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

Il Nuovo cimento della Società italiana di fisica. B/Il Nuovo cimento B

Toward an objective interpretation of quantum mechanics

Donald Bedford, Derek Wang

Published Apr 1, 1975• 21 citations
Publisher
DOI
10.1007/bf02738563

Related papers

A Simple Model for an Objective Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics

Claudio Garola

Foundations of Physics•Oct 1, 2002•32 citations

On the Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics

Ryan Lee

•Jan 1, 2008•0 citations

Probabilities and the Many Minds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics

David Papineau

An increasingly popular interpretation of quantum mechanics holds that in any genuinely chancy situation, all possible outcomes occur.1 For example, if the spin of a typical electron is measured in a given direction, then both 'up' and 'down' results will be registered. (True, 'up' and 'down' won't occur within the same 'branch of reality', for that would be inconsistent. Rather, the idea is that reality comes to contain two elements, with 'up' registered relative to one, and 'down' registered relative to the other.) This kind of 'many worlds' or 'many minds' interpretation of quantum mechanics has advantages and disadvantages. The main advantage is that it avoids any 'collapse of the wave function' and so avoids the measurement problem, mysterious non-local interactions, and the like. The most obvious disadvantage is that its burgeoning world of duplicate histories seems repugnant to common sense. Some commentators think that there is another disadvantage. They argue that this interpretation undermines itself by destroying any notion of objective probability. Quantum mechanics is, if anything, a theory which specifies the objective probabilities of certain results. But in what sense is there an objective probability for 'up' and 'down' in a spin measurement, if both results always happen? (Albert [1]; Albert and Loewer [3], [4]; Healey [5]; Squires [9]; Stein [8].) This looks like a good objection. But I shall show in this note that it is not. The proposed interpretation does leave objective probability as a rather mysterious notion. But it is no more mysterious on the proposed interpretation than on the conventional view of the world. This is not the place to go into details about the 'many minds'2 interpretation of quantum mechanics, but one point may help readers. If both the 'up' and 'down' results occur, why do we experience only one?

Analysis•Oct 1, 1995•15 citations

On the Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics

CRC Press eBooks•May 21, 2004•0 citations

The Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics and the Measurement Process

Peter Mittelstaedt

The main theme of this book is the idea that quantum mechanics is valid not only for microscopic objects but also for the macroscopic apparatus used for quantum mechanical measurements. The author demonstrates the intimate relations that exist between quantum mechanics and its interpretation which are induced by the quantum mechanical measurement process. Consequently, the book is concerned both with the philosophical, metatheoretical problems of interpretations and with the more formal problems of quantum object theory. The consequences of this approach turn out to be partly very promising and partly rather disappointing. On the one hand, it is possible to give a rigorous justification of some important parts of interpretation, such as probability, by means of object theory. On the other hand, the problem of the objectification of measurement results leads to inconsistencies which cannot be resolved in an obvious way. This open problem has far-reaching consequences for the possibility of recognising an objective reality in physics.

Cambridge University Press eBooks•Dec 4, 1997•177 citations

Towards a classical interpretation of quantum mechanics

Ghenadie N. Mardari

•Dec 2, 2003•0 citations
An increasingly popular interpretation of quantum mechanics holds that in any genuinely chancy situation, all possible outcomes occur.1 For example, if the spin of a typical electron is measured in a given direction, then both 'up' and 'down' results will be registered. (True, 'up' and 'down' won't occur within the same 'branch of reality', for that would be inconsistent. Rather, the idea is that reality comes to contain two elements, with 'up' registered relative to one, and 'down' registered relative to the other.) This kind of 'many worlds' or 'many minds' interpretation of quantum mechanics has advantages and disadvantages. The main advantage is that it avoids any 'collapse of the wave function' and so avoids the measurement problem, mysterious non-local interactions, and the like. The most obvious disadvantage is that its burgeoning world of duplicate histories seems repugnant to common sense. Some commentators think that there is another disadvantage. They argue that this interpretation undermines itself by destroying any notion of objective probability. Quantum mechanics is, if anything, a theory which specifies the objective probabilities of certain results. But in what sense is there an objective probability for 'up' and 'down' in a spin measurement, if both results always happen? (Albert [1]; Albert and Loewer [3], [4]; Healey [5]; Squires [9]; Stein [8].) This looks like a good objection. But I shall show in this note that it is not. The proposed interpretation does leave objective probability as a rather mysterious notion. But it is no more mysterious on the proposed interpretation than on the conventional view of the world. This is not the place to go into details about the 'many minds'2 interpretation of quantum mechanics, but one point may help readers. If both the 'up' and 'down' results occur, why do we experience only one?
The main theme of this book is the idea that quantum mechanics is valid not only for microscopic objects but also for the macroscopic apparatus used for quantum mechanical measurements. The author demonstrates the intimate relations that exist between quantum mechanics and its interpretation which are induced by the quantum mechanical measurement process. Consequently, the book is concerned both with the philosophical, metatheoretical problems of interpretations and with the more formal problems of quantum object theory. The consequences of this approach turn out to be partly very promising and partly rather disappointing. On the one hand, it is possible to give a rigorous justification of some important parts of interpretation, such as probability, by means of object theory. On the other hand, the problem of the objectification of measurement results leads to inconsistencies which cannot be resolved in an obvious way. This open problem has far-reaching consequences for the possibility of recognising an objective reality in physics.