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

The Description of Separated Systems and Quantum Mechanics and a Possible Explanation for the Probabilities of Quantum Mechanics

Dirk Aerts

Published Jan 1, 1988• 15 citations
Publisher
DOI
10.1007/978-94-009-2925-8_31

Related papers

A possible explanation for the probabilitiesof quantum mechanics

Diederik Aerts

•Jan 1, 1984•0 citations

Ambiguity in quantum-theoretical descriptions of experiments

John M. Myers, F. Hadi Madjid

This paper contributes to a burgeoning area of investigation, the ambiguity inherent in mathematics and the implications for physics of this ambiguity. To display the mathematical form of equations of quantum theory used to describe experiments, we make explicit the knobs by which the devices of an experiment are arranged and adjusted. A quantum description comes in two parts: (1) a statement of results of an experiment, expressed by probabilities of detections as functions of knob settings, and (2) an explanation of how we think these results come about, expressed by linear operators, also as functions of knob settings. Because quantum mechanics separates the two parts of any description, it is known that between the statements of results and the explanations lurks a logical gap: given any statement of results one has a choice of explanations. Here we work out some consequences of this openness to choice. We show how quantum theory as mathematical language in which to describe experiments necessarily involves multiple descriptions: multiple explanations of a given result, as well as multiple statements of results and multiple arrangement of knobs. Appreciating these multiplicities resolves what otherwise is a confusion in the concept of invariance. Implications of multiplicity of description for the security of quantum key distribution are noted.

arXiv:1409.5678•Sep 19, 2014•0 citations

Against the field ontology of quantum mechanics

Shan Gao

It has been widely thought that the ontology of quantum mechanics is real, physical fields. In this paper, I will present a new argument against the field ontology of quantum mechanics by analyzing one-body systems such as an electron. First, I argue that if the physical entity described by the wave function of an electron is a field, then this field is massive and charged. Next, I argue that if a field is massive and charged, then any two parts of the field in space will have gravitational and electromagnetic interactions, while the existence of such self-interactions for an electron contradicts quantum mechanics and experimental observations. This poses a serious difficulty for the field ontology of quantum mechanics. Third, I argue that a particle ontological interpretation of the wave function may avoid the difficulty by providing a plausible explanation of the non-existence of self-interactions. According to this explanation, the wave function of an electron is a description of the state of the random motion of the electron as a particle, and in particular, the modulus squared of the wave function gives the probability density that the electron appears in every possible position in space. Finally, I answer a major objection to the explanation of the non-existence of self-interactions in terms of particle ontology.

•Dec 19, 2018•4 citations

A PROBABILITY-THEORETICAL FOUNDATION AND INTERPRETATION OF QUANTUM MECHANICS

I. Fényes

•Jan 1, 1952•0 citations

Objective Probability and the Mind-Body Relation

Paul Tappenden

Objective probability in quantum mechanics is often thought to involve a stochastic process whereby an actual future is selected from a range of possibilities. Everett's seminal idea is that all possible definite futures on the pointer basis exist as components of a macroscopic linear superposition. I demonstrate that these two conceptions of what is involved in quantum processes are linked by two alternative interpretation of the mind-body relation. This leads to a fission, rather than divergence, interpretation of Everettian theory and to a novel explanation of why a principle of indifference does not apply to self-location uncertainty for a post-measurement, pre-observation subject, just as Sebens and Carroll claim. Their Epistemic Separability Principle is shown to arise out of this explanation and the derivation of the Born rule for Everettian theory is thereby put on a firmer footing.

arXiv:1702.02140•Feb 7, 2017•0 citations

The Probability Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics

Bryce de Witt

•Jan 1, 1998•0 citations
This paper contributes to a burgeoning area of investigation, the ambiguity inherent in mathematics and the implications for physics of this ambiguity. To display the mathematical form of equations of quantum theory used to describe experiments, we make explicit the knobs by which the devices of an experiment are arranged and adjusted. A quantum description comes in two parts: (1) a statement of results of an experiment, expressed by probabilities of detections as functions of knob settings, and (2) an explanation of how we think these results come about, expressed by linear operators, also as functions of knob settings. Because quantum mechanics separates the two parts of any description, it is known that between the statements of results and the explanations lurks a logical gap: given any statement of results one has a choice of explanations. Here we work out some consequences of this openness to choice. We show how quantum theory as mathematical language in which to describe experiments necessarily involves multiple descriptions: multiple explanations of a given result, as well as multiple statements of results and multiple arrangement of knobs. Appreciating these multiplicities resolves what otherwise is a confusion in the concept of invariance. Implications of multiplicity of description for the security of quantum key distribution are noted.
It has been widely thought that the ontology of quantum mechanics is real, physical fields. In this paper, I will present a new argument against the field ontology of quantum mechanics by analyzing one-body systems such as an electron. First, I argue that if the physical entity described by the wave function of an electron is a field, then this field is massive and charged. Next, I argue that if a field is massive and charged, then any two parts of the field in space will have gravitational and electromagnetic interactions, while the existence of such self-interactions for an electron contradicts quantum mechanics and experimental observations. This poses a serious difficulty for the field ontology of quantum mechanics. Third, I argue that a particle ontological interpretation of the wave function may avoid the difficulty by providing a plausible explanation of the non-existence of self-interactions. According to this explanation, the wave function of an electron is a description of the state of the random motion of the electron as a particle, and in particular, the modulus squared of the wave function gives the probability density that the electron appears in every possible position in space. Finally, I answer a major objection to the explanation of the non-existence of self-interactions in terms of particle ontology.
Objective probability in quantum mechanics is often thought to involve a stochastic process whereby an actual future is selected from a range of possibilities. Everett's seminal idea is that all possible definite futures on the pointer basis exist as components of a macroscopic linear superposition. I demonstrate that these two conceptions of what is involved in quantum processes are linked by two alternative interpretation of the mind-body relation. This leads to a fission, rather than divergence, interpretation of Everettian theory and to a novel explanation of why a principle of indifference does not apply to self-location uncertainty for a post-measurement, pre-observation subject, just as Sebens and Carroll claim. Their Epistemic Separability Principle is shown to arise out of this explanation and the derivation of the Born rule for Everettian theory is thereby put on a firmer footing.