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

THE INTERPRETATION OF QUANTUM MECHANICS. IV. OBSERVATION AND REALITY

A.B. Datzeff

Published Feb 1, 1961• 0 citations
OpenAlex

Abstract

The following objective sense was ascribed to the relations of uncertainty, with which observation is not a decisive factor. The values of each physical quantity in the field of the microworld are subjected to chaotic changes in the course of time. The dispersions of each couple of canonically conjugated quantities are not independent, but there exists a dependence between them expressed by the corresponding relation of uncertainty. (auth)

Related papers

THE INTERPRETATION OF QUANTUM MECHANICS

Wolfgang Weidlich

General conditions are given for the relationship of a possible parameter space, in which a given description of the physical system should occur, with the Hilbert space of quantam mechanics. The validity of quantum theoretical measurement axioms and motion equations is assumed. (tr-auth)

•Aug 1, 1960•0 citations

Reality, Measurement, and the State of the System in Quantum Mechanics

Edwin C. Kemble

It has always been the ideal of science to discover laws of nature on which we can all agree. Agreement requires evidence independent of individual judgment, i.e., objective evidence. We apply the term objective to such unbiased scientific evidence because we associate it with an external world of objects that we conceive to be the origin of our information. This external world is instinctively invented by each of us as a means of dealing with invariant patterns in his private world of experience. The invention is validated and elaborated as a consequence of the fact that it turns out to be sharable. In fact the common content of all our invented external worlds is so unambiguous and independent of individual bias that it can form the universally accepted basis for communication and action in an organized society. The consistency of the patterns of experience associated with the external world is such that we are under severe psychological compulsion to assign to this world an existence independent of our experience and a reality superior to that of any small part of our experience. Physical science is devoted to the study of the “laws” of the external physical universe, i.e., to the behaviour of the objects in it. Hence there is a strong tendency to project into the external world the information gathered by scientifically objective methods and even the theoretical concepts in terms of which the information is interpreted. Whatever is so projected is objective in a second sense of the term, i.e., assigned by us to the external world of objects.

Philosophy of Science•Oct 1, 1951•10 citations

THE INTERPRETATION OF QUANTUM MECHANICS. III. MATHEMATICAL FORMALISM

A.B. Datzeff

As a summary of the ideas developed in the previous works, the mathematical formalism of the prerelativistic quantum mechanics is given. It is shown that the relations of uncertainty as well as the attempts for their interpretation have always a statistical sense and from them one cannot draw a conclusion for the behavior of a separate particle. (auth)

•Jan 1, 1961•0 citations

Quantum Reference Frame Transformations, Noncommutative Values of Observables, and Quantum Relativity

Otto C. W. Kong

Abstract The subject of quantum reference frame transformations gets popular lately with some interesting new theoretical development partly for the reason that the physics involved is becoming experimentally accessible. The position of a position eigenstate when observed from an object with ‘uncertainty’ in position would be seen with ‘uncertainty’. In fact, even the existence of entanglement is reference frame-dependent. We present an improved formulation of such a transformation and give a novel way to describe exactly by ‘how much’ the ‘value of the position’ has changed which fully encodes all information about the changes, including the ‘uncertainty’ and entanglement. That is an application of the notion of noncommutative values of physical quantities we introduced to understand the reality of quantum physics and beyond. Some implications on fundamental physics will also be discussed. In particular, we suggest thinking about quantum gravity as a theory of general quantum relativity, alleviating Penrose’s notion of incompatibility of qauntum mechanics with the relativity principle.

Journal of Physics Conference Series•Dec 1, 2024•0 citations

The quantum world and the completeness of quantum mechanics

James T. Cushing

What does not satisfy me in that theory [quantum mechanics], from the standpoint of principle, is its attitude towards that which appears to me to be the programmatic aim of all physics: the complete description of any (individual) real situation (as it supposedly exists irrespective of any act of observation or substantiation). Albert Einstein, Reply to Criticisms [This] implies the impossibility of any sharp separation between the behaviour of atomic objects and the interaction with the measuring instruments which serve to define the conditions under which the phenomena appear . In fact, the individuality of the typical quantum effects finds its proper expression in the circumstance that any attempt of subdividing the phenomena will demand a change in the experimental arrangement introducing new possibilities of interaction between objects and measuring instruments which in principle cannot be controlled. Consequently, evidence obtained under different experimental conditions cannot be comprehended within a single picture, but must be regarded as complementary in the sense that only the totality of the phenomena exhausts the possible information about the objects. Indeed the finite interaction between object and measuring agencies conditioned by the very existence of the quantum of action entails – because of the impossibility of controlling the reaction of the object on the measuring instruments, if these are to serve their purpose – the necessity of a final renunciation of the classical idea of causality and a radical revision of our attitude towards the problem of physical reality. […]

Cambridge University Press eBooks•Jan 29, 1998•0 citations

Quantum mechanics and reality

Bryce Seligman DeWitt

Despite its enormous practical success, quantum theory is so contrary to intuition that, even after 45 years, the experts themselves still do not all agree what to make of it. The area of disagreement centers primarily around the problem of describing observations. Formally, the result of a measurement is a superposition of vectors, each representing the quantity being observed as having one of its possible values. The question that has to be answered is how this superposition can be reconciled with the fact that in practice we only observe one value. How is the measuring instrument prodded into making up its mind which value it has observed?

Physics Today•Sep 1, 1970•678 citations
The following objective sense was ascribed to the relations of uncertainty, with which observation is not a decisive factor. The values of each physical quantity in the field of the microworld are subjected to chaotic changes in the course of time. The dispersions of each couple of canonically conjugated quantities are not independent, but there exists a dependence between them expressed by the corresponding relation of uncertainty. (auth)
It has always been the ideal of science to discover laws of nature on which we can all agree. Agreement requires evidence independent of individual judgment, i.e., objective evidence. We apply the term objective to such unbiased scientific evidence because we associate it with an external world of objects that we conceive to be the origin of our information. This external world is instinctively invented by each of us as a means of dealing with invariant patterns in his private world of experience. The invention is validated and elaborated as a consequence of the fact that it turns out to be sharable. In fact the common content of all our invented external worlds is so unambiguous and independent of individual bias that it can form the universally accepted basis for communication and action in an organized society. The consistency of the patterns of experience associated with the external world is such that we are under severe psychological compulsion to assign to this world an existence independent of our experience and a reality superior to that of any small part of our experience. Physical science is devoted to the study of the “laws” of the external physical universe, i.e., to the behaviour of the objects in it. Hence there is a strong tendency to project into the external world the information gathered by scientifically objective methods and even the theoretical concepts in terms of which the information is interpreted. Whatever is so projected is objective in a second sense of the term, i.e., assigned by us to the external world of objects.
Abstract The subject of quantum reference frame transformations gets popular lately with some interesting new theoretical development partly for the reason that the physics involved is becoming experimentally accessible. The position of a position eigenstate when observed from an object with ‘uncertainty’ in position would be seen with ‘uncertainty’. In fact, even the existence of entanglement is reference frame-dependent. We present an improved formulation of such a transformation and give a novel way to describe exactly by ‘how much’ the ‘value of the position’ has changed which fully encodes all information about the changes, including the ‘uncertainty’ and entanglement. That is an application of the notion of noncommutative values of physical quantities we introduced to understand the reality of quantum physics and beyond. Some implications on fundamental physics will also be discussed. In particular, we suggest thinking about quantum gravity as a theory of general quantum relativity, alleviating Penrose’s notion of incompatibility of qauntum mechanics with the relativity principle.
What does not satisfy me in that theory [quantum mechanics], from the standpoint of principle, is its attitude towards that which appears to me to be the programmatic aim of all physics: the complete description of any (individual) real situation (as it supposedly exists irrespective of any act of observation or substantiation). Albert Einstein, Reply to Criticisms [This] implies the impossibility of any sharp separation between the behaviour of atomic objects and the interaction with the measuring instruments which serve to define the conditions under which the phenomena appear . In fact, the individuality of the typical quantum effects finds its proper expression in the circumstance that any attempt of subdividing the phenomena will demand a change in the experimental arrangement introducing new possibilities of interaction between objects and measuring instruments which in principle cannot be controlled. Consequently, evidence obtained under different experimental conditions cannot be comprehended within a single picture, but must be regarded as complementary in the sense that only the totality of the phenomena exhausts the possible information about the objects. Indeed the finite interaction between object and measuring agencies conditioned by the very existence of the quantum of action entails – because of the impossibility of controlling the reaction of the object on the measuring instruments, if these are to serve their purpose – the necessity of a final renunciation of the classical idea of causality and a radical revision of our attitude towards the problem of physical reality. […]
Despite its enormous practical success, quantum theory is so contrary to intuition that, even after 45 years, the experts themselves still do not all agree what to make of it. The area of disagreement centers primarily around the problem of describing observations. Formally, the result of a measurement is a superposition of vectors, each representing the quantity being observed as having one of its possible values. The question that has to be answered is how this superposition can be reconciled with the fact that in practice we only observe one value. How is the measuring instrument prodded into making up its mind which value it has observed?