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

EPISTEMOLOGIA

The relevance of the preparation concept for the interpretation of quantum formalism

Miguel Ferrero, Víctor Gómez Pin, J. L. Sánchez‐Gómez

Published Jul 1, 2014• 1 citation
Publisher

Abstract

The preparation procedure, an undefined notion in quantum theory, has not had the relevance that it deserves in the interpretation of quantum mechanical formalism.Here we utilize the concepts of identical and similar preparation procedures to show the conceptual differences between the statistical and the conventional interpretation of quantum formalism.Although the statistical understanding, and its final logical consequence, hidden variables theories (this connexion being explained in the text), have a great intuitive appeal due to its fewer ontological difficulties, both recent experimental results and theoretical developments seem to support an epistemic alternative closer to the conventional one.Nevertheless, we must not rule out the possibility that new theorems or new explanatory principles may modify the reigning supremacy of this interpretation. 1.-Introduction.Although the conventional interpretation of the quantum mechanical formalism (CIQM), very close to the Copenhagen interpretation, is still dominant (is used in almost all textbooks), there are physical situations that ask for an interpretation of the quantum mechanical formalism (QMF) in terms of the Statistical Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics (SIQM) or even for hidden variables theories (HVT).The SIQM and HVT are different research programs, but they are closely related, as we will see further below.To introduce properly the distinctions between the three previous acronyms we will ask an old and apparently simple question.Is the wave function associated to an individual system or to a statistical ensemble?A first tentative answer could be formulated as follows.QMF introduces probabilities, and probabilities are related to statistical ensembles.Otherwise, the same concept of probability would lose its meaning.In QM, if it is said that you would get some concrete result with 0,63 probability it means that if the experiment is carried out 100 times, that concrete result would appear approximately 63 times.Hence, the obvious answer will be that the wave function should be related with statistical ensembles.However, despite its intuitiveness this idea does not capture completely what we want to express.The real problem to analyze could be best introduced with the following example.Imagine that we prepare identically two radioactive atoms with half-life of 30 minutes.By preparation we understand all those theoretical methods and physical procedures necessary to fully characterize the state of the system.It is, thus, a macroscopic reproducible act that lefts the system, without destroying it, in a concrete state after the procedure.In quantum theory, this preparation is represented by a vector state (or a density matrix).Identically in this context will mean identity of procedures, that is that the experimenter has repeated all previous operations, so that there is no difference whatsoever between them.Note, however, that identical preparations are not necessarily followed by identical results, so there is

DOI
10.3280/epis2014-001009

Related papers

The Relevance of the Preparation Concept in the Interpretation of Quantum Formalism

Miguel Ferrero, Víctor Gómez Pin, Salgado, D. +1 more

The preparation procedure, an undefined notion in quantum theory, has not had the relevance that it deserves in the interpretation of quantum mechanical formalism. Here we utilize the concepts of identical and similar preparation procedures to show the conceptual differences and mutual interconnections between the statistical and the conventional interpretation of quantum formalism. Although the statistical understanding, and its final logical consequence, hidden variables theories (this connexion being explained in the text), have a great intuitive appeal due to its fewer ontological difficulties, both recent experimental results and some theoretical developments seem to support an epistemic alternative closer to the conventional one. Nevertheless, we must not rule out the possibility that new theorems or new explanatory principles may modify the reigning supremacy of this interpretation.

arXiv:1303.0694•Mar 4, 2013•0 citations

The Statistical Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics

L. E. Ballentine

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.

Reviews of Modern Physics•Oct 1, 1970•1,033 citations

The probability interpretation

Peter Mittelstaedt

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.

Cambridge University Press eBooks•Dec 4, 1997•3 citations

Statistical contextual explanation of quantum paradoxes

Marian Kupczyński

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.

arXiv:2502.16048•Frontiers in Quantum Science and Technology•May 1, 2025•1 citation

Untenability of simple ensemble interpretations of quantum measurement probabilities

Daniel T. Gillespie

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.

American Journal of Physics•Oct 1, 1986•9 citations

A Suggested Interpretation of the Quantum Theory in Terms of "Hidden" Variables. I

David Böhm

The usual interpretation of the quantum theory is self-consistent, but it involves an assumption that cannot be tested experimentally, viz., that the most complete possible specification of an individual system is in terms of a wave function that determines only probable results of actual measurement processes. The only way of investigating the truth of this assumption is by trying to find some other interpretation of the quantum theory in terms of at present "hidden" variables, which in principle determine the precise behavior of an individual system, but which are in practice averaged over in measurements of the types that can now be carried out. In this paper and in a subsequent paper, an interpretation of the quantum theory in terms of just such "hidden" variables is suggested. It is shown that as long as the mathematical theory retains its present general form, this suggested interpretation leads to precisely the same results for all physical processes as does the usual interpretation. Nevertheless, the suggested interpretation provides a broader conceptual framework than the usual interpretation, because it makes possible a precise and continuous description of all processes, even at the quantum level. This broader conceptual framework allows more general mathematical formulations of the theory than those allowed by the usual interpretation. Now, the usual mathematical formulation seems to lead to insoluble difficulties when it is extrapolated into the domain of distances of the order of ${10}^{\ensuremath{-}13}$ cm or less. It is therefore entirely possible that the interpretation suggested here may be needed for the resolution of these difficulties. In any case, the mere possibility of such an interpretation proves that it is not necessary for us to give up a precise, rational, and objective description of individual systems at a quantum level of accuracy.

Physical Review•Jan 15, 1952•5,507 citations
The preparation procedure, an undefined notion in quantum theory, has not had the relevance that it deserves in the interpretation of quantum mechanical formalism.Here we utilize the concepts of identical and similar preparation procedures to show the conceptual differences between the statistical and the conventional interpretation of quantum formalism.Although the statistical understanding, and its final logical consequence, hidden variables theories (this connexion being explained in the text), have a great intuitive appeal due to its fewer ontological difficulties, both recent experimental results and theoretical developments seem to support an epistemic alternative closer to the conventional one.Nevertheless, we must not rule out the possibility that new theorems or new explanatory principles may modify the reigning supremacy of this interpretation. 1.-Introduction.Although the conventional interpretation of the quantum mechanical formalism (CIQM), very close to the Copenhagen interpretation, is still dominant (is used in almost all textbooks), there are physical situations that ask for an interpretation of the quantum mechanical formalism (QMF) in terms of the Statistical Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics (SIQM) or even for hidden variables theories (HVT).The SIQM and HVT are different research programs, but they are closely related, as we will see further below.To introduce properly the distinctions between the three previous acronyms we will ask an old and apparently simple question.Is the wave function associated to an individual system or to a statistical ensemble?A first tentative answer could be formulated as follows.QMF introduces probabilities, and probabilities are related to statistical ensembles.Otherwise, the same concept of probability would lose its meaning.In QM, if it is said that you would get some concrete result with 0,63 probability it means that if the experiment is carried out 100 times, that concrete result would appear approximately 63 times.Hence, the obvious answer will be that the wave function should be related with statistical ensembles.However, despite its intuitiveness this idea does not capture completely what we want to express.The real problem to analyze could be best introduced with the following example.Imagine that we prepare identically two radioactive atoms with half-life of 30 minutes.By preparation we understand all those theoretical methods and physical procedures necessary to fully characterize the state of the system.It is, thus, a macroscopic reproducible act that lefts the system, without destroying it, in a concrete state after the procedure.In quantum theory, this preparation is represented by a vector state (or a density matrix).Identically in this context will mean identity of procedures, that is that the experimenter has repeated all previous operations, so that there is no difference whatsoever between them.Note, however, that identical preparations are not necessarily followed by identical results, so there is
The preparation procedure, an undefined notion in quantum theory, has not had the relevance that it deserves in the interpretation of quantum mechanical formalism. Here we utilize the concepts of identical and similar preparation procedures to show the conceptual differences and mutual interconnections between the statistical and the conventional interpretation of quantum formalism. Although the statistical understanding, and its final logical consequence, hidden variables theories (this connexion being explained in the text), have a great intuitive appeal due to its fewer ontological difficulties, both recent experimental results and some theoretical developments seem to support an epistemic alternative closer to the conventional one. Nevertheless, we must not rule out the possibility that new theorems or new explanatory principles may modify the reigning supremacy of this interpretation.
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.
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.
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.
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 usual interpretation of the quantum theory is self-consistent, but it involves an assumption that cannot be tested experimentally, viz., that the most complete possible specification of an individual system is in terms of a wave function that determines only probable results of actual measurement processes. The only way of investigating the truth of this assumption is by trying to find some other interpretation of the quantum theory in terms of at present "hidden" variables, which in principle determine the precise behavior of an individual system, but which are in practice averaged over in measurements of the types that can now be carried out. In this paper and in a subsequent paper, an interpretation of the quantum theory in terms of just such "hidden" variables is suggested. It is shown that as long as the mathematical theory retains its present general form, this suggested interpretation leads to precisely the same results for all physical processes as does the usual interpretation. Nevertheless, the suggested interpretation provides a broader conceptual framework than the usual interpretation, because it makes possible a precise and continuous description of all processes, even at the quantum level. This broader conceptual framework allows more general mathematical formulations of the theory than those allowed by the usual interpretation. Now, the usual mathematical formulation seems to lead to insoluble difficulties when it is extrapolated into the domain of distances of the order of ${10}^{\ensuremath{-}13}$ cm or less. It is therefore entirely possible that the interpretation suggested here may be needed for the resolution of these difficulties. In any case, the mere possibility of such an interpretation proves that it is not necessary for us to give up a precise, rational, and objective description of individual systems at a quantum level of accuracy.