In this paper, I show that an interpretation of quantum mechanics using two-state vector formalism proposed by Aharonov, Bergmann, and Lebowitz, can solve one of the measurement problems formulated by Maudlin. According to this interpretation, we can simultaneously insist that the wave function of a system is complete, that the wave function is determined by the Schrödinger equation, and that the measurement of a physical quantity always has determinate outcomes, although Maudlin in his formulation of the measurement problem states that these three claims are mutually inconsistent. Further, I show that my interpretation does not contradict the uncertainty relation and the no-go theorem.
In this paper, I show that an interpretation of quantum mechanics using two-state vector formalism proposed by Aharonov, Bergmann, and Lebowitz, can solve one of the measurement problems formulated by Maudlin. According to this interpretation, we can simultaneously insist that the wave function of a system is complete, that the wave function is determined by the Schrödinger equation, and that the measurement of a physical quantity always has determinate outcomes, although Maudlin in his formulation of the measurement problem states that these three claims are mutually inconsistent. Further, I show that my interpretation does not contradict the uncertainty relation and the no-go theorem.
The measurement problem in quantum mechanics can be characterized as explaining the question of definite outcomes, where a measurement of a superposed quantum state only gives a single definite outcome. According to quantum mechanics, the wave function, ψ, defines the state of the system, while the Schrödinger equation is a linear superposition of states that evolves deterministically. When a measurement is made, the outcome always uncovers the physical system as being in a definite state, and the future evolution of the wave function is amended based on the state that was measured. This change is often referred to as the “collapse” of the wave function. The problem concerns the question of what and how the measurement affected the system and why this changed the wave function. This paper addresses the measurement problem by separating it into five separate questions that are resolved through linking measurements to an entropy transfer from the superposed state to the environment. The underlying premise is the wave function is descriptive and not prescriptive, and entropy—the metric of quantum uncertainty and uncertainty in general—is the fundamental property rather than the wave function.
In the well known Copenhagen interpretation of Quantum mechanics, advocated by N. Bohr, the physical objects and the experimental results can be described only in a macroscopic language, leaving any possible microscopic description as unspeakable. This point of view has been deepened by C. Rovelli in the relational interpretation of Quantum mechanics. Most of the alternative interpretations, which try a detailed microscopic description of physical phenomena and of their evolution, have in common the explicit introduction of the wave function as the basic element of the theory. These interpretations require the notion of quantum state as the fundamental concept of the theory, which is the typical unspeakable physical element according to the Copenhagen interpretation. The two basic physical entities are intimately bound together by the integrity of the wave function. These interpretations are usually indicated as realistic. It is well known that the use of the wave function and its time evolution in the description of the physical processes leads unavoidably to some difficulties or so-called paradoxes. The measurement problem is at the center of these difficulties, mainly because it requires the introduction of the reduction process of the wave function, which is not included explicitly within the mathematical formalism of Quantum Mechanics. In this paper we build up and propose a model which goes beyond the standard formalism and which is able to solve the measurement problem and all the other difficulties which, in a way or in another, are related to it.
Quantum mechanics is based on Schrodinger’s wave function with linear superposition of vectors in a Hilbert space. Due to superposition, multiple physical states are considered simultaneously for the same time point, but when the corresponding quantum mechanical experiments are realized, there is only one outcome and not a superposition of pointer positions. This observation characterizes the quantum mechanical measurement problem, which for about a century found multiple interpretations, which can be classified as potentiality, as proposed by Heisenberg, or as real physical entities, for instance fields. Potentialities are yet inexistent in reality and unobservable in the present, since they represent a possible future. Thus, they can only be an intra-mental representation of a future process and not a physical extra-mental process ongoing in the present. There is coexistence of a physical object observable in reality and a mental prediction by an observer concerning the future behavior of this object. The characterization of quantum mechanical formalism by some physicists corresponds to a prediction and therefore to a mental representation of the future behavior of elementary particles and not to a description of an ongoing extra-mental process. Prediction in life and science has some characteristics, which resemble the measurement problem, since it undergoes a “multiple to one” reduction of mental potentialities to only one observable real outcome. Besides quantum mechanics, such reductions can also be found with many kinds of predictions, in classical physics for regular and irregular dynamical processes and in humans for programming future actions. Superposition in classical physics only concerns variable effects, but in quantum mechanics includes variable effects and non-localizable causes. Quantum mechanics, interpreted as prediction of future outcomes with multiple potentialities but only one realization, would resemble the general prediction problem in life and science and thereby loos its weird aspects.
Quantum mechanics famously posits two distinct evolution rules for the state of a system: a deterministic, unitary time evolution under the Schr¨odinger equation, and a probabilistic “collapse” of the wavefunction upon measurement as dictated by the Born rule. The apparent inconsistency of these two dynamical laws – one continuous and one discontinuous – constitutes the quantum measurement problem. This foundational problem, which underlies the emergence of definite outcomes from quantum superpositions, has persisted since the theory’s inception. In this review, we present a comprehensive and rigorous examination of the measurement problem and survey the leading approaches that seek to resolve or circumvent it. We begin by formulating the measurement problem and its conceptual challenges. We then discuss in detail the major interpretations of quantum mechanics and theoretical frameworks addressing the problem: the Copenhagen interpretation, Everett’s many-worlds interpretation, de Broglie–Bohm pilot-wave theory, objective collapse models, the role of decoherence and environment-induced superselection, and epistemic approaches such as QBism. For each interpretation, we describe the core principles and mathematical formalism, assessing how (and whether) it attempts to solve the measurement problem. We also review modern developments and experiments relevant to quantum measurements, including tests of Bell inequalities, observations of decoherence and macroscopic superpositions, weak measurements and quantum eraser experiments, and thought experiments ‘a la Wigner’s friend. We highlight how these results inform the ongoing debate. Finally, we discuss open problems and challenges that remain in fully resolving the measurement problem.
We review the postulates of quantum mechanics with respect to the representation of physical states and measurable quantities, their time evolution, and the interpretation of measurements. We first formulate the postulates in terms of wave functions and differential operators, and then reformulate them in the abstract Hilbert space of state vectors, using Dirac’s notations. Improper states subject to Dirac’s delta normalization are introduced, and the space of physical states is extended to include them. The postulates are rationalized by associating each Hermitian linear operator with a complete orthonormal system of its eigenvectors, where measurement probabilities depend on the projections of these eigenvectors on the system’s state vector. Particularly, wave functions are identified as projections of state vectors on the position operator eigenstates. State vectors representing multidimensional systems are formulated as tensor products of vectors in their subspaces. Finally, we address the general uncertainty relations in simultaneous measurements of different observables.
In this paper, we suggest an alternative interpretation for the state vector which, by considering temporal parts for physical objects, aims to give an intelligible account of measurement problem in quantum mechanics. This interpretation, it is claimed, has the capacity to solve three measurement problems: the problem of outcome, the problem of statistics and the problem of effect. We argue that it not only provides us with an account of measurement problem but also shows us yet another limitation of our perceptual experience, i.e. our inability to perceive unsharp reality.