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

Springer eBooks

Quantum Measurement Paradox

Dipankar Home

Published Jan 1, 1997• 2 citations
Publisher
DOI
10.1007/978-1-4757-9808-1_2

Related papers

Quantum Measurement: On This Side of Paradox

László E. Szabó

Springer eBooks•Jan 1, 1999•0 citations

Experimental approaches to the quantum measurement paradox

A. J. Leggett

Foundations of Physics•Sep 1, 1988•57 citations

Entanglement, Measurement and Quantum Paradoxes

WORLD SCIENTIFIC eBooks•Mar 27, 2013•0 citations

Experimental Joint Weak Measurement on a Photon Pair as a Probe of Hardy’s Paradox

Jeff S. Lundeen, Aephraim M. Steinberg

It has been proposed that the ability to perform joint weak measurements on postselected systems would allow us to study quantum paradoxes. These measurements can investigate the history of those particles that contribute to the paradoxical outcome. Here we experimentally perform weak measurements of joint (i.e., nonlocal) observables. In an implementation of Hardy's paradox, we weakly measure the locations of two photons, the subject of the conflicting statements behind the paradox. Remarkably, the resulting weak probabilities verify all of these statements but, at the same time, resolve the paradox.

arXiv:0810.4229•Physical Review Letters•Jan 14, 2009•368 citations

Against Krips' Resolution of Two Paradoxes in Quantum Mechanics

Clifford Alan Hooker

Once upon a time the well-known paradoxes of quantum mechanics (one might even say the “traditional” paradoxes of quantum mechanics!—I refer here to paradoxes such as the Schrödinger cat and the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Paradox) seemed especially difficult because of the rather bizarre behavior of the wave packet under the von Neumann theory of measurement, to which behavior these paradoxical situations seemed to draw especial attention. Quite recently quantum theoretical accounts of the measurement process have been appearing which sidestep direct reference to such things as “contraction” of the wave packet (see, for example, Krips and Jauch). With this development it has become increasingly popular to take a “cool” approach to these paradoxes, arguing that the new approach to measurement provides a consistent, nonbizarre account of the physical situations and that the paradoxicality was due largely to intuitive blunders—even plausible intuitive blunders—accentuated (but also disguised) by the unfortunate features of the von Neumann approach to measurement. Both Krips and Jauch, for example, adopt this approach.

Philosophy of Science•Sep 1, 1971•3 citations

The Quantum Measurement Problem

R. W. Rendell, Michael Steiner

•Aug 17, 2018•0 citations
It has been proposed that the ability to perform joint weak measurements on postselected systems would allow us to study quantum paradoxes. These measurements can investigate the history of those particles that contribute to the paradoxical outcome. Here we experimentally perform weak measurements of joint (i.e., nonlocal) observables. In an implementation of Hardy's paradox, we weakly measure the locations of two photons, the subject of the conflicting statements behind the paradox. Remarkably, the resulting weak probabilities verify all of these statements but, at the same time, resolve the paradox.
Once upon a time the well-known paradoxes of quantum mechanics (one might even say the “traditional” paradoxes of quantum mechanics!—I refer here to paradoxes such as the Schrödinger cat and the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Paradox) seemed especially difficult because of the rather bizarre behavior of the wave packet under the von Neumann theory of measurement, to which behavior these paradoxical situations seemed to draw especial attention. Quite recently quantum theoretical accounts of the measurement process have been appearing which sidestep direct reference to such things as “contraction” of the wave packet (see, for example, Krips and Jauch). With this development it has become increasingly popular to take a “cool” approach to these paradoxes, arguing that the new approach to measurement provides a consistent, nonbizarre account of the physical situations and that the paradoxicality was due largely to intuitive blunders—even plausible intuitive blunders—accentuated (but also disguised) by the unfortunate features of the von Neumann approach to measurement. Both Krips and Jauch, for example, adopt this approach.