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

The Projection Postulate of Quantum Mechanics on the Lightcone

J. Finkelstein

Published Jan 1, 1993• 6 citations
OpenAlex

Abstract

We discuss an interpretation of the projection postulate that implies collapse of the wavefunction along the lightcone. 1

Related papers

The projection postulate of quantum mechanics on the lightcone

J. Finkelstein

arXiv:hep-th/9312211•Physics Letters A•May 1, 1994•6 citations

Is There Really No Projection Postulate in the Modal Interpretation?

W.Michael Dickson

Modal interpretations of quantum mechanics admit two kinds of state: physical states, which specify the values of observables on a system, and theoretical states, which specify a probability distribution over possible physical states. They appear to use this distinction to deny the projection postulate, claiming that collapse corresponds only to a change from discussing the theoretical state to discussing the physical state. I argue that modal interpretations should adopt a projection postulate at the level of the theoretical state. However, other features of modal interpretations might render the projection postulate immune from the usual objections.

The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science•Jun 1, 1995•4 citations

Quantum mechanics without the projection postulate and its realistic interpretation

Dennis Dieks

Foundations of Physics•Nov 1, 1989•80 citations

The Projection Postulate and Bohr's Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics

Paul Teller

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.

PSA Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association•Jan 1, 1980•14 citations

Remarks on Our Understanding of Quantum Mechanics

Elias P. Gyftopoulos

Interpretations of key concepts, such as uncertainty relations, kinetic energy, value of an observable, probability distributions, the projection or collapse of a wave function postulate, and discrete versus continuous values, that appear in several excellent textbooks on quantum mechanics are reviewed and found not to be consistent with our current understanding of quantum theory. Possible alternatives are suggested.

arXiv:0709.1096•Sep 7, 2007•1 citation

Von Neumann's projection postulate as a probability conditionalization rule in quantum mechanics

Jeffrey Bub

Journal of Philosophical Logic•Jan 1, 1977•93 citations
Modal interpretations of quantum mechanics admit two kinds of state: physical states, which specify the values of observables on a system, and theoretical states, which specify a probability distribution over possible physical states. They appear to use this distinction to deny the projection postulate, claiming that collapse corresponds only to a change from discussing the theoretical state to discussing the physical state. I argue that modal interpretations should adopt a projection postulate at the level of the theoretical state. However, other features of modal interpretations might render the projection postulate immune from the usual objections.
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.