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

TRENDS IN THE SCIENCES

Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics and Technology of Quantum Information

Toshio Ishigaki

Published Jan 1, 2003• 0 citations
Publisher
DOI
10.5363/tits.8.2_64

Related papers

Classical Information and Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics

Marcin Ostrowski

•Nov 23, 2010•0 citations

Entanglement, Information, and the Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics

Gregg S. Jaeger

The frontiers collection•Jan 1, 2009•137 citations

Randomness: Quantum versus classical

Andrei Yu. Khrennikov

Recent tremendous development of quantum information theory has led to a number of quantum technological projects, e.g. quantum random generators. This development had stimulated a new wave of interest in quantum foundations. One of the most intriguing problems of quantum foundations is the elaboration of a consistent and commonly accepted interpretation of a quantum state. Closely related problem is the clarification of the notion of quantum randomness and its interrelation with classical randomness. In this short review, we shall discuss basics of classical theory of randomness (which by itself is very complex and characterized by diversity of approaches) and compare it with irreducible quantum randomness. We also discuss briefly “digital philosophy”, its role in physics (classical and quantum) and its coupling to the information interpretation of quantum mechanics (QM).

arXiv:1512.08852•International Journal of Quantum Information•May 27, 2016•27 citations

Nanoscale Technology: A Two-Sided Challenge for Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics

Pieter E. Vermaas

In this contribution I consider the consequences of using quantum me- chanics in nanoscale technology. I argue that this use leads to a problem that poses a two-sided challenge for interpretations of quantum mechanics. Firstly I present the problem: engineers typically ascribe technical functions to artifacts; function ascrip- tions imply particular physical descriptions of artifacts, and quantum mechanics sometimes fails to reproduce these descriptions. This problem may be solved by adopting an interpretation of quantum mechanics. An interpretation turns quantum mechanics into a theory that gives richer physical descriptions and that may repro- duce the physical descriptions implied by function ascriptions. It can be shown, however, that not all interpretations fulfill this promise. Secondly I argue that these results amount to a two-sided challenge. It challenges philosophers of physics to provide an interpretation that gives nano-engineers rich enough quantum-mechanical descriptions to ascribe functions to artifacts. And it challenges engineers to help phi- losophers of physics with selecting tenable interpretations. Philosophers of physics are in need of tests for judging the different existing interpretations, and nano- engineers can provide such tests by requiring that interpretations should reproduce the function ascriptions to the artifacts they design. A nanoscale technology example I consider is quantum teleportation.

•Jan 1, 2004•6 citations

Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics

Gregg S. Jaeger

The frontiers collection•Jan 1, 2009•11 citations

Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics

Daniel M. Greenberger, Klaus Hentschel, Friedel Weinert

Compendium of Quantum Physics•Jan 1, 2009•0 citations
Recent tremendous development of quantum information theory has led to a number of quantum technological projects, e.g. quantum random generators. This development had stimulated a new wave of interest in quantum foundations. One of the most intriguing problems of quantum foundations is the elaboration of a consistent and commonly accepted interpretation of a quantum state. Closely related problem is the clarification of the notion of quantum randomness and its interrelation with classical randomness. In this short review, we shall discuss basics of classical theory of randomness (which by itself is very complex and characterized by diversity of approaches) and compare it with irreducible quantum randomness. We also discuss briefly “digital philosophy”, its role in physics (classical and quantum) and its coupling to the information interpretation of quantum mechanics (QM).
In this contribution I consider the consequences of using quantum me- chanics in nanoscale technology. I argue that this use leads to a problem that poses a two-sided challenge for interpretations of quantum mechanics. Firstly I present the problem: engineers typically ascribe technical functions to artifacts; function ascrip- tions imply particular physical descriptions of artifacts, and quantum mechanics sometimes fails to reproduce these descriptions. This problem may be solved by adopting an interpretation of quantum mechanics. An interpretation turns quantum mechanics into a theory that gives richer physical descriptions and that may repro- duce the physical descriptions implied by function ascriptions. It can be shown, however, that not all interpretations fulfill this promise. Secondly I argue that these results amount to a two-sided challenge. It challenges philosophers of physics to provide an interpretation that gives nano-engineers rich enough quantum-mechanical descriptions to ascribe functions to artifacts. And it challenges engineers to help phi- losophers of physics with selecting tenable interpretations. Philosophers of physics are in need of tests for judging the different existing interpretations, and nano- engineers can provide such tests by requiring that interpretations should reproduce the function ascriptions to the artifacts they design. A nanoscale technology example I consider is quantum teleportation.