of the shifty split are vague and ambiguous.” However, that is not always the case, as a simple example shows. Consider an initial quantum wavepacket for a particle under an attractive central force that varies inversely with the square of the radial distance—the classic problem of planetary motion from the viewpoint of quantum mechanics, for example, or an excited electron in a Rydberg atom. For a finite time, the wavepacket will follow a classical Keplerian elliptic orbit, but like the Liouville distribution for the analogous classical problem, from the outset it will disperse due to the spread in initial position and momentum.For the classical distribution to be in close correspondence with the quantum wavepacket, its initial spread is assumed to satisfy the uncertainty relation. Eventually, however, the head of the wavepacket, like in the classical distribution, will catch up with its tail. Afterwards, further spreading of the wavepacket leads to interference effects between the two components, and the classical–quantum correspondence ceases to be valid. The time when such interference effects first appear is of order nτ/3, where n is the mean principal quantum number of the wavepacket and τ is the Kepler period.44. M. Nauenberg, Phys. Rev. A 40, 1133 (1989). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.40.1133 Experimentally, that transition has been observed to agree with theory in Rydberg atoms55. M. Nauenberg, C. Stroud, J. Yeazell, Sci. Am., June 1994, p. 44. https://doi.org/10.1038/scientificamerican0694-44 for n = 100, τ = 152 picoseconds, and nothing shifty about this classical–quantum correspondence is found. For planetary orbits, however, n is of order 1070, and therefore the answer to Albert Einstein’s often repeated remark “Is the moon there when nobody looks?” (see David Mermin, Physics Today, April 1985, page 38) is yes.REFERENCESSection:ChooseTop of pageREFERENCES <<1. J. S. Bell, M. Nauenberg, in Preludes in Theoretical Physics, A. de Shalit, H. Feshbach, L. van Hove, eds., North Holland, Amsterdam (1966), p. 270; Google Scholarreprinted in J. S. Bell, Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics, Cambridge U. Press, New York (1987), p. 24. Google Scholar2. R. P. Feynman, R. B. Leighton, M. Sands, The Feynman Lectures on Physics, vol. 3, Addison-Wesley, Redwood City, CA (1989), p. 3–7. Google Scholar3. M. Born, Dan. Mat. Fys. Medd. 30 (2), 1 (1955). Google Scholar4. M. Nauenberg, Phys. Rev. A 40, 1133 (1989). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.40.1133, Google ScholarCrossref, CAS5. M. Nauenberg, C. Stroud, J. Yeazell, Sci. Am., June 1994, p. 44. https://doi.org/10.1038/scientificamerican0694-44, Google ScholarCrossref© 2012 American Institute of Physics.

Physics Today•Nov 30, 2012•0 citations

Measured responses to quantum Bayesianism

N. David Mermin

Mermin replies: Robert Griffiths takes my joke about an undergraduate collapsing a wavepacket to be an attempt to solve the measurement problem. The actual QBist solution—versions of which predate QBism (see, for example, reference 11. J. B. Hartle, Am. J. Phys. 36, 704 (1968). https://doi.org/10.1119/1.1975096)—is that a quantum state is not an objective property of the world but a compendium of probabilities constructed by an agent. When an agent updates her state assignment, nothing changes in her external world. The only change is in the agent’s expectations for her subsequent experience of that world, and therefore there is no measurement problem. Consistent historians agree that collapse is not a physical process, but for entirely different reasons.QBism takes the “mysterious whatever-it-is” that Griffiths criticizes in quantum orthodoxy to be the experience induced in an agent by the world. That, and the fact that different agents may have different experiences, drains the swamp, slays the dragon, and quiets the maddening paradoxes.QBists hold that any agent can indeed apply quantum mechanics to her own external world, from quarks to quasars. Only an agent’s personal, directly perceived experience is boxed off from the domain of applicability. That exclusion disagrees with most versions of the many-worlds interpretation, but it does not limit the scope of science: Alice can apply quantum mechanics to the experience of another agent, Bob, as represented through his words, writings, or drawings, all of which do belong to her external world.The way in which Bob’s experience impinges on Alice resonates with Niels Bohr’s emphasis on the need to state results of experiments in ordinary language. It also addresses Ching Hung Woo’s question of how different agents can come to agreement on their state assignments.Griffiths correctly notes that QBism violates the first desideratum he quotes from my 15-year-old “Ithaca interpretation.” Like Barack Obama’s view of marriage, my thinking about quantum foundations has evolved. But Griffiths wrongly claims that QBism rejects the other desideratum he quotes: locality. Actually, QBism insists on it. The absurdity of quantum nonlocality provides an independent argument that quantum states cannot be objective internal properties of the systems they describe, whether or not one regards probabilities as subjective. Griffiths is probably right, however, that John Bell would not have been pleased with how QBists fix his shifty split.I would not call QBism an “antiquated approach.” It is younger than Griffiths’ consistent histories and, as I have remarked upon elsewhere,22. M. Schlosshauer, ed., Elegance and Enigma: The Quantum Interviews, Springer, Berlin (2011), pp. 177, 280. taking reality itself to be relative to what he calls a framework, is vastly more radical than taking quantum state assignments to be relative to an agent.But foreshadowings of QBism can indeed be found in antiquity. Since writing my commentary, I came across another striking anticipation in a 1931 letter from Erwin Schrödinger to Arnold Sommerfeld:33. K. von Meyenn, ed., Eine Entdeckung von ganz außerordentlicher Tragweite: Schrödingers Briefwechsel zur Wellenmechanik und zum Katzenparadoxon, Springer, Berlin (2011), p. 490. “Quantum mechanics forbids statements about what really exists—statements about the object. It deals only with the object–subject relation. Although this holds, after all, for any description of nature, it appears to hold in a much more radical and far-reaching sense in quantum mechanics” (translated by N. D. Mermin and Ruediger Schack).When Bell and Michael Nauenberg wrote their delightful article in 1966, there was indeed much less interest in quantum foundations than there is today. Most textbooks have wisely steered clear of the many contemporary interpretive positions, since none of them are held by more than a fraction of those physicists with an interest in such issues.QBists do not reject the Born rule for calculating probabilities, but they do reject the objective frequentist interpretation of those probabilities presented by Nauenberg and held by most physicists. The frequentist view is notoriously circular. It defines probability using such notions as “equally probable,” “unlikely,” or (with Nauenberg) “identically prepared,” none of which make sense without a prior definition of probability. “Identically prepared” might seem safe from circularity, but two different preparations cannot be strictly identical. It would be more accurate to say they must differ in unimportant ways. Unimportant for what? For the probabilities of the outcomes.When I started to learn about subjective probability, I was surprised to discover that most of the books were not in Cornell University’s physics or mathematics libraries but in the business school library. In our recent election, Americans have been told that business experience is necessary for being president; I would suggest that it may be even more helpful for understanding quantum mechanics.I cannot tell from Nauenberg’s remarks about the Liouville equation whether he agrees with the view of QBists (and many others) that the collapse of the wavefunction is no more than the updating of a collection of probability distributions.Nauenberg’s example of the Rydberg atom does not contradict the QBist resolution of Bell’s shifty split. The Rydberg atom is part of the world external to the agent, and therefore on the quantum side of her split. There are indeed circumstances under which fully quantum mechanical behavior can look very classical.Art Hobson repeats the common view that only mixed states can be associated with subjective probabilities. QBism takes that to be the very mistake that got us lost for so long in the quantum swamp. Hobson also believes that wavefunctions were collapsing before there were physicists. Does he believe that probabilities were updating before there were statisticians?Hobson wrongly claims that Chris Fuchs “might dispute the notion that some kind of physical reality actually exists.” What he and other QBists do deny is that there are properties of the external world—“elements of reality”—that underlie quantum state assignments. (The argument of Matthew Pusey and coauthors that Hobson cites, implying that quantum states are physically real, relies on such hidden variables.) An agent’s state assignment rests entirely on her experience of the external world. It is neither solipsistic nor superstitious to maintain that any agent’s experience comes fully into being only at the moment it is experienced.Hobson’s treatment of Eugene Wigner and his friend relies on decoherence producing an objective mixed state, which both of them must agree on. But since quantum mechanics holds all the way out to infinity (as Griffiths puts it), even from an objective view of quantum states, that switch from superposition to either/or is at best a FAPP solution, to use Bell’s wonderfully sardonic abbreviation of “for all practical purposes.”QBism does not, as Hobson concludes, give up on a realist interpretation of nature. But it does warn us not to confuse nature with the abstractions we have ingeniously constructed to help any agent deal with the very real impact of nature on his or her own internal experience (see my Reference Frame, Physics Today, May 2009, page 8).I’m glad that Blake Stacey has called attention to some of the more applied spinoffs of QBism. I’m also pleased that he mentions Bruno de Finetti, one of the great 20th-century pioneers of subjective probability. Indeed, since there are objective as well as subjective Bayesians, if I had my way, the B in QBism would stand not for Thomas Bayes, but for Bruno de Finetti, who put the crucial point like this: “The abandonment of superstitious beliefs about the existence of Phlogiston, the Cosmic Ether, Absolute Space and Time … , or Fairies and Witches, was an essential step along the road to scientific thinking. Probability, too, if regarded as something endowed with some kind of objective existence, is no less a misleading misconception, an illusory attempt to exteriorize or materialize our [actual (vero)] probabilistic beliefs.”44. B. de Finetti, Theory of Probability, Interscience, New York (1990), preface.REFERENCESSection:ChooseTop of pageREFERENCES <<1. J. B. Hartle, Am. J. Phys. 36, 704 (1968). https://doi.org/10.1119/1.1975096, Google ScholarCrossref2. M. Schlosshauer, ed., Elegance and Enigma: The Quantum Interviews, Springer, Berlin (2011), pp. 177, 280. Google ScholarCrossref3. K. von Meyenn, ed., Eine Entdeckung von ganz außerordentlicher Tragweite: Schrödingers Briefwechsel zur Wellenmechanik und zum Katzenparadoxon, Springer, Berlin (2011), p. 490. Google ScholarCrossref4. B. de Finetti, Theory of Probability, Interscience, New York (1990), preface. Google Scholar© 2012 American Institute of Physics.

Physics Today•Nov 30, 2012•6 citations

More on the quantum measurement problem

Art Hobson

In his June 2022 Quick Study (page 62), David Mermin argues that “the quantum state of a system expresses only the belief of the particular physicist who assigns it to the system.” Applying that to quantum measurements, he finds that “the acquisition of further information by that physicist … can lead to an abrupt change in those probabilities and thus to an updating of the quantum state that the physicist uses to represent them. There is no quantum measurement problem.”But wavefunctions have been collapsing ever since the Big Bang, with no assistance from physicists. An apparatus’s display of a measurement outcome occurs even if the experimenters happen to be out of the room. When a cosmic-ray proton strikes a sand grain on Mars and moves the grain, a quantum measurement occurs and the proton’s wavefunction collapses regardless of the absence of humans.Roger Carpenter and Andrew Anderson of the University of Cambridge performed a “Schrödinger’s cat” experiment that demolishes Mermin’s interpretation. Instead of connecting a Geiger counter to a cat-killing device, they mercifully connected it to a hammer that would fall without harm. Their strategy was to split information about the experimental result between two observers in such a way that neither observer can know the outcome. The observers learn the outcome later by sharing their information. The question is then, Did the hammer fall at the time of the experiment or later, when the observers became conscious of the outcome? The result: The hammer fell when the nucleus decayed, not later when the observers became conscious of the outcome. I think nearly all physicists would have predicted that. My hat is off to Carpenter and Anderson, who reported it with a straight face.11. R. H. S. Carpenter, A. J. Anderson, Ann. Fond. Louis de Broglie 31, 45 (2006).Humans and their consciousness have nothing to do with quantum physics. Photons, electrons, and the like, as well as their states, are real configurations of fields that have existed throughout the universe since the Big Bang.22. A. Hobson, Am. J. Phys. 81, 211 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1119/1.4789885Nevertheless, I agree with Mermin’s title: There is no quantum measurement problem, because quantum physics, with no special interpretation and without a collapse postulate, logically implies that superpositions collapse nonlocally to a single definite outcome.33. A. Hobson, Quantum Eng. 2022, 1 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/5889159ReferencesSection:ChooseTop of pageReferences <<CITING ARTICLES1. R. H. S. Carpenter, A. J. Anderson, Ann. Fond. Louis de Broglie 31, 45 (2006). Google Scholar2. A. Hobson, Am. J. Phys. 81, 211 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1119/1.4789885, Google ScholarCrossref, ISI3. A. Hobson, Quantum Eng. 2022, 1 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/5889159, Google ScholarCrossref© 2022 American Institute of Physics.

Physics Today•Nov 1, 2022•1 citation

More on the quantum measurement problem

N. David Mermin

Among Art Hobson’s and Gregory Derry’s letters and Sean Carroll’s July Quick Study (page 62), only Derry’s letter addresses the point I was trying to make in my June Quick Study (page 62): Viewing probabilities as personal judgments eliminates the quantum measurement problem and enables one to make better sense of quantum mechanics.Hobson’s letter expounds his own realistic view of quantum states and their collapse. It belongs with the three examples I mention that eliminate the physicist from the story.Carroll takes what I write about the consequences of a personalist interpretation of probability to be an example of an epistemic interpretation of quantum mechanics. That misses my point.In 1926 Max Born noted that the content of quantum states was the probabilities that they enabled one to calculate. It is strange that after thus elevating probability to a new and foundational role, no physicists then or for the next three-quarters of a century thought it important to reexamine the meaning of probability. For most physicists, probabilities are user-independent frequencies, but for most statisticians, they are guides to action by the person who made the probability assignment. If physicists in 1926 had held a personalist view of probability, it would have required them from the very beginning to hold a personalist (“epistemic”) view of quantum states. There would have been no need for an “interpretation.”I have comments on several issues raised by Derry. Max Jammer and many others have indeed written for over half a century that quantum states are nothing more than formal devices for encapsulating probabilities of observation. But nobody before Carlton Caves, Christopher Fuchs, and Rüdiger Schack ever added that if probabilities are viewed as personal judgments of the person who assigns them, then that same view must be taken of quantum states.Derry quotes Niels Bohr’s statement that he does not “appeal to the observing subject.” Later in that paragraph, Bohr adds that “all subjectivity is avoided by proper attention to the circumstances required for the well-defined use of elementary physical concepts.”11. N. Bohr, Essays 1958–1962 on Atomic Physics and Human Knowledge, Ox Bow Press (1987), p. 7. That does contradict my reading of the two Bohr quotations that appear in my Quick Study. By “experience,” Bohr must have meant collective rather than individual experience. I doubt that Bohr took a personalist view of probability. That Bohr, however, was a personalist is argued interestingly by Ulrich Mohrhoff.22. U. Mohrhoff, https://arxiv.org/abs/1905.07118.I quote Bruno de Finetti on “Fairies and Witches” only to give a poetic statement of the unfamiliar view of probability that I am inviting physicists to examine. My point is that if de Finetti is correct, then it would profoundly affect our understanding of quantum mechanics. For me, the illumination it sheds on the interpretation of quantum mechanics is all by itself a compelling reason for adopting a personalist view of probability.The expansion of my argument that Derry looks forward to reading can be found in the article of mine33. N. D. Mermin, Rep. Prog. Phys. 82, 012002 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6633/aae2c6 cited in my Quick Study along with the rather more technical article44. C. A. Fuchs, R. Schack, Rev. Mod. Phys. 85, 1693 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.85.1693 by Fuchs and Schack that inspired mine.ReferencesSection:ChooseTop of pageReferences <<CITING ARTICLES1. N. Bohr, Essays 1958–1962 on Atomic Physics and Human Knowledge, Ox Bow Press (1987), p. 7. Google Scholar2. U. Mohrhoff, https://arxiv.org/abs/1905.07118. Google Scholar3. N. D. Mermin, Rep. Prog. Phys. 82, 012002 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6633/aae2c6, Google ScholarCrossref4. C. A. Fuchs, R. Schack, Rev. Mod. Phys. 85, 1693 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.85.1693, Google ScholarCrossref, ISI© 2022 American Institute of Physics.

Physics Today•Nov 1, 2022•1 citation

More on the quantum measurement problem

Gregory N. Derry

Although I have neither an objection to nor an endorsement of David Mermin’s major premise in his Quick Study, “There is no quantum measurement problem” (Physics Today, June 2022, page 62), I would like to make several contextual points.Mermin’s argument has an extensive history, along with a comparable history of rebuttal. Five decades ago Max Jammer wrote that “measurements in quantum mechanics are no more or less problematic than in classical physics, for the Hilbert space vector is only a purely formal device for relating the statistics associated with these arrangements to the physics of observations in classical physics.” That seems like a condensed version of the argument Mermin presents. On the following page, however, Jammer notes that a “problematic aspect whose serious implications were only gradually understood was the fact that as long as a quantum mechanical one-body or many-body system does not interact with macroscopic objects, as long as its motion is described by the deterministic Schrödinger time-dependent equation, no events could be considered to take place in the system.”11. M. Jammer, The Philosophy of Quantum Mechanics: The Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics in Historical Perspective, Wiley (1974), pp. 473, 474.Niels Bohr giving a lecture in Copenhagen in April 1929. (Photograph by Samuel Goudsmit, courtesy of the AIP Emilio Segrè Visual Archives, Goudsmit Collection.)PPT|High resolutionRegarding the quotations from Niels Bohr, Mermin’s point is entirely valid and represents Bohr’s position accurately, but Bohr’s thought is always subtle and difficult to capture completely. Another quotation from Bohr, which is consistent with everything else he wrote, is, “The decisive point is that in neither case does the appropriate widening of our conceptual framework imply any appeal to the observing subject, which would hinder unambiguous communication of experience.”22. N. Bohr, Essays 1958–1962 on Atomic Physics and Human Knowledge, Ox Bow Press (1987), p. 7. That quotation seems inconsistent with Mermin’s paragraph that includes the passage “Why should I insist that my interpretation of science, which I use to make sense of the world that I experience, should never make any mention of me?” Bohr always insisted that his framework was a rational “generalization” of classical objectivity.The last and most conceptually important point concerns the ontological status of probability. I don’t necessarily disagree with Mermin and Bruno de Finetti, but it is by no means obvious that they are correct either. David Hawkins, for example, begins 50 pages of rigorous analysis with a brief statement of a major premise.The obvious and natural interpretation of probability in this context is that it introduces, not something that has to do with the nature of the physical system, but something that has to do with the incompleteness of our knowledge….But this opinion turns out to be false. Ignorance of dynamical regularity may be a motive for resorting to probabilities, but it does not explain the probabilities to which we resort.33. D. Hawkins, The Language of Nature: An Essay in the Philosophy of Science, W. H. Freeman (1964), p. 135.Another example can be found in Jammer’s well-known historical account of quantum theory: “For Einstein the notion of probability … was the traditional conception of classical physics, a mathematical objectivization of the human deficiency of complete or exact knowledge but ultimately a creation of the human mind…. For Born probability, as far as it was related to the wave function, was not merely a mathematical fiction but something endowed with physical reality.”44. M. Jammer, The Conceptual Development of Quantum Mechanics, McGraw-Hill (1966), p. 286.Of course, such examples don’t mean that Mermin’s position is incorrect, but I do think that they demand a better argument than a comparison to “Fairies and Witches.” I am confident that Mermin has such an argument, and I look forward to reading it as I continue working toward a coherent position on the unresolved interpretational issues of quantum theory.ReferencesSection:ChooseTop of pageReferences <<CITING ARTICLES1. M. Jammer, The Philosophy of Quantum Mechanics: The Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics in Historical Perspective, Wiley (1974), pp. 473, 474. Google Scholar2. N. Bohr, Essays 1958–1962 on Atomic Physics and Human Knowledge, Ox Bow Press (1987), p. 7. Google Scholar3. D. Hawkins, The Language of Nature: An Essay in the Philosophy of Science, W. H. Freeman (1964), p. 135. Google Scholar4. M. Jammer, The Conceptual Development of Quantum Mechanics, McGraw-Hill (1966), p. 286. Google Scholar© 2022 American Institute of Physics.

Physics Today•Nov 1, 2022•2 citations

Fixing the shifty split, Physics Today, July 2012

N. David Mermin

Quantum mechanics is the most useful and powerful theory physicists have ever devised. Yet today, nearly 90 years after its formulation, disagreement about the meaning of the theory is stronger than ever. New interpretations appear every year. None ever disappear. Probability theory is considerably older than quantum mechanics and has also been plagued from the beginning by questions about its meaning. And quantum mechanics is inherently and famously probabilistic. For the past decade, Carl Caves, Chris Fuchs, and Rüdiger Schack have been arguing that the confusion at the foundations of quantum mechanics arises out of a confusion, prevalent among physicists, about the nature of probability [1]. They maintain that if probability is properly understood, the notorious quantum paradoxes either vanish or assume less vexing forms. Most physicists have a frequentist view of probability: Probabilities describe objective properties of ensembles of “identically prepared” systems. Caves, Fuchs, and Schack take a personalist Bayesian view: An agent assigns a probability p to a single event as a measure of her belief that the event will take place [2]. Such an agent is willing to pay less than $ p for a coupon that will pay her $1 if the event happens, and she is willing to underwrite and sell such a coupon for more than $ p . Surprisingly, the standard rules for probability follow from the requirement that an agent should never face certain loss in a single event. (For example, if p exceeded 1, she would pay more than $1 for a coupon that returned at most $1; if p were negative, she would pay somebody to take a coupon from her that might cost her another $1.) Avoiding certain loss is the only constraint on an agent's probability assignments. The probability of an event is not inherent in that event. Different agents, with different beliefs, will in general assign different probabilities to the same event. The personalist Bayesian view of probability is widely held [3], though not by many physicists. It has profound implications for the meaning of quantum mechanics, which Fuchs and Schack call quantum Bayesianism—QBism for short. Since quantum states determine probabilities, if probabilities are indeed assigned by an agent to express her degree of belief, then the quantum state of a physical system is not inherent in that system but assigned by an agent to encapsulate her beliefs about it. State assignments, like probabilities, are relative to an agent.

Cambridge University Press eBooks•Jan 5, 2016•0 citations
Because it’s important that physicists discuss the problems of quantum foundations, I was delighted to see David Mermin’s commentary on “fixing the shifty split.” But I must disagree with my friend’s view.There are multiple ways of interpreting probabilities.11. A. Hobson, Concepts in Statistical Mechanics, Gordon and Breach, New York (1971), p. 27. In quantum physics, the Bayesian “degree of belief” interpretation can be appropriate for mixed states, but only the frequentist or “ensemble” interpretation applies to the pure states that Mermin discusses.A recent paper by Matthew Pusey and coauthors22. M. F. Pusey, J. Barrett, T. Rudolph, http://arxiv.org/abs/1111.3328v1. concludes that if two different pure quantum states are assigned to a single physical situation, one of the states is objectively wrong. The proof’s main assumption is that any quantum system has some set of real physical properties, labeled λ. Pusey and coauthors show that two different pure states cannot represent the same λ. So, although their paper implies but does not assume that quantum states are physically real, it does assume that each specific physical situation has behind it some kind of physical reality. Chris Fuchs, quoted favorably by Mermin, might dispute the notion that some kind of physical reality actually exists, but most physicists are probably sufficiently realist to grant that notion. Without such a notion, science lies somewhere between solipsism and superstition.Whenever I hear subjective interpretations of quantum physics, I wonder about such questions as the one Mermin quotes from Albert Einstein: Can a mouse collapse a wavefunction? Mermin’s Bayesian response, that a mouse cannot but a physics student can, doesn’t reassure me. Were wavefunctions not collapsing before there were physicists?The “Wigner’s friend” paradox, as described in Mermin’s commentary, doesn’t need a subjective interpretation to find a solution. In fact, Eugene Wigner abandoned his interpretation around 1970 once he became aware of the ideas underlying quantum decoherence.33. M. Schlosshauer, Decoherence and the Quantum-to-Classical Transition, Springer, Berlin (2007), p. 364. Suppose Wigner’s friend makes a measurement, the outcome of which is known to the friend but not to Wigner. Regardless of whether the outcome is known, and in fact regardless of the presence of the friend, the measurement device must decohere the quantum system that’s being measured, putting the system into a mixed state of the either/or form, with no interferences, just like a coin that’s been flipped. A definite outcome has thus occurred, and Wigner and his friend will both agree on this. Neither the friend nor Wigner affects the outcome. She has simply “looked” and now knows the outcome, while Wigner doesn’t know. That is not paradoxical and does not require a revision of our understanding of pure quantum states.There’s no reason to give up on a realist interpretation of quantum physics, much less a realist interpretation of nature itself.REFERENCESSection:ChooseTop of pageREFERENCES <<1. A. Hobson, Concepts in Statistical Mechanics, Gordon and Breach, New York (1971), p. 27. Google Scholar2. M. F. Pusey, J. Barrett, T. Rudolph, http://arxiv.org/abs/1111.3328v1. Google Scholar3. M. Schlosshauer, Decoherence and the Quantum-to-Classical Transition, Springer, Berlin (2007), p. 364. Google Scholar© 2012 American Institute of Physics.
Some time ago, John Bell and I wrote a tongue-in-cheek article on the interpretation of quantum mechanics;11. J. S. Bell, M. Nauenberg, in Preludes in Theoretical Physics, A. de Shalit, H. Feshbach, L. van Hove, eds., North Holland, Amsterdam (1966), p. 270;reprinted in J. S. Bell, Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics, Cambridge U. Press, New York (1987), p. 24. in it we remarked that only a minority of physicists had any interest in the topic and that the typical physicist thought he would understand it “if ever he can spare twenty minutes to think about it.” According to David Mermin, however, that situation has changed dramatically, and “new interpretations [of quantum mechanics] appear every year.”Actually, most textbooks on the subject continue to be based on the well-established Born interpretation of quantum mechanics, which postulates that the absolute square of the Schrödinger wavefunction, projected onto a particular quantum state, gives the probability for the occurrence of that state after an appropriate measurement has been made. Mermin indicated that the problem with the Born interpretation involves a confusion, “prevalent among physicists,” regarding the nature of probability. He presented his preference for a “personalist Bayesian view,” which leads separate “agents,” like Eugene Wigner and his friend, to make different probability assignments based on their beliefs. But as Richard Feynman remarked, “Nature does not know what you are looking at, and she behaves the way she is going to behave whether you bother to take down the data or not.”22. R. P. Feynman, R. B. Leighton, M. Sands, The Feynman Lectures on Physics, vol. 3, Addison-Wesley, Redwood City, CA (1989), p. 3–7.Indeed, as applied to experiments, probability simply corresponds to the relative frequency for the occurrence of a given final state after identical states are prepared initially and measurements are made by appropriate detectors—devices that, through an irreversible macroscopic process, provide a permanent record of the outcome. Hence, the results of an experiment are independent of any observers, whose only role is to set up appropriate measurement devices, calculate the probabilities from quantum theory, and then write papers based on the recorded results.As Max Born also emphasized, in classical mechanics the situation is analogous, when one takes into account that in practice initial conditions in an experiment are known only imprecisely.33. M. Born, Dan. Mat. Fys. Medd. 30 (2), 1 (1955). Hence the observed evolution of the system is also determined by a probability function that satisfies the Liouville equation. But in that case, after a measurement is performed, no one talks about the “collapse” of this classical function, whereas in quantum mechanics it is common to use that controversial expression for the Schrödinger wavefunction.Mermin discussed a “shifty split” between the classical and the quantum domain, a split that supposedly “haunts quantum mechanics.” He claimed that “regardless of what is split from what, all versions of the shifty split are vague and ambiguous.” However, that is not always the case, as a simple example shows. Consider an initial quantum wavepacket for a particle under an attractive central force that varies inversely with the square of the radial distance—the classic problem of planetary motion from the viewpoint of quantum mechanics, for example, or an excited electron in a Rydberg atom. For a finite time, the wavepacket will follow a classical Keplerian elliptic orbit, but like the Liouville distribution for the analogous classical problem, from the outset it will disperse due to the spread in initial position and momentum.For the classical distribution to be in close correspondence with the quantum wavepacket, its initial spread is assumed to satisfy the uncertainty relation. Eventually, however, the head of the wavepacket, like in the classical distribution, will catch up with its tail. Afterwards, further spreading of the wavepacket leads to interference effects between the two components, and the classical–quantum correspondence ceases to be valid. The time when such interference effects first appear is of order nτ/3, where n is the mean principal quantum number of the wavepacket and τ is the Kepler period.44. M. Nauenberg, Phys. Rev. A 40, 1133 (1989). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.40.1133 Experimentally, that transition has been observed to agree with theory in Rydberg atoms55. M. Nauenberg, C. Stroud, J. Yeazell, Sci. Am., June 1994, p. 44. https://doi.org/10.1038/scientificamerican0694-44 for n = 100, τ = 152 picoseconds, and nothing shifty about this classical–quantum correspondence is found. For planetary orbits, however, n is of order 1070, and therefore the answer to Albert Einstein’s often repeated remark “Is the moon there when nobody looks?” (see David Mermin, Physics Today, April 1985, page 38) is yes.REFERENCESSection:ChooseTop of pageREFERENCES <<1. J. S. Bell, M. Nauenberg, in Preludes in Theoretical Physics, A. de Shalit, H. Feshbach, L. van Hove, eds., North Holland, Amsterdam (1966), p. 270; Google Scholarreprinted in J. S. Bell, Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics, Cambridge U. Press, New York (1987), p. 24. Google Scholar2. R. P. Feynman, R. B. Leighton, M. Sands, The Feynman Lectures on Physics, vol. 3, Addison-Wesley, Redwood City, CA (1989), p. 3–7. Google Scholar3. M. Born, Dan. Mat. Fys. Medd. 30 (2), 1 (1955). Google Scholar4. M. Nauenberg, Phys. Rev. A 40, 1133 (1989). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.40.1133, Google ScholarCrossref, CAS5. M. Nauenberg, C. Stroud, J. Yeazell, Sci. Am., June 1994, p. 44. https://doi.org/10.1038/scientificamerican0694-44, Google ScholarCrossref© 2012 American Institute of Physics.
Mermin replies: Robert Griffiths takes my joke about an undergraduate collapsing a wavepacket to be an attempt to solve the measurement problem. The actual QBist solution—versions of which predate QBism (see, for example, reference 11. J. B. Hartle, Am. J. Phys. 36, 704 (1968). https://doi.org/10.1119/1.1975096)—is that a quantum state is not an objective property of the world but a compendium of probabilities constructed by an agent. When an agent updates her state assignment, nothing changes in her external world. The only change is in the agent’s expectations for her subsequent experience of that world, and therefore there is no measurement problem. Consistent historians agree that collapse is not a physical process, but for entirely different reasons.QBism takes the “mysterious whatever-it-is” that Griffiths criticizes in quantum orthodoxy to be the experience induced in an agent by the world. That, and the fact that different agents may have different experiences, drains the swamp, slays the dragon, and quiets the maddening paradoxes.QBists hold that any agent can indeed apply quantum mechanics to her own external world, from quarks to quasars. Only an agent’s personal, directly perceived experience is boxed off from the domain of applicability. That exclusion disagrees with most versions of the many-worlds interpretation, but it does not limit the scope of science: Alice can apply quantum mechanics to the experience of another agent, Bob, as represented through his words, writings, or drawings, all of which do belong to her external world.The way in which Bob’s experience impinges on Alice resonates with Niels Bohr’s emphasis on the need to state results of experiments in ordinary language. It also addresses Ching Hung Woo’s question of how different agents can come to agreement on their state assignments.Griffiths correctly notes that QBism violates the first desideratum he quotes from my 15-year-old “Ithaca interpretation.” Like Barack Obama’s view of marriage, my thinking about quantum foundations has evolved. But Griffiths wrongly claims that QBism rejects the other desideratum he quotes: locality. Actually, QBism insists on it. The absurdity of quantum nonlocality provides an independent argument that quantum states cannot be objective internal properties of the systems they describe, whether or not one regards probabilities as subjective. Griffiths is probably right, however, that John Bell would not have been pleased with how QBists fix his shifty split.I would not call QBism an “antiquated approach.” It is younger than Griffiths’ consistent histories and, as I have remarked upon elsewhere,22. M. Schlosshauer, ed., Elegance and Enigma: The Quantum Interviews, Springer, Berlin (2011), pp. 177, 280. taking reality itself to be relative to what he calls a framework, is vastly more radical than taking quantum state assignments to be relative to an agent.But foreshadowings of QBism can indeed be found in antiquity. Since writing my commentary, I came across another striking anticipation in a 1931 letter from Erwin Schrödinger to Arnold Sommerfeld:33. K. von Meyenn, ed., Eine Entdeckung von ganz außerordentlicher Tragweite: Schrödingers Briefwechsel zur Wellenmechanik und zum Katzenparadoxon, Springer, Berlin (2011), p. 490. “Quantum mechanics forbids statements about what really exists—statements about the object. It deals only with the object–subject relation. Although this holds, after all, for any description of nature, it appears to hold in a much more radical and far-reaching sense in quantum mechanics” (translated by N. D. Mermin and Ruediger Schack).When Bell and Michael Nauenberg wrote their delightful article in 1966, there was indeed much less interest in quantum foundations than there is today. Most textbooks have wisely steered clear of the many contemporary interpretive positions, since none of them are held by more than a fraction of those physicists with an interest in such issues.QBists do not reject the Born rule for calculating probabilities, but they do reject the objective frequentist interpretation of those probabilities presented by Nauenberg and held by most physicists. The frequentist view is notoriously circular. It defines probability using such notions as “equally probable,” “unlikely,” or (with Nauenberg) “identically prepared,” none of which make sense without a prior definition of probability. “Identically prepared” might seem safe from circularity, but two different preparations cannot be strictly identical. It would be more accurate to say they must differ in unimportant ways. Unimportant for what? For the probabilities of the outcomes.When I started to learn about subjective probability, I was surprised to discover that most of the books were not in Cornell University’s physics or mathematics libraries but in the business school library. In our recent election, Americans have been told that business experience is necessary for being president; I would suggest that it may be even more helpful for understanding quantum mechanics.I cannot tell from Nauenberg’s remarks about the Liouville equation whether he agrees with the view of QBists (and many others) that the collapse of the wavefunction is no more than the updating of a collection of probability distributions.Nauenberg’s example of the Rydberg atom does not contradict the QBist resolution of Bell’s shifty split. The Rydberg atom is part of the world external to the agent, and therefore on the quantum side of her split. There are indeed circumstances under which fully quantum mechanical behavior can look very classical.Art Hobson repeats the common view that only mixed states can be associated with subjective probabilities. QBism takes that to be the very mistake that got us lost for so long in the quantum swamp. Hobson also believes that wavefunctions were collapsing before there were physicists. Does he believe that probabilities were updating before there were statisticians?Hobson wrongly claims that Chris Fuchs “might dispute the notion that some kind of physical reality actually exists.” What he and other QBists do deny is that there are properties of the external world—“elements of reality”—that underlie quantum state assignments. (The argument of Matthew Pusey and coauthors that Hobson cites, implying that quantum states are physically real, relies on such hidden variables.) An agent’s state assignment rests entirely on her experience of the external world. It is neither solipsistic nor superstitious to maintain that any agent’s experience comes fully into being only at the moment it is experienced.Hobson’s treatment of Eugene Wigner and his friend relies on decoherence producing an objective mixed state, which both of them must agree on. But since quantum mechanics holds all the way out to infinity (as Griffiths puts it), even from an objective view of quantum states, that switch from superposition to either/or is at best a FAPP solution, to use Bell’s wonderfully sardonic abbreviation of “for all practical purposes.”QBism does not, as Hobson concludes, give up on a realist interpretation of nature. But it does warn us not to confuse nature with the abstractions we have ingeniously constructed to help any agent deal with the very real impact of nature on his or her own internal experience (see my Reference Frame, Physics Today, May 2009, page 8).I’m glad that Blake Stacey has called attention to some of the more applied spinoffs of QBism. I’m also pleased that he mentions Bruno de Finetti, one of the great 20th-century pioneers of subjective probability. Indeed, since there are objective as well as subjective Bayesians, if I had my way, the B in QBism would stand not for Thomas Bayes, but for Bruno de Finetti, who put the crucial point like this: “The abandonment of superstitious beliefs about the existence of Phlogiston, the Cosmic Ether, Absolute Space and Time … , or Fairies and Witches, was an essential step along the road to scientific thinking. Probability, too, if regarded as something endowed with some kind of objective existence, is no less a misleading misconception, an illusory attempt to exteriorize or materialize our [actual (vero)] probabilistic beliefs.”44. B. de Finetti, Theory of Probability, Interscience, New York (1990), preface.REFERENCESSection:ChooseTop of pageREFERENCES <<1. J. B. Hartle, Am. J. Phys. 36, 704 (1968). https://doi.org/10.1119/1.1975096, Google ScholarCrossref2. M. Schlosshauer, ed., Elegance and Enigma: The Quantum Interviews, Springer, Berlin (2011), pp. 177, 280. Google ScholarCrossref3. K. von Meyenn, ed., Eine Entdeckung von ganz außerordentlicher Tragweite: Schrödingers Briefwechsel zur Wellenmechanik und zum Katzenparadoxon, Springer, Berlin (2011), p. 490. Google ScholarCrossref4. B. de Finetti, Theory of Probability, Interscience, New York (1990), preface. Google Scholar© 2012 American Institute of Physics.
In his June 2022 Quick Study (page 62), David Mermin argues that “the quantum state of a system expresses only the belief of the particular physicist who assigns it to the system.” Applying that to quantum measurements, he finds that “the acquisition of further information by that physicist … can lead to an abrupt change in those probabilities and thus to an updating of the quantum state that the physicist uses to represent them. There is no quantum measurement problem.”But wavefunctions have been collapsing ever since the Big Bang, with no assistance from physicists. An apparatus’s display of a measurement outcome occurs even if the experimenters happen to be out of the room. When a cosmic-ray proton strikes a sand grain on Mars and moves the grain, a quantum measurement occurs and the proton’s wavefunction collapses regardless of the absence of humans.Roger Carpenter and Andrew Anderson of the University of Cambridge performed a “Schrödinger’s cat” experiment that demolishes Mermin’s interpretation. Instead of connecting a Geiger counter to a cat-killing device, they mercifully connected it to a hammer that would fall without harm. Their strategy was to split information about the experimental result between two observers in such a way that neither observer can know the outcome. The observers learn the outcome later by sharing their information. The question is then, Did the hammer fall at the time of the experiment or later, when the observers became conscious of the outcome? The result: The hammer fell when the nucleus decayed, not later when the observers became conscious of the outcome. I think nearly all physicists would have predicted that. My hat is off to Carpenter and Anderson, who reported it with a straight face.11. R. H. S. Carpenter, A. J. Anderson, Ann. Fond. Louis de Broglie 31, 45 (2006).Humans and their consciousness have nothing to do with quantum physics. Photons, electrons, and the like, as well as their states, are real configurations of fields that have existed throughout the universe since the Big Bang.22. A. Hobson, Am. J. Phys. 81, 211 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1119/1.4789885Nevertheless, I agree with Mermin’s title: There is no quantum measurement problem, because quantum physics, with no special interpretation and without a collapse postulate, logically implies that superpositions collapse nonlocally to a single definite outcome.33. A. Hobson, Quantum Eng. 2022, 1 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/5889159ReferencesSection:ChooseTop of pageReferences <<CITING ARTICLES1. R. H. S. Carpenter, A. J. Anderson, Ann. Fond. Louis de Broglie 31, 45 (2006). Google Scholar2. A. Hobson, Am. J. Phys. 81, 211 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1119/1.4789885, Google ScholarCrossref, ISI3. A. Hobson, Quantum Eng. 2022, 1 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/5889159, Google ScholarCrossref© 2022 American Institute of Physics.
Among Art Hobson’s and Gregory Derry’s letters and Sean Carroll’s July Quick Study (page 62), only Derry’s letter addresses the point I was trying to make in my June Quick Study (page 62): Viewing probabilities as personal judgments eliminates the quantum measurement problem and enables one to make better sense of quantum mechanics.Hobson’s letter expounds his own realistic view of quantum states and their collapse. It belongs with the three examples I mention that eliminate the physicist from the story.Carroll takes what I write about the consequences of a personalist interpretation of probability to be an example of an epistemic interpretation of quantum mechanics. That misses my point.In 1926 Max Born noted that the content of quantum states was the probabilities that they enabled one to calculate. It is strange that after thus elevating probability to a new and foundational role, no physicists then or for the next three-quarters of a century thought it important to reexamine the meaning of probability. For most physicists, probabilities are user-independent frequencies, but for most statisticians, they are guides to action by the person who made the probability assignment. If physicists in 1926 had held a personalist view of probability, it would have required them from the very beginning to hold a personalist (“epistemic”) view of quantum states. There would have been no need for an “interpretation.”I have comments on several issues raised by Derry. Max Jammer and many others have indeed written for over half a century that quantum states are nothing more than formal devices for encapsulating probabilities of observation. But nobody before Carlton Caves, Christopher Fuchs, and Rüdiger Schack ever added that if probabilities are viewed as personal judgments of the person who assigns them, then that same view must be taken of quantum states.Derry quotes Niels Bohr’s statement that he does not “appeal to the observing subject.” Later in that paragraph, Bohr adds that “all subjectivity is avoided by proper attention to the circumstances required for the well-defined use of elementary physical concepts.”11. N. Bohr, Essays 1958–1962 on Atomic Physics and Human Knowledge, Ox Bow Press (1987), p. 7. That does contradict my reading of the two Bohr quotations that appear in my Quick Study. By “experience,” Bohr must have meant collective rather than individual experience. I doubt that Bohr took a personalist view of probability. That Bohr, however, was a personalist is argued interestingly by Ulrich Mohrhoff.22. U. Mohrhoff, https://arxiv.org/abs/1905.07118.I quote Bruno de Finetti on “Fairies and Witches” only to give a poetic statement of the unfamiliar view of probability that I am inviting physicists to examine. My point is that if de Finetti is correct, then it would profoundly affect our understanding of quantum mechanics. For me, the illumination it sheds on the interpretation of quantum mechanics is all by itself a compelling reason for adopting a personalist view of probability.The expansion of my argument that Derry looks forward to reading can be found in the article of mine33. N. D. Mermin, Rep. Prog. Phys. 82, 012002 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6633/aae2c6 cited in my Quick Study along with the rather more technical article44. C. A. Fuchs, R. Schack, Rev. Mod. Phys. 85, 1693 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.85.1693 by Fuchs and Schack that inspired mine.ReferencesSection:ChooseTop of pageReferences <<CITING ARTICLES1. N. Bohr, Essays 1958–1962 on Atomic Physics and Human Knowledge, Ox Bow Press (1987), p. 7. Google Scholar2. U. Mohrhoff, https://arxiv.org/abs/1905.07118. Google Scholar3. N. D. Mermin, Rep. Prog. Phys. 82, 012002 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6633/aae2c6, Google ScholarCrossref4. C. A. Fuchs, R. Schack, Rev. Mod. Phys. 85, 1693 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.85.1693, Google ScholarCrossref, ISI© 2022 American Institute of Physics.
Although I have neither an objection to nor an endorsement of David Mermin’s major premise in his Quick Study, “There is no quantum measurement problem” (Physics Today, June 2022, page 62), I would like to make several contextual points.Mermin’s argument has an extensive history, along with a comparable history of rebuttal. Five decades ago Max Jammer wrote that “measurements in quantum mechanics are no more or less problematic than in classical physics, for the Hilbert space vector is only a purely formal device for relating the statistics associated with these arrangements to the physics of observations in classical physics.” That seems like a condensed version of the argument Mermin presents. On the following page, however, Jammer notes that a “problematic aspect whose serious implications were only gradually understood was the fact that as long as a quantum mechanical one-body or many-body system does not interact with macroscopic objects, as long as its motion is described by the deterministic Schrödinger time-dependent equation, no events could be considered to take place in the system.”11. M. Jammer, The Philosophy of Quantum Mechanics: The Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics in Historical Perspective, Wiley (1974), pp. 473, 474.Niels Bohr giving a lecture in Copenhagen in April 1929. (Photograph by Samuel Goudsmit, courtesy of the AIP Emilio Segrè Visual Archives, Goudsmit Collection.)PPT|High resolutionRegarding the quotations from Niels Bohr, Mermin’s point is entirely valid and represents Bohr’s position accurately, but Bohr’s thought is always subtle and difficult to capture completely. Another quotation from Bohr, which is consistent with everything else he wrote, is, “The decisive point is that in neither case does the appropriate widening of our conceptual framework imply any appeal to the observing subject, which would hinder unambiguous communication of experience.”22. N. Bohr, Essays 1958–1962 on Atomic Physics and Human Knowledge, Ox Bow Press (1987), p. 7. That quotation seems inconsistent with Mermin’s paragraph that includes the passage “Why should I insist that my interpretation of science, which I use to make sense of the world that I experience, should never make any mention of me?” Bohr always insisted that his framework was a rational “generalization” of classical objectivity.The last and most conceptually important point concerns the ontological status of probability. I don’t necessarily disagree with Mermin and Bruno de Finetti, but it is by no means obvious that they are correct either. David Hawkins, for example, begins 50 pages of rigorous analysis with a brief statement of a major premise.The obvious and natural interpretation of probability in this context is that it introduces, not something that has to do with the nature of the physical system, but something that has to do with the incompleteness of our knowledge….But this opinion turns out to be false. Ignorance of dynamical regularity may be a motive for resorting to probabilities, but it does not explain the probabilities to which we resort.33. D. Hawkins, The Language of Nature: An Essay in the Philosophy of Science, W. H. Freeman (1964), p. 135.Another example can be found in Jammer’s well-known historical account of quantum theory: “For Einstein the notion of probability … was the traditional conception of classical physics, a mathematical objectivization of the human deficiency of complete or exact knowledge but ultimately a creation of the human mind…. For Born probability, as far as it was related to the wave function, was not merely a mathematical fiction but something endowed with physical reality.”44. M. Jammer, The Conceptual Development of Quantum Mechanics, McGraw-Hill (1966), p. 286.Of course, such examples don’t mean that Mermin’s position is incorrect, but I do think that they demand a better argument than a comparison to “Fairies and Witches.” I am confident that Mermin has such an argument, and I look forward to reading it as I continue working toward a coherent position on the unresolved interpretational issues of quantum theory.ReferencesSection:ChooseTop of pageReferences <<CITING ARTICLES1. M. Jammer, The Philosophy of Quantum Mechanics: The Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics in Historical Perspective, Wiley (1974), pp. 473, 474. Google Scholar2. N. Bohr, Essays 1958–1962 on Atomic Physics and Human Knowledge, Ox Bow Press (1987), p. 7. Google Scholar3. D. Hawkins, The Language of Nature: An Essay in the Philosophy of Science, W. H. Freeman (1964), p. 135. Google Scholar4. M. Jammer, The Conceptual Development of Quantum Mechanics, McGraw-Hill (1966), p. 286. Google Scholar© 2022 American Institute of Physics.
Quantum mechanics is the most useful and powerful theory physicists have ever devised. Yet today, nearly 90 years after its formulation, disagreement about the meaning of the theory is stronger than ever. New interpretations appear every year. None ever disappear. Probability theory is considerably older than quantum mechanics and has also been plagued from the beginning by questions about its meaning. And quantum mechanics is inherently and famously probabilistic. For the past decade, Carl Caves, Chris Fuchs, and Rüdiger Schack have been arguing that the confusion at the foundations of quantum mechanics arises out of a confusion, prevalent among physicists, about the nature of probability [1]. They maintain that if probability is properly understood, the notorious quantum paradoxes either vanish or assume less vexing forms. Most physicists have a frequentist view of probability: Probabilities describe objective properties of ensembles of “identically prepared” systems. Caves, Fuchs, and Schack take a personalist Bayesian view: An agent assigns a probability p to a single event as a measure of her belief that the event will take place [2]. Such an agent is willing to pay less than $ p for a coupon that will pay her $1 if the event happens, and she is willing to underwrite and sell such a coupon for more than $ p . Surprisingly, the standard rules for probability follow from the requirement that an agent should never face certain loss in a single event. (For example, if p exceeded 1, she would pay more than $1 for a coupon that returned at most $1; if p were negative, she would pay somebody to take a coupon from her that might cost her another $1.) Avoiding certain loss is the only constraint on an agent's probability assignments. The probability of an event is not inherent in that event. Different agents, with different beliefs, will in general assign different probabilities to the same event. The personalist Bayesian view of probability is widely held [3], though not by many physicists. It has profound implications for the meaning of quantum mechanics, which Fuchs and Schack call quantum Bayesianism—QBism for short. Since quantum states determine probabilities, if probabilities are indeed assigned by an agent to express her degree of belief, then the quantum state of a physical system is not inherent in that system but assigned by an agent to encapsulate her beliefs about it. State assignments, like probabilities, are relative to an agent.