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

AN INTRODUCTORY TALK

G. Tagliaferri

Published Jan 1, 1995• 1 citation
OpenAlex

Abstract

Ever since its birth following the introduction of Planck's constant h in 1900, quantum theory has been legitimated only by the amazing capacity it has exhibited in accounting quantitatively for a huge variety of physical phenomena. The so-called Copenhagen interpretation has allowed to accomodate in a coherent frame the tenets of quantum mechanics, but at the cost of bringing in the demand of abandoning, at the microscopic level, causality, determinism, and physical reality. The results of Aspect and coworkers' ingenious experiments, however, can give further support to the belief in the unlimited validity of the quantum theory. But, for all its successes, the theory remains basically incomprehensible.

Related papers

Introduction

Sandro Petruccioli

‘Quantum mechanics is very impressive. But an inner voice tells me that it is not yet the real thing. The theory produces a good deal but hardly brings us closer to the secret of the Old One’. These views were contained in a letter written by Albert Einstein to Max Born in December 1926. Though the following year would see the completion of work on the theoretical foundation of the modern physics of atoms and particles, Einstein was never to change his judgement and remained firmly convinced that ‘this business […] contains some unreasonableness’. He was unwilling to sacrifice his own ideas as to the cognitive scope of science even in the face of the important results being achieved by the new theory. To the undeterministic findings of quantum mechanics he opposed his belief in the ‘possibility of giving a model of reality, a theory, that is to say, which shall represent events themselves and not merely the probability of their occurrence’. For this reason he chose to live with the isolation of his scepticism and dissent, ironically accepting the reputation as a obstinate heretic that he had won over the years among his colleagues, and worked to the end on his own research programme to develop a unified field theory of rigorously causal nature. As is generally known, Einstein carried on a strong scientific and philosophical dispute with the defenders of the so-called official interpretation of quantum mechanics.

Cambridge University Press eBooks•Nov 18, 1993•0 citations

On the Interpretation of Quantum Theory — from Copenhagen to the Present Day

Claus Kiefer

arXiv:quant-ph/0210152•Springer eBooks•Jan 1, 2003•32 citations

Logic and Complementarity

T. Bergstein

From the preceding exposition it follows that the quantum statistical representation of an individual atomic system does not imply any renunciation regarding further knowledge about the system. On the contrary the statistical character of quantum physics directly reflects the fundamental non-causal appearance of quantal recordings, and through the discovery of the complementarity of quantal phenomena a complete but necessarily statistical description of the atom has been accomplished. Furthermore quantum physics has afforded a statistical description of macroscopic bodies through their representation as assemblies of huge numbers of identical atomic systems, and, apart from accounting in a more fundamental way for the properties already described in classical physics(the correspondence principle, p. 36), quantum statistics explains several macroscopic phenomena which cannot be understood within the conceptual frame of classical physics only. It must be maintained, however, that when observing the properties of individual atomic objects the macroscopic observational apparatus cannot be represented in terms of atomic constituents because this would destroy the unambiguity of the description. The observational apparatus fulfils its basic function of being the spacetime frame of reference for the quantal recordings precisely through its description in classical physics alone. However, when refraining from the analysis of individual quantal processes it is possible to apply quantum statistics to macroscopic phenomena, that is, the causality of classical physical phenomena can be interpreted in the quantum formalism as the statistical result of the interplay of enormous numbers of atomic processes. It is possible, then, to talk of statistical causality as a fundamental aspect of physical reality.

•Jan 1, 1972•0 citations

AN EXAMINATION OF THE COPENHAGEN INTERPRETATION OF QUANTUM THEORY

Ramakrishna Puligandla

•Jan 1, 1966•0 citations

Planck Constants as Collapse Boundaries: A Structural Framing of Quantum Evolution in Substrate Theory

Michael Bush

Quantum mechanics and quantum field theory (QM/QFT) offer precise mathematical tools for describing microscopic systems, but remain ambiguous with regard to the precise nature of collapse, measurement, and causal structure. This work introduces a structural reinterpretation of quantum evolution grounded in a conserved, Lorentz-compatible coherence substrate. Within this framework, wavefunctions are understood as phase-supported structures that evolve over finite causal intervals bounded by collapse events. We propose that Planck’s constant encodes structural thresholds of the substrate’s capacity to support coherent evolution. These limits define a minimum spatial and temporal envelope—referred to as the coherence tick—during which standard QM/QFT behavior is valid. Collapse is not introduced as a measurement postulate, but emerges as a necessary structural re-lock at the end of each coherence interval. The Collapse Boundary is thus a physically meaningful event horizon, and if energy or configuration offload is required, a Quantum Emission Opportunity (QEO) occurs. This framework preserves all predictive results of QM/QFT while offering a physically causal explanation for collapse timing, wavefunction termination, and entanglement. It resolves the quantum time asymmetry paradox by distinguishing between internal evolution (experienced in +t) and external observation (reconstructed in −t). By reinterpreting Planck constants as causal boundary conditions rather than universal abstractions, this model provides a substrate-based foundation beneath conventional quantum dynamics—one in which measurement, correlation, and irreversibility arise from finite structural support, not observer-induced discontinuity.

•Jul 31, 2025•0 citations

Historical perspective

Franck Laloë

The founding fathers of quantum mechanics had already perceived the essence of the difficulties of quantum mechanics; today, after almost a century, the discussions are still lively and, if some very interesting new aspects have emerged, at a deeper level the questions have not changed so much. What is more recent, nevertheless, is a general change of attitude among physicists: until about 1970 or 1980, most physicists thought that the essential questions had been settled, and that “Bohr was right and proved his opponents to be wrong”. This was probably a consequence of the famous discussions between Bohr, Einstein, Schrödinger, Heisenberg, Pauli, de Broglie, and others (in particular at the Solvay meetings [1–3], where Bohr's point of view had successfully resisted Einstein's extremely clever attacks). The majority of physicists did not know the details of the arguments. They nevertheless thought that the standard “Copenhagen interpretation” had clearly emerged from the infancy of quantum mechanics as the only sensible attitude for good scientists. This interpretation includes the idea that modern physics must contain indeterminacy as an essential ingredient: it is fundamentally impossible to predict the outcome of single microscopical events; it is impossible to go beyond the formalism of the wave function (or its generalization, the state vector ∣ψ) and complete it.

Cambridge University Press eBooks•Aug 30, 2012•1 citation
Ever since its birth following the introduction of Planck's constant h in 1900, quantum theory has been legitimated only by the amazing capacity it has exhibited in accounting quantitatively for a huge variety of physical phenomena. The so-called Copenhagen interpretation has allowed to accomodate in a coherent frame the tenets of quantum mechanics, but at the cost of bringing in the demand of abandoning, at the microscopic level, causality, determinism, and physical reality. The results of Aspect and coworkers' ingenious experiments, however, can give further support to the belief in the unlimited validity of the quantum theory. But, for all its successes, the theory remains basically incomprehensible.
‘Quantum mechanics is very impressive. But an inner voice tells me that it is not yet the real thing. The theory produces a good deal but hardly brings us closer to the secret of the Old One’. These views were contained in a letter written by Albert Einstein to Max Born in December 1926. Though the following year would see the completion of work on the theoretical foundation of the modern physics of atoms and particles, Einstein was never to change his judgement and remained firmly convinced that ‘this business […] contains some unreasonableness’. He was unwilling to sacrifice his own ideas as to the cognitive scope of science even in the face of the important results being achieved by the new theory. To the undeterministic findings of quantum mechanics he opposed his belief in the ‘possibility of giving a model of reality, a theory, that is to say, which shall represent events themselves and not merely the probability of their occurrence’. For this reason he chose to live with the isolation of his scepticism and dissent, ironically accepting the reputation as a obstinate heretic that he had won over the years among his colleagues, and worked to the end on his own research programme to develop a unified field theory of rigorously causal nature. As is generally known, Einstein carried on a strong scientific and philosophical dispute with the defenders of the so-called official interpretation of quantum mechanics.
From the preceding exposition it follows that the quantum statistical representation of an individual atomic system does not imply any renunciation regarding further knowledge about the system. On the contrary the statistical character of quantum physics directly reflects the fundamental non-causal appearance of quantal recordings, and through the discovery of the complementarity of quantal phenomena a complete but necessarily statistical description of the atom has been accomplished. Furthermore quantum physics has afforded a statistical description of macroscopic bodies through their representation as assemblies of huge numbers of identical atomic systems, and, apart from accounting in a more fundamental way for the properties already described in classical physics(the correspondence principle, p. 36), quantum statistics explains several macroscopic phenomena which cannot be understood within the conceptual frame of classical physics only. It must be maintained, however, that when observing the properties of individual atomic objects the macroscopic observational apparatus cannot be represented in terms of atomic constituents because this would destroy the unambiguity of the description. The observational apparatus fulfils its basic function of being the spacetime frame of reference for the quantal recordings precisely through its description in classical physics alone. However, when refraining from the analysis of individual quantal processes it is possible to apply quantum statistics to macroscopic phenomena, that is, the causality of classical physical phenomena can be interpreted in the quantum formalism as the statistical result of the interplay of enormous numbers of atomic processes. It is possible, then, to talk of statistical causality as a fundamental aspect of physical reality.
Quantum mechanics and quantum field theory (QM/QFT) offer precise mathematical tools for describing microscopic systems, but remain ambiguous with regard to the precise nature of collapse, measurement, and causal structure. This work introduces a structural reinterpretation of quantum evolution grounded in a conserved, Lorentz-compatible coherence substrate. Within this framework, wavefunctions are understood as phase-supported structures that evolve over finite causal intervals bounded by collapse events. We propose that Planck’s constant encodes structural thresholds of the substrate’s capacity to support coherent evolution. These limits define a minimum spatial and temporal envelope—referred to as the coherence tick—during which standard QM/QFT behavior is valid. Collapse is not introduced as a measurement postulate, but emerges as a necessary structural re-lock at the end of each coherence interval. The Collapse Boundary is thus a physically meaningful event horizon, and if energy or configuration offload is required, a Quantum Emission Opportunity (QEO) occurs. This framework preserves all predictive results of QM/QFT while offering a physically causal explanation for collapse timing, wavefunction termination, and entanglement. It resolves the quantum time asymmetry paradox by distinguishing between internal evolution (experienced in +t) and external observation (reconstructed in −t). By reinterpreting Planck constants as causal boundary conditions rather than universal abstractions, this model provides a substrate-based foundation beneath conventional quantum dynamics—one in which measurement, correlation, and irreversibility arise from finite structural support, not observer-induced discontinuity.
The founding fathers of quantum mechanics had already perceived the essence of the difficulties of quantum mechanics; today, after almost a century, the discussions are still lively and, if some very interesting new aspects have emerged, at a deeper level the questions have not changed so much. What is more recent, nevertheless, is a general change of attitude among physicists: until about 1970 or 1980, most physicists thought that the essential questions had been settled, and that “Bohr was right and proved his opponents to be wrong”. This was probably a consequence of the famous discussions between Bohr, Einstein, Schrödinger, Heisenberg, Pauli, de Broglie, and others (in particular at the Solvay meetings [1–3], where Bohr's point of view had successfully resisted Einstein's extremely clever attacks). The majority of physicists did not know the details of the arguments. They nevertheless thought that the standard “Copenhagen interpretation” had clearly emerged from the infancy of quantum mechanics as the only sensible attitude for good scientists. This interpretation includes the idea that modern physics must contain indeterminacy as an essential ingredient: it is fundamentally impossible to predict the outcome of single microscopical events; it is impossible to go beyond the formalism of the wave function (or its generalization, the state vector ∣ψ) and complete it.