An interpretation of quantum mechanics that rejects hidden variables has to say something about the way measurement can be understood as a transformation on states of individual systems, and that leads to the core of the interpretive problems posed by Luders' projection rule: What, if any, is its physical content? In this paper I explore one suggestion which is implicit in usual interpretations of the rule and show that this view does not stand on solid ground. In the process, important aspects of the role played by the projection postulate in the conceptual structure of quantum mechanics will be clarified. It will be shown in particular that serious objections can be raised against the (often implicit) view that identifies the physical relation of compatibility preserved by Luders' rule with the relation of simultaneous measurability.
An interpretation of quantum mechanics that rejects hidden variables has to say something about the way measurement can be understood as a transformation on states of individual systems, and that leads to the core of the interpretive problems posed by Luders' projection rule: What, if any, is its physical content? In this paper I explore one suggestion which is implicit in usual interpretations of the rule and show that this view does not stand on solid ground. In the process, important aspects of the role played by the projection postulate in the conceptual structure of quantum mechanics will be clarified. It will be shown in particular that serious objections can be raised against the (often implicit) view that identifies the physical relation of compatibility preserved by Luders' rule with the relation of simultaneous measurability.
An interpretation of quantum mechanics that rejects hidden variables has to say something about the way measurement can be understood as a transformation on states of individual systems, and that leads to the core of the interpretive problems posed by Luders' projection rule: What, if any, is its physical content? In this paper I explore one suggestion which is implicit in usual interpretations of the rule and show that this view does not stand on solid ground. In the process, important aspects of the role played by the projection postulate in the conceptual structure of quantum mechanics will be clarified. It will be shown in particular that serious objections can be raised against the (often implicit) view that identifies the physical relation of compatibility preserved by Luders' rule with the relation of simultaneous measurability. Preparatory measurements are measurements for which we can con- clude on the basis of the result of measurement that the system is (immediately after measurement) in an eigenstate of the eigenvalue corresponding to the given result. Preparatory measurements are first of all experimental processes that select an ensemble to which a quantum (statistical) state can be assigned. Statistical interpretations of the state vector take as fundamental this assignment of a quantum state to (sub)ensembles selected by experimental procedures. But if the exist- ence of hidden variables is denied, then it seems that it should be possible to interpret preparatory measurements in terms of individual state transformations. This can be done by thinking of these measure- ments as idealized measurement transformations satisfying the so-called first kind condition: an immediate repetition of the same measurement gives the same result as the initial measurement. This idealization (taken here for the sake of simplicity) will be assumed here to be non-controversial. Furthermore, it will be assumed here that every measurement can be represented as a first kind measurement: thus, a 'measurement' in this investigation is always to be a 'first kind measure- ment'. For measurements of maximal magnitudes (i.e., magnitudes with no degenerate eigenvalue) Von Neumann argued (1955) that the final state is given by the (unique) eigenstate of the eigenvalue representing the
In this paper, we shall show how the theory of measurements is to be understood from the point of view of a physical interpretation of the quantum theory in terms of "hidden" variables, developed in a previous paper. We find that in principle, these "hidden" variables determine the precise results of each individual measurement process. In practice, however, in measurements that we now know how to carry out, the observing apparatus disturbs the observed system in an unpredictable and uncontrollable way, so that the uncertainty principle is obtained as a practical limitation on the possible precision of measurements. This limitation is not, however, inherent in the conceptual structure of our interpretation. We shall see, for example, that simultaneous measurements of position and momentum having unlimited precision would in principle be possible if, as suggested in the previous paper, the mathematical formulation of the quantum theory needs to be modified at very short distances in certain ways that are consistent with our interpretation but not with the usual interpretation.We give a simple explanation of the origin of quantum-mechanical correlations of distant objects in the hypothetical experiment of Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen, which was suggested by these authors as a criticism of the usual interpretation.Finally, we show that von Neumann's proof that quantum theory is not consistent with hidden variables does not apply to our interpretation, because the hidden variables contemplated here depend both on the state of the measuring apparatus and the observed system and therefore go beyond certain of von Neumann's assumptions.In two appendixes, we treat the problem of the electromagnetic field in our interpretation and answer certain additional objections which have arisen in the attempt to give a precise description for an individual system at the quantum level.
The usual interpretation of the quantum theory is self-consistent, but it involves an assumption that cannot be tested experimentally, viz., that the most complete possible specification of an individual system is in terms of a wave function that determines only probable results of actual measurement processes. The only way of investigating the truth of this assumption is by trying to find some other interpretation of the quantum theory in terms of at present "hidden" variables, which in principle determine the precise behavior of an individual system, but which are in practice averaged over in measurements of the types that can now be carried out. In this paper and in a subsequent paper, an interpretation of the quantum theory in terms of just such "hidden" variables is suggested. It is shown that as long as the mathematical theory retains its present general form, this suggested interpretation leads to precisely the same results for all physical processes as does the usual interpretation. Nevertheless, the suggested interpretation provides a broader conceptual framework than the usual interpretation, because it makes possible a precise and continuous description of all processes, even at the quantum level. This broader conceptual framework allows more general mathematical formulations of the theory than those allowed by the usual interpretation. Now, the usual mathematical formulation seems to lead to insoluble difficulties when it is extrapolated into the domain of distances of the order of ${10}^{\ensuremath{-}13}$ cm or less. It is therefore entirely possible that the interpretation suggested here may be needed for the resolution of these difficulties. In any case, the mere possibility of such an interpretation proves that it is not necessary for us to give up a precise, rational, and objective description of individual systems at a quantum level of accuracy.
Why does Bohr nowhere discuss the projection postulate? He has the courtesy to cast at least a few disparaging words at some other notions for which he has no use, such as quantum logic. But he will not even admit the projection postulate as a subject for discussion. Another way to raise the puzzle is to point out that, although Bohr has a lot to say about measurement, he won't even recognize the existence of what has come to be called the “problem of measurement”. I have exaggerated slightly. We have one relevant comment, in the report of the discussion after Bohr's talk at the 1938 Warsaw conference: Professor Bohr wished to say, relative to the question propounded by the president, that the duality he noticed in the interpretation of the formalism of quantum mechanics was, in his opinion, a question of choosing the most adequate description of the experiment.
Previous work has shown that the problem of measurement in quantum mechanics is not correctly seen as one of understanding some allegedly univocal process of measurement in nature which corresponds to the projection postulate. The present paper introduces a new perspective by showing that how we are to understand the nature of the change of quantum mechanical state on measurement depends very sensitively on the interpretation of the state function, and by showing how attention to this dependence can greatly sharpen the problems and relations between them. In particular, the problems take a form resembling their traditional formulation only on an inexact value interpretation, according to which the state function attributes inexact values of quantities to systems. On other interpretations we can apply (with various drawbacks) the subensemble idea, according to which a discontinuous change of quantum mechanical description results on measurement simply because we need a new state function to describe a new object.
Proponents of the Everett interpretation of Quantum Theory have made efforts to show that to an observer in a branch, everything happens as if the projection postulate were true without postulating it. In this paper, we will indicate that it is only possible to deduce this rule if one introduces another postulate that is logically equivalent to introducing the projection postulate as an extra assumption. We do this by examining the consequences of changing the projection postulate into an alternative one, while keeping the unitary part of quantum theory, and indicate that this is a consistent (although strange) physical theory.