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

Cambridge University Press eBooks

The measurement problem in quantum mechanics

Gennaro Auletta, Mauro Fortunato, Giorgio Parisi A

Published Apr 16, 2009• 1 citation
Publisher

Abstract

In most textbooks, measurement does not receive the full attention it deserves and sometimes is even not treated at all, apart a brief and cryptic mention of the “reduction of the wave packet.” However, in the last decades, the situation has profoundly changed and it is time to consider measurement a fundamental part of quantum mechanics, even, to a certain extent, an important generalization of the traditional theory (see also Chs. 14–15). This chapter consists of three major parts. In the first block (Secs. 9.1–9.4) we develop the main physical features of the measurement process: the heart of the argument is here represented by the aspects related to the interpretation. In the second part (Secs. 9.5–9.8) we discuss several special (and partly interdependent) topics of measurement: the heart here is represented by experimental aspects. In the third part (Secs. 9.9–9.12) we deal with the measurement process on a more formal plane, making use, in particular, of the generalization represented by the concepts of effect and positive operator valued measure (POVM). As we have said, the measurement problem is one of the most fundamental issues in the conceptual structure of quantum mechanics (as described in Sec. 9.1) and has a long history that will be examined in Sec. 9.2. In this context, the existence of apparently paradoxical quantum states comes about: the so-called Schrödinger cat states (see Sec. 9.3).

DOI
10.1017/cbo9780511813955.010

Related papers

More on the quantum measurement problem

Gregory N. Derry

Although I have neither an objection to nor an endorsement of David Mermin’s major premise in his Quick Study, “There is no quantum measurement problem” (Physics Today, June 2022, page 62), I would like to make several contextual points.Mermin’s argument has an extensive history, along with a comparable history of rebuttal. Five decades ago Max Jammer wrote that “measurements in quantum mechanics are no more or less problematic than in classical physics, for the Hilbert space vector is only a purely formal device for relating the statistics associated with these arrangements to the physics of observations in classical physics.” That seems like a condensed version of the argument Mermin presents. On the following page, however, Jammer notes that a “problematic aspect whose serious implications were only gradually understood was the fact that as long as a quantum mechanical one-body or many-body system does not interact with macroscopic objects, as long as its motion is described by the deterministic Schrödinger time-dependent equation, no events could be considered to take place in the system.”11. M. Jammer, The Philosophy of Quantum Mechanics: The Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics in Historical Perspective, Wiley (1974), pp. 473, 474.Niels Bohr giving a lecture in Copenhagen in April 1929. (Photograph by Samuel Goudsmit, courtesy of the AIP Emilio Segrè Visual Archives, Goudsmit Collection.)PPT|High resolutionRegarding the quotations from Niels Bohr, Mermin’s point is entirely valid and represents Bohr’s position accurately, but Bohr’s thought is always subtle and difficult to capture completely. Another quotation from Bohr, which is consistent with everything else he wrote, is, “The decisive point is that in neither case does the appropriate widening of our conceptual framework imply any appeal to the observing subject, which would hinder unambiguous communication of experience.”22. N. Bohr, Essays 1958–1962 on Atomic Physics and Human Knowledge, Ox Bow Press (1987), p. 7. That quotation seems inconsistent with Mermin’s paragraph that includes the passage “Why should I insist that my interpretation of science, which I use to make sense of the world that I experience, should never make any mention of me?” Bohr always insisted that his framework was a rational “generalization” of classical objectivity.The last and most conceptually important point concerns the ontological status of probability. I don’t necessarily disagree with Mermin and Bruno de Finetti, but it is by no means obvious that they are correct either. David Hawkins, for example, begins 50 pages of rigorous analysis with a brief statement of a major premise.The obvious and natural interpretation of probability in this context is that it introduces, not something that has to do with the nature of the physical system, but something that has to do with the incompleteness of our knowledge….But this opinion turns out to be false. Ignorance of dynamical regularity may be a motive for resorting to probabilities, but it does not explain the probabilities to which we resort.33. D. Hawkins, The Language of Nature: An Essay in the Philosophy of Science, W. H. Freeman (1964), p. 135.Another example can be found in Jammer’s well-known historical account of quantum theory: “For Einstein the notion of probability … was the traditional conception of classical physics, a mathematical objectivization of the human deficiency of complete or exact knowledge but ultimately a creation of the human mind…. For Born probability, as far as it was related to the wave function, was not merely a mathematical fiction but something endowed with physical reality.”44. M. Jammer, The Conceptual Development of Quantum Mechanics, McGraw-Hill (1966), p. 286.Of course, such examples don’t mean that Mermin’s position is incorrect, but I do think that they demand a better argument than a comparison to “Fairies and Witches.” I am confident that Mermin has such an argument, and I look forward to reading it as I continue working toward a coherent position on the unresolved interpretational issues of quantum theory.ReferencesSection:ChooseTop of pageReferences <<CITING ARTICLES1. M. Jammer, The Philosophy of Quantum Mechanics: The Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics in Historical Perspective, Wiley (1974), pp. 473, 474. Google Scholar2. N. Bohr, Essays 1958–1962 on Atomic Physics and Human Knowledge, Ox Bow Press (1987), p. 7. Google Scholar3. D. Hawkins, The Language of Nature: An Essay in the Philosophy of Science, W. H. Freeman (1964), p. 135. Google Scholar4. M. Jammer, The Conceptual Development of Quantum Mechanics, McGraw-Hill (1966), p. 286. Google Scholar© 2022 American Institute of Physics.

Physics Today•Nov 1, 2022•2 citations

Introduction

Robert B. Griffiths

Scope of this book Quantum mechanics is a difficult subject, and this book is intended to help the reader overcome the main difficulties in the way to understanding it. The first part of the book, Chs. 2–16, contains a systematic presentation of the basic principles of quantum theory, along with a number of examples which illustrate how these principles apply to particular quantum systems. The applications are, for the most part, limited to toy models whose simple structure allows one to see what is going on without using complicated mathematics or lengthy formulas. The principles themselves, however, are formulated in such a way that they can be applied to (almost) any nonrelativistic quantum system. In the second part of the book, Chs. 17–25, these principles are applied to quantum measurements and various quantum paradoxes, subjects which give rise to serious conceptual problems when they are not treated in a fully consistent manner. The final chapters are of a somewhat different character. Chapter 26 on decoherence and the classical limit of quantum theory is a very sketchy introduction to these important topics along with some indication as to how the basic principles presented in the first part of the book can be used for understanding them. Chapter 27 on quantum theory and reality belongs to the interface between physics and philosophy and indicates why quantum theory is compatible with a real world whose existence is not dependent on what scientists think and believe, or the experiments they choose to carry out. The Bibliography contains references for those interested in further reading or in tracing the origin of some of the ideas presented in earlier chapters.

Cambridge University Press eBooks•Nov 29, 2001•0 citations

The Quantum Measurement Problem: Historical Evolution, Fundamental Questions, Interpretations, Bell Tests, and Current Trends (Vol - I)

Syed Muntasir Mamun

The measurement problem remains one of the most profound foundational issues in quantum mechanics. While the theory excels at predicting probabilities of measurement outcomes via the Schrödinger equation and the Born rule, it fails to provide a consistent, unitary description of the measurement process itself. This paper offers a comprehensive teaching-oriented review: it traces the historical development from the 1920s Copenhagen formulation through Schrödinger's cat paradox, examines the core mathematical and conceptual questions, analyses major interpretations (with a detailed exposition of the Many-Worlds Interpretation and an expanded treatment of decoherence theory), discusses Bell's theorem and its experimental tests, surveys contemporary trends as of 2025–2026 (including quantum computing implications), and evaluates the quantum-to-classical transition. The analysis highlights that the problem is not merely philosophical but has direct implications for quantum technologies, macroscopic superpositions, and our understanding of reality. No single interpretation is endorsed; instead, strengths, limitations, and open questions of each are presented to equip readers with a clear conceptual map. Mamun, SM (2026)……………………………………..1 The Quantum Measurement Problem: Historical Evolution, Fundamental Questions, Interpretations, Bell Tests, and Current Trends (Vol - I) Also available on Academia.edu: https://www.academia.edu/attachments/132618367/download_file?s=portfolio

•Jan 1, 2026•0 citations

Introduction

Konstantin K Likharev

This introductory chapter briefly reviews the major experimental motivations for quantum mechanics, and then discusses its simplest formalism—the Schrödinger’s wave mechanics. Much of this material (perhaps besides the last section) may be found in undergraduate textbooks, so that the discussion is rather brief, and focused on the most important conceptual issues.

Institute of Physics eBooks•May 1, 2019•0 citations

The Quantum Measurement Problem

E. Karlsson

Measurements play a specific role in quantum mechanics; only measurements allow us to catch a glimpse of the eluding physical reality. However, there is something deeply unsatisfactory with this specificity—a measurement is itself a physical process! Several varying modes of coping with this dilemma have been proposed and this article tries to describe how a now-century-long discussion has led to new insights about the transition from the quantum to the classical world. Starting from the pioneer’s view of the quantum measurement problem, it follows the development of formalisms, the interest from philosophers for its new aspects on reality and how different interpretations of quantum mechanics have tried to support our classically working brains in understanding quantum phenomena. Decoherence is a main topic and its role in measurement processes exemplified. The question of whether the quantum measurement problem is now solved is left open for the readers’ own judgment.

Quantum Reports•Jun 13, 2025•1 citation

Change without time. Relationalism and field quantization

Johannes Simon

The nature of time has long been debated in human history and nowadays is considered of central importance for understanding quantum gravity. We focus on and advocate the relational concept of time, which was put forward in the 17th century in opposition to Newton's absolute time, and only in 1990 explored in a quantum mechanical framework by Carlo Rovelli. After a historical introduction the mathematical models of time are carefully analyzed in chapter 1, followed by a discussion of the role of time played in fundamental theories. Using as an example nonrelativistic mechanics, the process of parametrization is explained, leading to a separation of a 'canonical time coordinate' from an arbitrary evolution parameter. The discussion of the role of time in special and general relativity as well as in quantum mechanics shows that more fundamental theories use less structure of time. This is followed by an exposition of the history of the relational concept of time, which negates the existence of an absolute duration and therefore often is called "timeless". Next it is shown how fundamental theories can be formulated and re-interpreted using this concept. We put emphasis on the hitherto neglected connection between relationalism and non-extensibility, while absolute time is shown to be unproblematic in classical mechanics just because of the possibility to extend the system without changing its nature. We conclude chapter 1 with a new axiomatic basis for the construction of time observables based on a simultaneity relation between 'observations', which are treated as a primitive concept and intuitively correspond to measurement events, but without knowing 'when' these events occur. There is no fundamental time observable; any observable qualifies as a time observable, if it allows to separate all instants. Chapter 2 gives a brief account of three main problems connected with time: a) The problem of the arrow of time. This has to be disentangled from the problem of irreversibility: a solution of the latter essentially excludes cyclic motions and is required for a solution of the former, which consists in showing that a fundamental direction between any two non-identical instants is physically meaningful. We give a formal definition of the arrow of time. This classical analysis is followed by a review of the problem of the arrow of time in quantum theory, where the situation becomes more complicated because of indeterminism. The discussion shows that there is no experimental evidence for a fundamental arrow of time, so that no contradiction with the relational concept of time arises. b) The problem of time measurement, which is of particular importance for the relational approach, in which time has no reality except if measured by a clock. In quantum theory useful time operators seem to be possible only within the more general formalism of positive operator valued measures (POVM). Clocks based on an oscillation mechanism do however require phase measurements; quantum phase operators can be defined as certain POVMs. Phase difference operators do also exist in the traditional Hilbert space formalism, if another quantization is used, as is done with relational quantization. c) The problem of quantum gravity is sketched only briefly. Chapter 3 introduces and discusses a model of Rovelli consisting of two oscillators with no external time. In this model one oscillator is considered as a clock and defines a relational time for the other one. In the first section we introduce this model and generalize it to a free massless scalar field in one dimension. We establish the relation between a single field mode and the infrared behaviour of the field through constants of motion. In the second section after a short review of canonical quantization we review Rovelli's quantization and generalize it to the free field. We could not prove the existence of the quantization map, but calculations using computer algebra indicate that the quantization does exist. For an enlarged algebra we are able to prove the nonexistence of a quantization map similar to a proof by Groenewold and van Hove. In chapter 4 we observe that a clock time always requires infinitely many degrees of freedom, and we make the hypothesis that a time observable is given by the infrared behaviour of quantum fields, leading to a classical notion of time when using algebraic quantum mechanics. This does however not solve the main problem of quantum relationalism: Which conditions determine a particular evolution?

•Jan 1, 2005•0 citations
In most textbooks, measurement does not receive the full attention it deserves and sometimes is even not treated at all, apart a brief and cryptic mention of the “reduction of the wave packet.” However, in the last decades, the situation has profoundly changed and it is time to consider measurement a fundamental part of quantum mechanics, even, to a certain extent, an important generalization of the traditional theory (see also Chs. 14–15). This chapter consists of three major parts. In the first block (Secs. 9.1–9.4) we develop the main physical features of the measurement process: the heart of the argument is here represented by the aspects related to the interpretation. In the second part (Secs. 9.5–9.8) we discuss several special (and partly interdependent) topics of measurement: the heart here is represented by experimental aspects. In the third part (Secs. 9.9–9.12) we deal with the measurement process on a more formal plane, making use, in particular, of the generalization represented by the concepts of effect and positive operator valued measure (POVM). As we have said, the measurement problem is one of the most fundamental issues in the conceptual structure of quantum mechanics (as described in Sec. 9.1) and has a long history that will be examined in Sec. 9.2. In this context, the existence of apparently paradoxical quantum states comes about: the so-called Schrödinger cat states (see Sec. 9.3).
Although I have neither an objection to nor an endorsement of David Mermin’s major premise in his Quick Study, “There is no quantum measurement problem” (Physics Today, June 2022, page 62), I would like to make several contextual points.Mermin’s argument has an extensive history, along with a comparable history of rebuttal. Five decades ago Max Jammer wrote that “measurements in quantum mechanics are no more or less problematic than in classical physics, for the Hilbert space vector is only a purely formal device for relating the statistics associated with these arrangements to the physics of observations in classical physics.” That seems like a condensed version of the argument Mermin presents. On the following page, however, Jammer notes that a “problematic aspect whose serious implications were only gradually understood was the fact that as long as a quantum mechanical one-body or many-body system does not interact with macroscopic objects, as long as its motion is described by the deterministic Schrödinger time-dependent equation, no events could be considered to take place in the system.”11. M. Jammer, The Philosophy of Quantum Mechanics: The Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics in Historical Perspective, Wiley (1974), pp. 473, 474.Niels Bohr giving a lecture in Copenhagen in April 1929. (Photograph by Samuel Goudsmit, courtesy of the AIP Emilio Segrè Visual Archives, Goudsmit Collection.)PPT|High resolutionRegarding the quotations from Niels Bohr, Mermin’s point is entirely valid and represents Bohr’s position accurately, but Bohr’s thought is always subtle and difficult to capture completely. Another quotation from Bohr, which is consistent with everything else he wrote, is, “The decisive point is that in neither case does the appropriate widening of our conceptual framework imply any appeal to the observing subject, which would hinder unambiguous communication of experience.”22. N. Bohr, Essays 1958–1962 on Atomic Physics and Human Knowledge, Ox Bow Press (1987), p. 7. That quotation seems inconsistent with Mermin’s paragraph that includes the passage “Why should I insist that my interpretation of science, which I use to make sense of the world that I experience, should never make any mention of me?” Bohr always insisted that his framework was a rational “generalization” of classical objectivity.The last and most conceptually important point concerns the ontological status of probability. I don’t necessarily disagree with Mermin and Bruno de Finetti, but it is by no means obvious that they are correct either. David Hawkins, for example, begins 50 pages of rigorous analysis with a brief statement of a major premise.The obvious and natural interpretation of probability in this context is that it introduces, not something that has to do with the nature of the physical system, but something that has to do with the incompleteness of our knowledge….But this opinion turns out to be false. Ignorance of dynamical regularity may be a motive for resorting to probabilities, but it does not explain the probabilities to which we resort.33. D. Hawkins, The Language of Nature: An Essay in the Philosophy of Science, W. H. Freeman (1964), p. 135.Another example can be found in Jammer’s well-known historical account of quantum theory: “For Einstein the notion of probability … was the traditional conception of classical physics, a mathematical objectivization of the human deficiency of complete or exact knowledge but ultimately a creation of the human mind…. For Born probability, as far as it was related to the wave function, was not merely a mathematical fiction but something endowed with physical reality.”44. M. Jammer, The Conceptual Development of Quantum Mechanics, McGraw-Hill (1966), p. 286.Of course, such examples don’t mean that Mermin’s position is incorrect, but I do think that they demand a better argument than a comparison to “Fairies and Witches.” I am confident that Mermin has such an argument, and I look forward to reading it as I continue working toward a coherent position on the unresolved interpretational issues of quantum theory.ReferencesSection:ChooseTop of pageReferences <<CITING ARTICLES1. M. Jammer, The Philosophy of Quantum Mechanics: The Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics in Historical Perspective, Wiley (1974), pp. 473, 474. Google Scholar2. N. Bohr, Essays 1958–1962 on Atomic Physics and Human Knowledge, Ox Bow Press (1987), p. 7. Google Scholar3. D. Hawkins, The Language of Nature: An Essay in the Philosophy of Science, W. H. Freeman (1964), p. 135. Google Scholar4. M. Jammer, The Conceptual Development of Quantum Mechanics, McGraw-Hill (1966), p. 286. Google Scholar© 2022 American Institute of Physics.
Scope of this book Quantum mechanics is a difficult subject, and this book is intended to help the reader overcome the main difficulties in the way to understanding it. The first part of the book, Chs. 2–16, contains a systematic presentation of the basic principles of quantum theory, along with a number of examples which illustrate how these principles apply to particular quantum systems. The applications are, for the most part, limited to toy models whose simple structure allows one to see what is going on without using complicated mathematics or lengthy formulas. The principles themselves, however, are formulated in such a way that they can be applied to (almost) any nonrelativistic quantum system. In the second part of the book, Chs. 17–25, these principles are applied to quantum measurements and various quantum paradoxes, subjects which give rise to serious conceptual problems when they are not treated in a fully consistent manner. The final chapters are of a somewhat different character. Chapter 26 on decoherence and the classical limit of quantum theory is a very sketchy introduction to these important topics along with some indication as to how the basic principles presented in the first part of the book can be used for understanding them. Chapter 27 on quantum theory and reality belongs to the interface between physics and philosophy and indicates why quantum theory is compatible with a real world whose existence is not dependent on what scientists think and believe, or the experiments they choose to carry out. The Bibliography contains references for those interested in further reading or in tracing the origin of some of the ideas presented in earlier chapters.
The measurement problem remains one of the most profound foundational issues in quantum mechanics. While the theory excels at predicting probabilities of measurement outcomes via the Schrödinger equation and the Born rule, it fails to provide a consistent, unitary description of the measurement process itself. This paper offers a comprehensive teaching-oriented review: it traces the historical development from the 1920s Copenhagen formulation through Schrödinger's cat paradox, examines the core mathematical and conceptual questions, analyses major interpretations (with a detailed exposition of the Many-Worlds Interpretation and an expanded treatment of decoherence theory), discusses Bell's theorem and its experimental tests, surveys contemporary trends as of 2025–2026 (including quantum computing implications), and evaluates the quantum-to-classical transition. The analysis highlights that the problem is not merely philosophical but has direct implications for quantum technologies, macroscopic superpositions, and our understanding of reality. No single interpretation is endorsed; instead, strengths, limitations, and open questions of each are presented to equip readers with a clear conceptual map. Mamun, SM (2026)……………………………………..1 The Quantum Measurement Problem: Historical Evolution, Fundamental Questions, Interpretations, Bell Tests, and Current Trends (Vol - I) Also available on Academia.edu: https://www.academia.edu/attachments/132618367/download_file?s=portfolio
Measurements play a specific role in quantum mechanics; only measurements allow us to catch a glimpse of the eluding physical reality. However, there is something deeply unsatisfactory with this specificity—a measurement is itself a physical process! Several varying modes of coping with this dilemma have been proposed and this article tries to describe how a now-century-long discussion has led to new insights about the transition from the quantum to the classical world. Starting from the pioneer’s view of the quantum measurement problem, it follows the development of formalisms, the interest from philosophers for its new aspects on reality and how different interpretations of quantum mechanics have tried to support our classically working brains in understanding quantum phenomena. Decoherence is a main topic and its role in measurement processes exemplified. The question of whether the quantum measurement problem is now solved is left open for the readers’ own judgment.
The nature of time has long been debated in human history and nowadays is considered of central importance for understanding quantum gravity. We focus on and advocate the relational concept of time, which was put forward in the 17th century in opposition to Newton's absolute time, and only in 1990 explored in a quantum mechanical framework by Carlo Rovelli. After a historical introduction the mathematical models of time are carefully analyzed in chapter 1, followed by a discussion of the role of time played in fundamental theories. Using as an example nonrelativistic mechanics, the process of parametrization is explained, leading to a separation of a 'canonical time coordinate' from an arbitrary evolution parameter. The discussion of the role of time in special and general relativity as well as in quantum mechanics shows that more fundamental theories use less structure of time. This is followed by an exposition of the history of the relational concept of time, which negates the existence of an absolute duration and therefore often is called "timeless". Next it is shown how fundamental theories can be formulated and re-interpreted using this concept. We put emphasis on the hitherto neglected connection between relationalism and non-extensibility, while absolute time is shown to be unproblematic in classical mechanics just because of the possibility to extend the system without changing its nature. We conclude chapter 1 with a new axiomatic basis for the construction of time observables based on a simultaneity relation between 'observations', which are treated as a primitive concept and intuitively correspond to measurement events, but without knowing 'when' these events occur. There is no fundamental time observable; any observable qualifies as a time observable, if it allows to separate all instants. Chapter 2 gives a brief account of three main problems connected with time: a) The problem of the arrow of time. This has to be disentangled from the problem of irreversibility: a solution of the latter essentially excludes cyclic motions and is required for a solution of the former, which consists in showing that a fundamental direction between any two non-identical instants is physically meaningful. We give a formal definition of the arrow of time. This classical analysis is followed by a review of the problem of the arrow of time in quantum theory, where the situation becomes more complicated because of indeterminism. The discussion shows that there is no experimental evidence for a fundamental arrow of time, so that no contradiction with the relational concept of time arises. b) The problem of time measurement, which is of particular importance for the relational approach, in which time has no reality except if measured by a clock. In quantum theory useful time operators seem to be possible only within the more general formalism of positive operator valued measures (POVM). Clocks based on an oscillation mechanism do however require phase measurements; quantum phase operators can be defined as certain POVMs. Phase difference operators do also exist in the traditional Hilbert space formalism, if another quantization is used, as is done with relational quantization. c) The problem of quantum gravity is sketched only briefly. Chapter 3 introduces and discusses a model of Rovelli consisting of two oscillators with no external time. In this model one oscillator is considered as a clock and defines a relational time for the other one. In the first section we introduce this model and generalize it to a free massless scalar field in one dimension. We establish the relation between a single field mode and the infrared behaviour of the field through constants of motion. In the second section after a short review of canonical quantization we review Rovelli's quantization and generalize it to the free field. We could not prove the existence of the quantization map, but calculations using computer algebra indicate that the quantization does exist. For an enlarged algebra we are able to prove the nonexistence of a quantization map similar to a proof by Groenewold and van Hove. In chapter 4 we observe that a clock time always requires infinitely many degrees of freedom, and we make the hypothesis that a time observable is given by the infrared behaviour of quantum fields, leading to a classical notion of time when using algebraic quantum mechanics. This does however not solve the main problem of quantum relationalism: Which conditions determine a particular evolution?