In quantum mechanics it is well known that, if any two states are superposed, they interfere with each other. It is true, we should not deny such interference in principle, but we may assert what follows. When two states different from each other in a great many degrees of freedom are superposed, the interference effect becomes obscure. If they are different in an infinitely many degrees of freedom, they do not interfere at all, and their superposition is nothing but a mere probability function. This assertion enables us to understand how the probability amplitude for a micro-system is converted into a probability function for a measuring apparatus in the cource of measurement.
In quantum mechanics it is well known that, if any two states are superposed, they interfere with each other. It is true, we should not deny such interference in principle, but we may assert what follows. When two states different from each other in a great many degrees of freedom are superposed, the interference effect becomes obscure. If they are different in an infinitely many degrees of freedom, they do not interfere at all, and their superposition is nothing but a mere probability function. This assertion enables us to understand how the probability amplitude for a micro-system is converted into a probability function for a measuring apparatus in the cource of measurement.
A superselection rule advanced in the course of a quantum-mechanical treatment of some phenomenon is an assertion to the effect that the superposition principle of quantum mechanics is to be restricted in the application at hand. Superselection accounts of measurement all have in common a decision to represent the indicator states of detectors by eigenspaces of superselection operators named in a superselection rule, on the grounds that the states in question are states of a so-called classical quantity and therefore not subject to quantum interference effects. By this strategy superselectionists of measurement expect to dispense with use of projection postulates in treatments of measurement. I shall argue that superselection accounts of measurement are self-contradictory, and that treatments of infinite systems, if they can avoid the contradiction, are not true superselection accounts.
This article is the third of a trilogy of articles on the nature of probability in quantum mechanics. The first article [1] began by noting that superposed wavefunctions in quantum mechanics lead to a squared amplitude that introduces interference into the position probability density of an atomic particle, which happens nowhere else in probability theory. It went on to also note that there is an unexplained coincidence in quantum mechanics in that the interference term in the squared amplitude of superposed wavefunctions gives the squared amplitude the form of a variance of a sum of correlated random variables and went on to examine whether there could be an archetypical variable, in the Platonic sense of true form, behind quantum probability that would reconcile quantum probability with classic probability. This examination found such a variable, which can encompass both local and nonlocal quantum events. The second article [2] provided evidence that quantum probability has such a stochastic nature. This evidence was based on the number of electrons that need to be sent through a two-slit interferometer to gain a clear pattern of self-interference, which when compared with the number that would be expected to be sufficient in order for the position probability distribution of the self-interference wavefunction to take clear shape suggests that there is more variability present than that described by the formulation of quantum mechanics, which implies the presence of an underlying and as yet unrecognized physical process. This final article completes the trilogy by considering how a key aspect of experimental design would be affected by the increased variability that would be present if quantum probability is itself stochastic in the manner suggested in the previous two articles.
In recent notes by Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen and by Bohr, attention has been called to the fact that certain results of quantum mechanics are not to be reconciled with the assumption that a system has independently real properties as soon as it is free from mechanical interference. We here investigate in general, and in abstract terms, the extent of this disagreement. When suitably formulated, such an assumption gives to certain types of questions the same answers as does quantum mechanics; this is true of the formulas usually given in discussions of the theory of measurement. There exists, however, a general class of cases in which contradictions occur. That such contradictions are not restricted to the abstract mathematical theory, but can be realized in the commonest physical terms, is shown by the working out of an example..
Abstract: The quantum measurement problem has been the deepest conceptual difficulty since the birth of quantum mechanics. Standard quantum mechanics accepts wavefunction collapse as an independent postulate but never provides a physical explanation. The decoherence approach attributes collapse to the interaction between the system and its environment, but faces two fundamental limitations: the “infinite regress” problem and the “insufficiency of decoherence” problem. Within the framework of the Self-Construction Theory (SCT), this paper provides a complete resolution of the measurement problem. The core thesis is that quantum measurement is not a fundamental process independent of the laws of physical evolution, but rather a local manifestation of constructive renormalization—the scale evolution of the spacetime complex field K from microscopic degrees of freedom to macroscopic effective descriptions. The origins of wavefunction collapse, decoherence, and the Born rule receive a unified first‑principles interpretation in this framework. SCT’s spontaneous decoherence mechanism is the key to the resolution. Constructive renormalization inherently involves information loss—the integrated‑out microscopic degrees of freedom no longer exist in the macroscopic effective description. During a measurement, the measuring apparatus possesses a huge number (∼1023) of microscopic degrees of freedom. When the apparatus interacts with the measured system, constructive renormalization triggers information compression of these degrees of freedom—the apparatus can no longer distinguish which branch of the superposition it is in, and quantum coherence is thus spontaneously lost. No “external environment” is needed—the constructive renormalization dynamics of spacetime itself is the ultimate source of decoherence, thereby completely solving the “infinite regress” problem. Among the probability distribution given by the Born rule, the weights of non‑maximal probability branches are further suppressed by information compression under the huge number of microscopic degrees of freedom, so that macroscopic observers can perceive only a definite outcome in the effective description. The information loss caused by constructive renormalization is ontological—it does not rely on any approximation or truncation, thus fundamentally solving the “insufficiency of decoherence” problem. The Born rule—that measurement outcomes occur with probabilities given by the squared amplitudes—is directly derived from the constructive integral structure in SCT. In the constructive renormalization limit, interference terms between different configurations are naturally suppressed by off‑diagonal phase randomization, and the system automatically switches to a classical probabilistic description. In the diagonal density matrix representation, the squared amplitude is the only natural weight that is simultaneously real and non‑negative. Hence the Born rule is not an additional postulate of quantum mechanics but a necessary and unique manifestation of the relative frequencies of the constructive integral in the constructive renormalization limit. This derivation is rigorous within the mathematical framework of constructive renormalization—it does not rely on any approximations or truncations. SCT’s quantum measurement theory is deeply unified with the black hole information paradox. The “collapse” in quantum measurement and the “information loss” in black hole evaporation are different manifestations of the same core mechanism—the redistribution of information due to constructive renormalization—in two extreme physical situations. In quantum measurement, information is redistributed into the degrees of freedom of the macroscopic apparatus; in black hole evaporation, information is redistributed into the time‑point configurations on the horizon. This unification is the strongest proof of the universality of constructive renormalization as an information‑processing mechanism. Keywords: quantum measurement; spontaneous decoherence; constructive renormalization; Born rule; wavefunction collapse; information redistribution; Self-Construction Theory
In this paper, we discuss the importance of measurement in quantum mechanics and the so-called measurement problem. Any quantum system can be described as a linear combination of eigenstates of an operator representing a physical quantity; this means that the system can be in a superposition of states that corresponds to different eigenvalues, i.e., different physical outcomes, each one incompatible with the others. The measurement process converts a state of superposition (not macroscopically defined) in a well-defined state. We show that, if we describe the measurement by the standard laws of quantum mechanics, the system would preserve its state of superposition even on a macroscopic scale. Since this is not the case, we assume that a measurement does not obey to standard quantum mechanics, but to a new set of laws that form a “quantum measurement theory”.
In classical mechanics, as we know, all observables commute with each other and therefore belong to the same “commuting set.” This means that – in principle – we can measure all observables simultaneously. Then, the state manifests itself as a collection of properties (of values of observables) (see Sec. 1.1), and as such it is observable. On the other hand, quantum-mechanical observables may not commute (see Subsec. 2.1.5). As a consequence, the state is not just a collection of observable values (see also Sec. 2.3) so that we may ask ourselves whether it is observable or not, and therefore raise the following question: What is the nature of the wave function? Is it simply a mathematical tool, i.e. does it only represent the sum of all that we can know about a system? Or does it have an ontological status? Since the early days of quantum mechanics, this question has been very popular. As a first attempt, de Broglie tried to interpret the wave function as describing, in classical terms, a wave field that envelopes a classical particle (see also Subsec. 16.3.2). This theory should predict the existence of empty waves, but several experiments have shown negative results (see also the end of Sec. 9.6). More recently, many physicists have tried to propose some methods in order to measure the wave function. Here we shortly report on some of these proposals and discuss to what extent the quantum state can be measured.