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

JOURNAL OF ADVANCES IN PHYSICS

Light Quantum Induces The Measurement Paradox

Antonio Puccini

Published Jan 19, 2019• 7 citations
Publisher

Abstract

We learn from Quantum Mechanics that the observation of the microscopic world, the measurement (M) of a quantum object, i.e. a particle, inexorably modifies the physical system we wish to examine. What happens is that with the M it takes place a reduction of the state vectors, that is the ‘wave function collapse’ of the measured particle. Why does it happen? No one knows. The enigma of the so-called Measurement Paradox, in our opinion, could be solved if we considered that the light quantum(LQ), as suggested by the Principle of Equivalence Mass-Energy, carries out a dynamic-mass equivalent to its energy. The LQ is indispensable to carry out a M. No M can be carried out without using the quantum of light. Calculus show that a photon of the optic band hits an electron with a momentum bigger than the mass of the electron itself. This may explain why the M induces the implosion of the quantum object observed, together with the collapse of its wave function, giving rise to the Measurement Paradox.

DOI
10.24297/jap.v15i0.8014

Related papers

Decoding the Mystery of Wave Function Collapse

Ping Wang

We provide a reasonable explanation for measurement where no wave function in the sense of quantum mechanics is collapsed. The wave functions of the particles in the measuring device should be considered together with the measured particle as one system. The measurement is actually a physical process which makes the wave functions of different paths orthogonal. The collapsed wave function is just an equivalent one to explain certain physical phenomena. Our understanding of measurement also provides reasonable explanations for both EPR paradox and the experiments of delayed quantum eraser.

Advances in Theoretical & Computational Physics•Nov 18, 2024•0 citations

The EPR paradox, hidden variables, and Bell's theorem

Marlan O. Scully, Muhammad Suhail Zubairy

Quantum mechanics is an immensely successful theory, occupying a unique position in the history of science. It has solved mysteries ranging from macroscopic superconductivity to the microscopic theory of elementary particles and has provided deep insights into the nature of vacuum on the one hand and the description of the nucleon on the other. Whole new fields such as quantum optics and quantum electronics owe their very existence to this body of knowledge. However, despite the stunning successes of quantum mechanics, there is no general agreement on the conceptual foundations and interpretation of the subject. The theory provides unambiguous information about the outcome of a measurement of a physical object. However, many feel that it does not provide a satisfactory answer to the nature of the “reality” we should attribute to the physical objects between the acts of measurement. The conceptual difficulty comes about because the wave function |ψ〉 is usually given by a coherent superposition of various distinguishable experimental outcomes. If we denote the collection of states that represent the possible outcomes of an experiment by |ψ j 〉, then |ψ〉 = ∑ j c j |ψ j 〉 where c j = 〈ψ j |ψ〉. The probability of the outcome |ψ j 〉 is P j =|c j | 2 . In the process of measurement, the so called collapse of the wave function takes place and a single, definite state |ψ i 〉 of the physical object is chosen. The difficulty comes about in the interpretation of the mechanism by which this definite state is chosen from amongst all the possible outcomes.

Cambridge University Press eBooks•Sep 4, 1997•1 citation

The Measurement Problem

Norman M. Witriol

The Quantum Measurement Problem is solved if we define a new object, Partave, that replaces the quantum mechanical assignments of particle and wave to the physical objects (electrons, light, etc.) we wish to measure/describe. The properties of Partaves that are described (as being those given by Nature/Reality) as being the quantum mechanically properties actually measured for objects (like electrons, and photons), no problem exists for describing these objects once they are assigned as being a partave (instead of being assigned to being a particle or wave).

•Mar 1, 2021•0 citations

Collapse of Wave Nature is a Necessity for Measurement to Take Place (Intuitive)

Krishan Vats

This is an example description of why and how the wave nature of quantum objects collapses on measurement. The article takes double slit experiment as an example where observing the electrons/photons causes them to abandon the wave nature and start behaving like particles. I.e. the interference pattern disappears. Why the measurement causes a switch from wave nature to particle behavior? It is explained with one specific example scenario. This example can be extended to other scenarios with necessary adjustments.

•Sep 1, 2016•0 citations

Correct Quantum Gravity is a Mechanical Effect Induced by Dynamic-Mass of Light’s Quanta

Antonio Puccini

In its natural state the electron is represented by superimposed quantum states. This is the phase of linear unitary evolution, or U Phase, described by Schrodinger equation. Whereas, when we carry out a measurement (M), it took place a reduction of the state vectors(R Process): we have the wave function collapse (WFC) of the measured quantum object (QO). The M, thus, produces a big changes on the physical properties of the observed particle. How do these changes happen? What is the secret mechanism which creates the WFC? We don’t know. With this paper we try to introduce a new parameter, induced by the electro-magnetic radiation (EMR), which can help us discern the doubts about the R Process, and try to find a continuity in order to link the U Phase to the R Process, so contrasting at the moment. The new parameter could be a gravity and quantum effect, when we try to make a M of a subatomic object. What is this effect represented by? It is a gravitational effect, since it is a mass-effect, a mechanical action induced by quanta of EMR: therefore, it is also a quantum effect. The photon (P) is indispensable to carry out a M. No M can be carried out without using the EMR. Calculus show that a P of the optic band hits an electron with a dynamic-mass, a radiation pressure, a pushing momentum equal to 1.32510-22[gcm/s]. Thus, we can infer it is a quantum gravitational effect to cause the WFC of the QO undergoing the M. In short, it could be essentially the mechanical action represented by the gravitational mass effect of light’s quanta to induce the WFC and the Measurement’s Paradox and, likely, make a starting point to a Correct Quantum Gravity.

•Dec 1, 2017•1 citation

A paradox in quantum measurement theory

Andrew Holster

This paper outlines a ‘paradox’ in quantum measurement theory, illustrated with two different types of systems. If this paradox cannot be resolved in ordinary quantum mechanics (as I currently think), it is alarming. If it can be resolved, it can be added to a long list of examples that show the internal consistency of quantum mechanics, and in this case I hope the correct analysis will be an interesting example for students. The immediate paradox involves a failure of Lorentz invariance for measurements on certain types of single particle systems. It seems to show that an absolute frame of reference is required to describe wave function collapse. But if the argument is correct, quantum measurement theory is not merely dependant on the frame of collapse - it is inconsistent, and experimental tests would have to be done to verify whether the apparent non-local effects predicted are real.

•Mar 1, 2004•0 citations
We learn from Quantum Mechanics that the observation of the microscopic world, the measurement (M) of a quantum object, i.e. a particle, inexorably modifies the physical system we wish to examine. What happens is that with the M it takes place a reduction of the state vectors, that is the ‘wave function collapse’ of the measured particle. Why does it happen? No one knows. The enigma of the so-called Measurement Paradox, in our opinion, could be solved if we considered that the light quantum(LQ), as suggested by the Principle of Equivalence Mass-Energy, carries out a dynamic-mass equivalent to its energy. The LQ is indispensable to carry out a M. No M can be carried out without using the quantum of light. Calculus show that a photon of the optic band hits an electron with a momentum bigger than the mass of the electron itself. This may explain why the M induces the implosion of the quantum object observed, together with the collapse of its wave function, giving rise to the Measurement Paradox.
We provide a reasonable explanation for measurement where no wave function in the sense of quantum mechanics is collapsed. The wave functions of the particles in the measuring device should be considered together with the measured particle as one system. The measurement is actually a physical process which makes the wave functions of different paths orthogonal. The collapsed wave function is just an equivalent one to explain certain physical phenomena. Our understanding of measurement also provides reasonable explanations for both EPR paradox and the experiments of delayed quantum eraser.
Quantum mechanics is an immensely successful theory, occupying a unique position in the history of science. It has solved mysteries ranging from macroscopic superconductivity to the microscopic theory of elementary particles and has provided deep insights into the nature of vacuum on the one hand and the description of the nucleon on the other. Whole new fields such as quantum optics and quantum electronics owe their very existence to this body of knowledge. However, despite the stunning successes of quantum mechanics, there is no general agreement on the conceptual foundations and interpretation of the subject. The theory provides unambiguous information about the outcome of a measurement of a physical object. However, many feel that it does not provide a satisfactory answer to the nature of the “reality” we should attribute to the physical objects between the acts of measurement. The conceptual difficulty comes about because the wave function |ψ〉 is usually given by a coherent superposition of various distinguishable experimental outcomes. If we denote the collection of states that represent the possible outcomes of an experiment by |ψ j 〉, then |ψ〉 = ∑ j c j |ψ j 〉 where c j = 〈ψ j |ψ〉. The probability of the outcome |ψ j 〉 is P j =|c j | 2 . In the process of measurement, the so called collapse of the wave function takes place and a single, definite state |ψ i 〉 of the physical object is chosen. The difficulty comes about in the interpretation of the mechanism by which this definite state is chosen from amongst all the possible outcomes.
The Quantum Measurement Problem is solved if we define a new object, Partave, that replaces the quantum mechanical assignments of particle and wave to the physical objects (electrons, light, etc.) we wish to measure/describe. The properties of Partaves that are described (as being those given by Nature/Reality) as being the quantum mechanically properties actually measured for objects (like electrons, and photons), no problem exists for describing these objects once they are assigned as being a partave (instead of being assigned to being a particle or wave).
This is an example description of why and how the wave nature of quantum objects collapses on measurement. The article takes double slit experiment as an example where observing the electrons/photons causes them to abandon the wave nature and start behaving like particles. I.e. the interference pattern disappears. Why the measurement causes a switch from wave nature to particle behavior? It is explained with one specific example scenario. This example can be extended to other scenarios with necessary adjustments.
In its natural state the electron is represented by superimposed quantum states. This is the phase of linear unitary evolution, or U Phase, described by Schrodinger equation. Whereas, when we carry out a measurement (M), it took place a reduction of the state vectors(R Process): we have the wave function collapse (WFC) of the measured quantum object (QO). The M, thus, produces a big changes on the physical properties of the observed particle. How do these changes happen? What is the secret mechanism which creates the WFC? We don’t know. With this paper we try to introduce a new parameter, induced by the electro-magnetic radiation (EMR), which can help us discern the doubts about the R Process, and try to find a continuity in order to link the U Phase to the R Process, so contrasting at the moment. The new parameter could be a gravity and quantum effect, when we try to make a M of a subatomic object. What is this effect represented by? It is a gravitational effect, since it is a mass-effect, a mechanical action induced by quanta of EMR: therefore, it is also a quantum effect. The photon (P) is indispensable to carry out a M. No M can be carried out without using the EMR. Calculus show that a P of the optic band hits an electron with a dynamic-mass, a radiation pressure, a pushing momentum equal to 1.32510-22[gcm/s]. Thus, we can infer it is a quantum gravitational effect to cause the WFC of the QO undergoing the M. In short, it could be essentially the mechanical action represented by the gravitational mass effect of light’s quanta to induce the WFC and the Measurement’s Paradox and, likely, make a starting point to a Correct Quantum Gravity.
This paper outlines a ‘paradox’ in quantum measurement theory, illustrated with two different types of systems. If this paradox cannot be resolved in ordinary quantum mechanics (as I currently think), it is alarming. If it can be resolved, it can be added to a long list of examples that show the internal consistency of quantum mechanics, and in this case I hope the correct analysis will be an interesting example for students. The immediate paradox involves a failure of Lorentz invariance for measurements on certain types of single particle systems. It seems to show that an absolute frame of reference is required to describe wave function collapse. But if the argument is correct, quantum measurement theory is not merely dependant on the frame of collapse - it is inconsistent, and experimental tests would have to be done to verify whether the apparent non-local effects predicted are real.