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

AIP conference proceedings

The Art and Science of Experimentation in Quantum Physics

Arkady Plotnitsky, Andrei Yu. Khrennikov

Published Jan 1, 2010• 3 citations
Publisher

Abstract

Taking its historical point of departure in Heisenberg’s work, this article offers a view of quantum mechanics as, arguably, the first truly experimental and truly mathematical physical theory, that is, a theory concerned with experimenting with nature and mathematics alike. It is truly experimental because it is not, as in classical physics, merely the independent behavior of the system considered, in other words, what happens in any event, that we track, but what kind of experiments we perform that defines what happens. By the same token, the theory is also truly mathematical because, at least in the interpretation adopted here, its mathematical formalism does not stand in the service of a mathematical description of (quantum) physical processes in space and time in the way the formalism of classical physics does, but is only used to predict the outcomes of relevant experiments. It also follows that quantum theories experiment more freely with mathematics itself, since we invent predictive mathematical schemes, rather than proceed by refining mathematically our phenomenal representations of nature, which process constrains us in classical mechanics.

DOI
10.1063/1.3431482

Related papers

Wherefore Quantum Mechanics?

S. P. Boughn

After the development of a self-consistent quantum formalism nearly a century ago, there ensued a quest to understand the often counterintuitive predictions of the theory. These endeavors invariably begin with the assumption of the "truth" of the mathematical formalism of quantum mechanics and then proceed to investigate the theory's implications for the physical world. One of the outcomes has been endless discussions of the quantum measurement problem, wave/particle duality, the non-locality of entangled quantum states, Schroedinger's cat, and other philosophical conundrums. In this essay, I take the point of view that quantum mechanics is a mathematical model, a human invention, and rather than pondering what the theory implies about our world, I consider the transposed question: what is it about our world that leads us to a quantum mechanical model of it? One consequence is the realization that discrete quanta, the quantum of action in particular, leads to the wave nature and statistical behavior of matter rather than the other way around.

arXiv:1910.08069•Jan 1, 2019•0 citations

A First Look at Quantum Physics

Abstract It can easily be argued that a fully mature and complete knowledge of quantum mechanics should include historical, axiomatic, formal mathematical, and even philosophical background to the subject. However, for a student approaching quantum theory for the first time in a serious way, it can be the case that an approach utilizing his or her existing knowledge of, and intuition for, classical physics (including mechanics, wave physics, and electricity and magnetism) as well as emphasizing connections to experimental results can be the most pro- ductive. That, at least, is the point of view adopted in this text and can be illustrated by a focus on the following general topics:

•Apr 13, 2006•0 citations

Do We Understand Quantum Mechanics - Finally?

Froehlich, Juerg, Baptiste Schubnel

After some historical remarks concerning Schroedinger's discovery of wave mechanics, we present a unified formalism for the mathematical description of classical and quantum-mechanical systems, utilizing elements of the theory of operator algebras. We then review some basic aspects of quantum mechanics and, in particular, of its interpretation. We attempt to clarify what Quantum Mechanics tells us about Nature when appropriate experiments are made. We discuss the importance of the mechanisms of "dephasing" and "decoherence" in associating "facts" with possible events and rendering complementary possible events mutually exclusive.

arXiv:1203.3678•Mar 16, 2012•0 citations

“Who Thinks Abstractly?”: Quantum Theory and the Architecture of Physical Concepts

Arkady Plotnitsky, Andrei Yu. Khrennikov, Gregg S. Jaeger +2 more

Beginning with its introduction by W. Heisenberg, quantum mechanics was often seen as an overly abstract theory, mathematically and physically, vis‐à‐vis classical physics or relativity. This perception was amplified by the fact that, while the quantum‐mechanical formalism provided effective predictive algorithms for the probabilistic predictions concerning quantum experiments, it appeared unable to describe, even by way idealization, quantum processes themselves in space and time, in the way classical mechanics or relativity did. The aim of the present paper is to reconsider the nature of mathematical and physical abstraction in modern physics by offering an analysis of the concept of “physical fact” and of the concept of “physical concept,” in part by following G. W. F. Hegel’s and G. Deleuze’s arguments concerning the nature of conceptual thinking. In classical physics, relativity, and quantum physics alike, I argue, physical concepts are defined by the following main features—1) their multi‐component multiplicity; 2) their essential relations to problems; 3) and the interactions between physical, mathematical, and philosophical components within each concept. It is the particular character of these interactions in quantum mechanics, as defined by its essentially predictive (rather than descriptive) nature, that distinguishes it from classical physics and relativity.

AIP conference proceedings•Jan 1, 2011•0 citations

Testing quantum theory with thought experiments

Nuriya Nurgalieva, Renato Renner

Quantum mechanics is one of our most successful physical theories; its predictions agree with experimental observations to an extremely high accuracy. However, the bare formalism of quantum theory does not provide straightforward answers to seemingly simple questions: for example, how should one model systems that include agents who are themselves using quantum theory? These foundational questions may be investigated with a theorist's tool – the thought experiment. Its purpose is to turn debates about the interpretation of quantum theory into actual physics questions. In this article, we give a state-of-the-art overview on quantum thought experiments involving observers, from the basic Wigner's friend to the recent Frauchiger-Renner setup, clarifying their interpretational significance and responding to objections and criticism on the way.

arXiv:2106.05314•Contemporary Physics•Jul 2, 2020•18 citations

Quantum Theory Without Observers

Sheldon Goldstein

Introduction Despite its extraordinary predictive successes, quantum mechanics has, since its inception some seventy years ago, been plagued by conceptual difficulties. The basic problem, plainly put, is this: It is not at all clear what quantum mechanics is about. What, in fact, does quantum mechanics describe? It might seem, since it is widely agreed that the state of any quantum mechanical system is completely specified by its wave function, that quantum mechanics is fundamentally about the behavior of wave functions. Quite naturally, no physicist wanted this to be true more than did Erwin Schrodinger, the father of the wave function. Nonetheless, Schrodinger ultimately found this impossible to believe. His difficulty was not so much with the novelty of the wave function [2, page 156 of [3]]: "That it is an abstract, unintuitive mathematical construct is a scruple that almost always surfaces against new aids to thought and that carries no great message." Rather, it was that

•Jan 1, 1997•28 citations
Taking its historical point of departure in Heisenberg’s work, this article offers a view of quantum mechanics as, arguably, the first truly experimental and truly mathematical physical theory, that is, a theory concerned with experimenting with nature and mathematics alike. It is truly experimental because it is not, as in classical physics, merely the independent behavior of the system considered, in other words, what happens in any event, that we track, but what kind of experiments we perform that defines what happens. By the same token, the theory is also truly mathematical because, at least in the interpretation adopted here, its mathematical formalism does not stand in the service of a mathematical description of (quantum) physical processes in space and time in the way the formalism of classical physics does, but is only used to predict the outcomes of relevant experiments. It also follows that quantum theories experiment more freely with mathematics itself, since we invent predictive mathematical schemes, rather than proceed by refining mathematically our phenomenal representations of nature, which process constrains us in classical mechanics.
After the development of a self-consistent quantum formalism nearly a century ago, there ensued a quest to understand the often counterintuitive predictions of the theory. These endeavors invariably begin with the assumption of the "truth" of the mathematical formalism of quantum mechanics and then proceed to investigate the theory's implications for the physical world. One of the outcomes has been endless discussions of the quantum measurement problem, wave/particle duality, the non-locality of entangled quantum states, Schroedinger's cat, and other philosophical conundrums. In this essay, I take the point of view that quantum mechanics is a mathematical model, a human invention, and rather than pondering what the theory implies about our world, I consider the transposed question: what is it about our world that leads us to a quantum mechanical model of it? One consequence is the realization that discrete quanta, the quantum of action in particular, leads to the wave nature and statistical behavior of matter rather than the other way around.
Abstract It can easily be argued that a fully mature and complete knowledge of quantum mechanics should include historical, axiomatic, formal mathematical, and even philosophical background to the subject. However, for a student approaching quantum theory for the first time in a serious way, it can be the case that an approach utilizing his or her existing knowledge of, and intuition for, classical physics (including mechanics, wave physics, and electricity and magnetism) as well as emphasizing connections to experimental results can be the most pro- ductive. That, at least, is the point of view adopted in this text and can be illustrated by a focus on the following general topics:
After some historical remarks concerning Schroedinger's discovery of wave mechanics, we present a unified formalism for the mathematical description of classical and quantum-mechanical systems, utilizing elements of the theory of operator algebras. We then review some basic aspects of quantum mechanics and, in particular, of its interpretation. We attempt to clarify what Quantum Mechanics tells us about Nature when appropriate experiments are made. We discuss the importance of the mechanisms of "dephasing" and "decoherence" in associating "facts" with possible events and rendering complementary possible events mutually exclusive.
Beginning with its introduction by W. Heisenberg, quantum mechanics was often seen as an overly abstract theory, mathematically and physically, vis‐à‐vis classical physics or relativity. This perception was amplified by the fact that, while the quantum‐mechanical formalism provided effective predictive algorithms for the probabilistic predictions concerning quantum experiments, it appeared unable to describe, even by way idealization, quantum processes themselves in space and time, in the way classical mechanics or relativity did. The aim of the present paper is to reconsider the nature of mathematical and physical abstraction in modern physics by offering an analysis of the concept of “physical fact” and of the concept of “physical concept,” in part by following G. W. F. Hegel’s and G. Deleuze’s arguments concerning the nature of conceptual thinking. In classical physics, relativity, and quantum physics alike, I argue, physical concepts are defined by the following main features—1) their multi‐component multiplicity; 2) their essential relations to problems; 3) and the interactions between physical, mathematical, and philosophical components within each concept. It is the particular character of these interactions in quantum mechanics, as defined by its essentially predictive (rather than descriptive) nature, that distinguishes it from classical physics and relativity.
Quantum mechanics is one of our most successful physical theories; its predictions agree with experimental observations to an extremely high accuracy. However, the bare formalism of quantum theory does not provide straightforward answers to seemingly simple questions: for example, how should one model systems that include agents who are themselves using quantum theory? These foundational questions may be investigated with a theorist's tool – the thought experiment. Its purpose is to turn debates about the interpretation of quantum theory into actual physics questions. In this article, we give a state-of-the-art overview on quantum thought experiments involving observers, from the basic Wigner's friend to the recent Frauchiger-Renner setup, clarifying their interpretational significance and responding to objections and criticism on the way.
Introduction Despite its extraordinary predictive successes, quantum mechanics has, since its inception some seventy years ago, been plagued by conceptual difficulties. The basic problem, plainly put, is this: It is not at all clear what quantum mechanics is about. What, in fact, does quantum mechanics describe? It might seem, since it is widely agreed that the state of any quantum mechanical system is completely specified by its wave function, that quantum mechanics is fundamentally about the behavior of wave functions. Quite naturally, no physicist wanted this to be true more than did Erwin Schrodinger, the father of the wave function. Nonetheless, Schrodinger ultimately found this impossible to believe. His difficulty was not so much with the novelty of the wave function [2, page 156 of [3]]: "That it is an abstract, unintuitive mathematical construct is a scruple that almost always surfaces against new aids to thought and that carries no great message." Rather, it was that