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

Science

Statistical Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics

Max Born

Published Oct 14, 1955• 134 citations
Publisher

Abstract

The published work for which the honor of the Nobel prize for the year 1954 has been accorded to me does not contain the discovery of a new phenomenon of nature but, rather, the foundations of a new way of thinking about the phenomena of nature. This way of thinking has permeated experimental and theoretical physics to such an extent that it seems scarcely possible to say anything more about it that has not often been said already. Yet there are some special aspects that I should like to discuss.

DOI
10.1126/science.122.3172.675

Related papers

Exciting physics – nothing else

Guido Fuchs

A year passed-by full of exciting physics and new discoveries. One of the major announcements in 2013 was the discovery of the Higgs boson at CERN 1. ATLAS and CMS experiments confirmed that a new particle has been found which is compatible with the Higgs boson. In the same year, the Nobel Prize in physics was awarded to François Englert and Peter W. Higgs “for the theoretical discovery of a mechanism that contributes to our understanding of the origin of mass of subatomic particles…” 2. Although the prize went to two theory pioneers it is clear that this success was a result of major efforts of thousands of people, including experimentalists, engineers as well as people working in administration, logistic and funding. A truly Big Science enterprise. Annalen der Physik congratulates all people involved for this feast of human curiosity, endurance and the untiring will to understand nature. In addition to this, understanding fundamental physical laws can also be brought forward on a low energy scale which marked a major theme in Annalen der Physik last year, see our (double) special issue on “Precision Experiments and Fundamental Physics at Low Energies” edited by Klaus Blaum, Holger Müller, and Nathal Severijns3, 4. Other topics were of interest, too. Recently, and most likely inspired by the seminal work from Nobel laureates Serge Haroche 5 and David Wineland 6, our guest editors and advisory board members Rainer Blatt, Immanuel Bloch, Ignacio Cirac, and Peter Zoller organized the special issue “Quantum Simulation” which also presents the Nobel lectures of the afore mentioned prize winners 7. In this context I would like to point to the work of S. Schmidt and J. Koch “Circuit QED lattices – Towards quantum simulation with superconducting circuits” earlier last year 8 and to M. Schlosshauer, J. Kofler and A. Zeilinger's discussion on “The interpretation of quantum mechanics: from disagreement to consensus?” 9. Yet, there were more aspects in physics that seemed worth to be brought forward. Peter Hommelhoff, Matthias Kling, and Mark Stockman organized a special issue with invited contributions in the field of “Ultrafast Phenomena on the Nanoscale” 10, including intensely discussed problems in the field like high-harmonic generation 11-14. What else is out there? For 2014, Annalen der Physik has announced to publish focus issues on three major topics to catch up with recent research efforts in some of the most challenging and promising branches in our field. One of the most puzzling and controversially discussed questions concerns the destiny of our universe. Richard Battye, Ariel Goobar, and Jochen Weller organize the special issue “The Accelerating Universe” (submission deadline March 17, 2014). Invitations to participate are still open and can be viewed at www.ann-phys.org. This special issue complements the issue on “Dark Matter” by Matthias Bartelmann and Volker Springel 15 from 2012 with highlight articles from Lars Bergstrom 16, Carlos S. Frenk and Simon D.M. White 17 and many more. Another topic will be covered by Jack Harris, Peter Rabl and Albert Schliesser, focusing on “Quantum and Hybrid Mechanical Systems – From Fundamentals to Applications” (submission deadline May 2, 2014). This issue, too, adds nicely to our previous efforts to publish more articles in this field, see for example Pierre Meystre's overview article “A short walk through quantum optomechanics” 18. Further submissions are welcome! Finally, Francisco Guinea, Misha I. Katsnelson, and Tim Wehling will organize the issue “Two-dimensional Materials: Electronic Structure and Many-Body Effects” (submission deadline May 1, 2014). As the guest editors said these new materials “hold the promise for novel devices with designed electronic properties” thus being today's subject of basic research and tomorrow's everyday technology. For further details, please visit our homepage. In this current issue we present some interesting overview works in the fields of quantum optics (G. Feve et al. page 1) and two-dimensional spectroscopy (G. Scholes et al. page 31), as well as novel research work by P. Kinsler and M. McCall on spacetime transformation theory (page 51) and J. E. Hirsch's work on superconductivity and diamagnetism (page 63). R. L. Hall et al. report on Nodal theorems for the Dirac equation (page 79), C. Henkel and V. E. Mkrtchian describe the Casimir effect (page 87), A. Kolovsky discusses bosonic and fermionic carriers in one- and two-dimensional lattices (page 102), and Y. Fu et al. report on light absorbing by meta-nanorings (page 112). Enjoy reading Annalen der Physik!

Annalen der Physik•Jan 1, 2014•0 citations

Philosophical Problems of the Statistical Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics

V. F. Lenzen

University of California Press eBooks•Dec 31, 1951•0 citations

Foundations of Quantum Theory Statistical Interpretation

Hilbrand Johannes Groenewold

Springer eBooks•Jan 1, 1970•0 citations

2022 Nobel Prize in Physics and the End of Mechanistic Materialism

Igor Salom

The ideas and results that are in the background of the 2022 Nobel Prize in physics had an immense impact on our understanding of reality. Therefore, it is crucial that these implications reach also the general public, not only the scientists in the related fields of quantum mechanics. The purpose of this review is to attempt to elucidate these revolutionary changes in our worldview that were eventually acknowledged also by the Nobel's committee, and to do it with very few references to mathematical details (which could be even ignored without undermining the take-away essence of the text). We first look into the foundational disputes between Einstein and Bohr about the nature of quantum mechanics, which culminated in the so-called EPR paradox -- the main impetus for all the research that would ensue in this context. Next, we try to explain the statement of the famous Bell's theorem -- the theorem that relocated the Einstain-Bohr discussions from the realm of philosophy and metaphysics to hard-core physics verifiable by experiments (we also give a brief derivation of the theorem's proof). Then we overview the experimental work of the last year's laureates, that had the final say about who was right in the debate. The outcome of these experiments forced us to profoundly revise our understanding of the universe. Finally, we discuss in more detail the implications of such outcomes, and what are the possible ways that our worldviews can be modified to account for the experimental facts. As we will see, the standard mechanist picture of the universe is no longer a viable option, and can be never again. Nowadays, we know this with certainty unusual for physics, that only a strict mathematical theorem could provide.

arXiv:2308.12297•Aug 11, 2023•2 citations

On the Interpretation and Philosophical Foundation of Quantum Mechanics

Anton Zeilinger

When investigating various interpretations of quantum mechanics one notices that each interpretation contains an element which escapes a complete and full description. This element is always associated with the stochasticity of the individual event in the quantum measurement process. It appears that the implications of this limit to any description of the world has not been sufficiently appreciated with notable exceptions of, for example, Heisenberg, Pauli and Wheeler. If we assume that a deeper foundation of quantum mechanics is possible, the question arises which features such a philosophical foundation might have. It is suggested that the objective randomness of the individual quantum event is a necessity of a description of the world in view of the significant influence the observer in quantum mechanics has. It is also suggested that the austerity of the Copenhagen interpretation should serve as a guiding principle in a search for deeper understanding. In recent years, a significant increase of interest in the foundations of quantum mechanics can be observed. This increase is certainly related to the immense progress made during the last two decades in experiments with individual quantum systems. This technological progress has made it possible to really perform more and more of the famous gedanken experiments which were so important in the early days of the theory. Not only did these experiments confirm the theory in every detail, they also opened up avenues for new experimental directions which might even lead some day to new technology. While such applications are certainly still far away, areas like quantum cryptography[1], quantum computation[2] and interaction-free measurement[3], just to name a few examples, certainly deserve the attention they receive. All this activity has also drawn more attention to the problems of understanding and interpreting quantum mechanics. It seems that there, a definitive consensus has not yet been reached. As witnesses quote authorities like Feynman as saying[4]: I think can safely say that nobody today understands quantum mechanics, whereby he apparently included himself, or like Roger Penrose[5], who describes his opinion remarking that while the theory agrees incredibly well with experiment and while it is of profound mathematical beauty, it makes absolutely no sense. Why did even physicists who have contributed so significantly to quantum theory Feynman was even rewarded the Nobel Prize for one of its mathematical formulations choose such emphatic and strong formulations? Why is it that the average physicist hears very little about such problems during his/her education? Why is the comprehension of the theory very often focused on formalism while questions that probe for deeper meaning are usually not tackled? To take a closer look at the situation, let us turn to a brief analysis of the interpretation of quantum mechanics. We note that there are at least two levels of interpreting a formalism, a physical theory. The first, basic, level supplies the rules that determine which element of the formalism corresponds to which measurable quantity or to which observable fact in a concrete experimental situation. Theses rules are a large, mostly not explicated but only implicit, set of instructions. These instructions concern the manner of working with the statements of the theory in order to obtain predictions for future experiments or events, and they concern the instructions on how to proceed in experiment in order to demonstrate or test a theoretical

•Jan 1, 2008•26 citations

The early statistical interpretations of quantum mechanics in the USA and USSR

Alexander A. Pechenkin

Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics•Jan 18, 2012•35 citations
The published work for which the honor of the Nobel prize for the year 1954 has been accorded to me does not contain the discovery of a new phenomenon of nature but, rather, the foundations of a new way of thinking about the phenomena of nature. This way of thinking has permeated experimental and theoretical physics to such an extent that it seems scarcely possible to say anything more about it that has not often been said already. Yet there are some special aspects that I should like to discuss.
A year passed-by full of exciting physics and new discoveries. One of the major announcements in 2013 was the discovery of the Higgs boson at CERN 1. ATLAS and CMS experiments confirmed that a new particle has been found which is compatible with the Higgs boson. In the same year, the Nobel Prize in physics was awarded to François Englert and Peter W. Higgs “for the theoretical discovery of a mechanism that contributes to our understanding of the origin of mass of subatomic particles…” 2. Although the prize went to two theory pioneers it is clear that this success was a result of major efforts of thousands of people, including experimentalists, engineers as well as people working in administration, logistic and funding. A truly Big Science enterprise. Annalen der Physik congratulates all people involved for this feast of human curiosity, endurance and the untiring will to understand nature. In addition to this, understanding fundamental physical laws can also be brought forward on a low energy scale which marked a major theme in Annalen der Physik last year, see our (double) special issue on “Precision Experiments and Fundamental Physics at Low Energies” edited by Klaus Blaum, Holger Müller, and Nathal Severijns3, 4. Other topics were of interest, too. Recently, and most likely inspired by the seminal work from Nobel laureates Serge Haroche 5 and David Wineland 6, our guest editors and advisory board members Rainer Blatt, Immanuel Bloch, Ignacio Cirac, and Peter Zoller organized the special issue “Quantum Simulation” which also presents the Nobel lectures of the afore mentioned prize winners 7. In this context I would like to point to the work of S. Schmidt and J. Koch “Circuit QED lattices – Towards quantum simulation with superconducting circuits” earlier last year 8 and to M. Schlosshauer, J. Kofler and A. Zeilinger's discussion on “The interpretation of quantum mechanics: from disagreement to consensus?” 9. Yet, there were more aspects in physics that seemed worth to be brought forward. Peter Hommelhoff, Matthias Kling, and Mark Stockman organized a special issue with invited contributions in the field of “Ultrafast Phenomena on the Nanoscale” 10, including intensely discussed problems in the field like high-harmonic generation 11-14. What else is out there? For 2014, Annalen der Physik has announced to publish focus issues on three major topics to catch up with recent research efforts in some of the most challenging and promising branches in our field. One of the most puzzling and controversially discussed questions concerns the destiny of our universe. Richard Battye, Ariel Goobar, and Jochen Weller organize the special issue “The Accelerating Universe” (submission deadline March 17, 2014). Invitations to participate are still open and can be viewed at www.ann-phys.org. This special issue complements the issue on “Dark Matter” by Matthias Bartelmann and Volker Springel 15 from 2012 with highlight articles from Lars Bergstrom 16, Carlos S. Frenk and Simon D.M. White 17 and many more. Another topic will be covered by Jack Harris, Peter Rabl and Albert Schliesser, focusing on “Quantum and Hybrid Mechanical Systems – From Fundamentals to Applications” (submission deadline May 2, 2014). This issue, too, adds nicely to our previous efforts to publish more articles in this field, see for example Pierre Meystre's overview article “A short walk through quantum optomechanics” 18. Further submissions are welcome! Finally, Francisco Guinea, Misha I. Katsnelson, and Tim Wehling will organize the issue “Two-dimensional Materials: Electronic Structure and Many-Body Effects” (submission deadline May 1, 2014). As the guest editors said these new materials “hold the promise for novel devices with designed electronic properties” thus being today's subject of basic research and tomorrow's everyday technology. For further details, please visit our homepage. In this current issue we present some interesting overview works in the fields of quantum optics (G. Feve et al. page 1) and two-dimensional spectroscopy (G. Scholes et al. page 31), as well as novel research work by P. Kinsler and M. McCall on spacetime transformation theory (page 51) and J. E. Hirsch's work on superconductivity and diamagnetism (page 63). R. L. Hall et al. report on Nodal theorems for the Dirac equation (page 79), C. Henkel and V. E. Mkrtchian describe the Casimir effect (page 87), A. Kolovsky discusses bosonic and fermionic carriers in one- and two-dimensional lattices (page 102), and Y. Fu et al. report on light absorbing by meta-nanorings (page 112). Enjoy reading Annalen der Physik!
The ideas and results that are in the background of the 2022 Nobel Prize in physics had an immense impact on our understanding of reality. Therefore, it is crucial that these implications reach also the general public, not only the scientists in the related fields of quantum mechanics. The purpose of this review is to attempt to elucidate these revolutionary changes in our worldview that were eventually acknowledged also by the Nobel's committee, and to do it with very few references to mathematical details (which could be even ignored without undermining the take-away essence of the text). We first look into the foundational disputes between Einstein and Bohr about the nature of quantum mechanics, which culminated in the so-called EPR paradox -- the main impetus for all the research that would ensue in this context. Next, we try to explain the statement of the famous Bell's theorem -- the theorem that relocated the Einstain-Bohr discussions from the realm of philosophy and metaphysics to hard-core physics verifiable by experiments (we also give a brief derivation of the theorem's proof). Then we overview the experimental work of the last year's laureates, that had the final say about who was right in the debate. The outcome of these experiments forced us to profoundly revise our understanding of the universe. Finally, we discuss in more detail the implications of such outcomes, and what are the possible ways that our worldviews can be modified to account for the experimental facts. As we will see, the standard mechanist picture of the universe is no longer a viable option, and can be never again. Nowadays, we know this with certainty unusual for physics, that only a strict mathematical theorem could provide.
When investigating various interpretations of quantum mechanics one notices that each interpretation contains an element which escapes a complete and full description. This element is always associated with the stochasticity of the individual event in the quantum measurement process. It appears that the implications of this limit to any description of the world has not been sufficiently appreciated with notable exceptions of, for example, Heisenberg, Pauli and Wheeler. If we assume that a deeper foundation of quantum mechanics is possible, the question arises which features such a philosophical foundation might have. It is suggested that the objective randomness of the individual quantum event is a necessity of a description of the world in view of the significant influence the observer in quantum mechanics has. It is also suggested that the austerity of the Copenhagen interpretation should serve as a guiding principle in a search for deeper understanding. In recent years, a significant increase of interest in the foundations of quantum mechanics can be observed. This increase is certainly related to the immense progress made during the last two decades in experiments with individual quantum systems. This technological progress has made it possible to really perform more and more of the famous gedanken experiments which were so important in the early days of the theory. Not only did these experiments confirm the theory in every detail, they also opened up avenues for new experimental directions which might even lead some day to new technology. While such applications are certainly still far away, areas like quantum cryptography[1], quantum computation[2] and interaction-free measurement[3], just to name a few examples, certainly deserve the attention they receive. All this activity has also drawn more attention to the problems of understanding and interpreting quantum mechanics. It seems that there, a definitive consensus has not yet been reached. As witnesses quote authorities like Feynman as saying[4]: I think can safely say that nobody today understands quantum mechanics, whereby he apparently included himself, or like Roger Penrose[5], who describes his opinion remarking that while the theory agrees incredibly well with experiment and while it is of profound mathematical beauty, it makes absolutely no sense. Why did even physicists who have contributed so significantly to quantum theory Feynman was even rewarded the Nobel Prize for one of its mathematical formulations choose such emphatic and strong formulations? Why is it that the average physicist hears very little about such problems during his/her education? Why is the comprehension of the theory very often focused on formalism while questions that probe for deeper meaning are usually not tackled? To take a closer look at the situation, let us turn to a brief analysis of the interpretation of quantum mechanics. We note that there are at least two levels of interpreting a formalism, a physical theory. The first, basic, level supplies the rules that determine which element of the formalism corresponds to which measurable quantity or to which observable fact in a concrete experimental situation. Theses rules are a large, mostly not explicated but only implicit, set of instructions. These instructions concern the manner of working with the statements of the theory in order to obtain predictions for future experiments or events, and they concern the instructions on how to proceed in experiment in order to demonstrate or test a theoretical