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

CRC Press eBooks

- The Conceptual Problems of Quantum Mechanics

Alastair I. M. Rae, Jim Napolitano

Published Dec 16, 2015• 0 citations
Publisher

Abstract

The previous chapters contain many examples of the successful application of quantum mechanics to the solution of real physical problems. These represent only a small sample of the wide range of experimental results, spanning just about all areas of physics and chemistry and beyond, that have been successfully explained by quantum theory. So far at least, no quantum-mechanical prediction has been experimentally falsified. Despite these successes, however, many scientists have considered the basic conceptual framework of the subject to be unsatisfactory, and repeated attempts have been made to reinterpret quantum mechanics, or even replace it with a different theory whose philosophical and conceptual basis could be considered more acceptable. In the present chapter we shall explain the reasons for this dissatisfaction and outline some of the reinterpretations and alternative approaches that have been devised. Inevitably many of the questions that arise in this area are matters of opinion rather than fact and, for this reason, some physicists consider that they belong more properly to the realm of philosophy than of physics. However, the conceptual basis of quantum mechanics is so fundamental to our whole understanding of the nature of the physical universe that it should surely be important for physicists to understand the nature of the problems involved, if nothing else.1,2 16.1 THE CONCEPTUAL PROBLEMS In this section we outline some of the main areas of difficulty with a view to more detailed discussion later in the chapter.

DOI
10.1201/b19619-30

Related papers

Interpretation of quantum theory - An overview

Dimitris Lazarou

Quantum Mechanics, almost 80 years after its arrival, is a well established and experimentally not falsified theory. It has predicted and explained a whole series of natural phenomena of a very delicate nature. But its interpretation has not gained universal acceptance. Many scientists have considered the conceptual framework of quantum theory to be unsatisfactory. The very foundations of Quantum Mechanics is a matter that needs to be resolved in order to achieve and gain a deep physical understanding of the underlying physical procedures that constitute our world.

arXiv:0712.3466•Dec 20, 2007•5 citations

PHILOSOPHY AND QUANTUM PHYSICS

Rom Harr

THE conceptual problems raised by the discovery of quantum effects have not been fully resolved after half a century. Part of the reason for this is undoubtedly to be found in the mutual ignorance which prevails between physicists and philosophers. In his book Heisenberg brings together a philosophically inclined temperament with an unrivalled knowledge of physics. The result is a book of very great interest, however much one might disagree with his conclusions. The collection of essays of which the other book is made up is intended to bring crucial conceptual problems in physics especially to the notice of philosophers. The design and intention of the collection is admirable for this is the proper way to overcome the departmentalization of interest that has left the deep conceptual problems still unresolved. Men like Heisenberg who combine philosophical temperament with scientic knowledge of great distinction are rare, and yet the difficulties can only be cleared up by the application of philosophical techniques of analysis to problems which are an intimate and difficult part of physics. A great deal of the interest of Heisenberg's book lies in the very comprehensive account he gives of the origin and growth of the Copenhagen school, and the way the new phenomena forced a largely unwelcome picture of nature upon Bohr and his friends. The most important chapter from a philosophical point of view is that in which Heisenberg defends this interpretation against the attacks to which it has been subjected. The essence of his argument for the interpretation can be summed up in two propositions. (i) The Copenhagen interpretation of physical theory, which depends upon the acceptance of the so-called Principle of Complementarity, is an inevitable and final interpretation. The reason for this is that there are only two possible general models for understanding given physical phenomena; a particle model or a wave model. These are exhaustive and exclusive because the former depends upon discontinuous and the latter upon continuous (using substance here in the traditional philosophical sense). If we find, as we do, that the two fundamental constituents of the universe, matter and radiation, each exhibit two classes of phenomena, one explainable only on a particle model and one on a wave model, then we are compelled to adopt a complementarity hypothesis and give up the idea of finding a single and uniform model for the understanding of phenomena. There are only two kinds of models; they are mutually exclusive; both are required; hence we either despair before an insoluble problem or adopt the Copenhagen interpretation. (2) Any serious criticism of this interpretation must offer an alternative

•Jan 1, 2016•0 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

Interpretational questions

Helmut Rauch, Samuel A. Werner

Abstract In the previous chapters we have shown many successful applications of quantum mechanics, and it would be a major problem not having this excellent theory available. Despite these successes, however, the basic conceptual framework has been considered by many scientists to be unsatisfactory. In this chapter we will outline the standard Copenhagen –G öttingen interpretation and some of the alternative approaches. Quantum mechanics has to be seen as a major part of more basic quantum field theories. Inevitably, many of the questions that arise are matters of opinion rather than of fact, and therefore many physicists consider that they belong more properly to philosophy than to physics. However, the conceptual basis of quantum mechanics is so fundamental to our understanding of nature that it should surely be important to physicists as well. The conception of determinism differs substantially from classical physics because quantum theory predicts only the relative probabilities of different outcomes. The feature of non-locality is another new concept which makes space-like separated events instantaneously entangled.

•Aug 10, 2000•1 citation

Do We Really Understand Quantum Mechanics?

Franck Laloë

Quantum mechanics is a very successful theory that has impacted on many areas of physics, from pure theory to applications. However, it is difficult to interpret, and philosophical contradictions and counterintuitive results are apparent at a fundamental level. In this book, Laloë presents our current understanding of the theory. The book explores the basic questions and difficulties that arise with the theory of quantum mechanics. It examines the various interpretations that have been proposed, describing and comparing them and discussing their success and difficulties. The book is ideal for researchers in physics and mathematics who want to know more about the problems faced in quantum mechanics but who do not have specialist knowledge in the subject. It will also interest philosophers of science, as well as all scientists who are curious about quantum physics and its peculiarities.

arXiv:quant-ph/0209123•Cambridge University Press eBooks•Aug 30, 2012•156 citations

A Survey of Physical Principles Attempting to Define Quantum Mechanics

Gary Oas, J. Acácio de Barros

Quantum mechanics, one of the most successful theories in the history of science, was created to account for physical systems not describable by classical physics. Though it is consistent with all experiments conducted thus far, many of its core concepts (amplitudes, global phases, etc.) can not be directly accessed and its interpretation is still the subject of intense debate, more than 100 years since it was introduced. So, a fundamental question is why this particular mathematical model is the one that nature chooses, if indeed it is the correct model. In the past two decades there has been a renewed effort to determine what physical or informational principles define quantum mechanics. In this paper, recent attempts at establishing reasonable physical principles are reviewed and their degree of success is tabulated. An alternative approach using joint quasi-probability distributions is shown to provide a common basis of representing most of the proposed principles. It is argued that having a common representation of the principles can provide intuition and guidance to relate current principles or advance new principles. The current state of affairs, along with some alternative views are discussed.

arXiv:1506.05515•Advanced series on mathematical psychology•Nov 24, 2015•9 citations
The previous chapters contain many examples of the successful application of quantum mechanics to the solution of real physical problems. These represent only a small sample of the wide range of experimental results, spanning just about all areas of physics and chemistry and beyond, that have been successfully explained by quantum theory. So far at least, no quantum-mechanical prediction has been experimentally falsified. Despite these successes, however, many scientists have considered the basic conceptual framework of the subject to be unsatisfactory, and repeated attempts have been made to reinterpret quantum mechanics, or even replace it with a different theory whose philosophical and conceptual basis could be considered more acceptable. In the present chapter we shall explain the reasons for this dissatisfaction and outline some of the reinterpretations and alternative approaches that have been devised. Inevitably many of the questions that arise in this area are matters of opinion rather than fact and, for this reason, some physicists consider that they belong more properly to the realm of philosophy than of physics. However, the conceptual basis of quantum mechanics is so fundamental to our whole understanding of the nature of the physical universe that it should surely be important for physicists to understand the nature of the problems involved, if nothing else.1,2 16.1 THE CONCEPTUAL PROBLEMS In this section we outline some of the main areas of difficulty with a view to more detailed discussion later in the chapter.
Quantum Mechanics, almost 80 years after its arrival, is a well established and experimentally not falsified theory. It has predicted and explained a whole series of natural phenomena of a very delicate nature. But its interpretation has not gained universal acceptance. Many scientists have considered the conceptual framework of quantum theory to be unsatisfactory. The very foundations of Quantum Mechanics is a matter that needs to be resolved in order to achieve and gain a deep physical understanding of the underlying physical procedures that constitute our world.
THE conceptual problems raised by the discovery of quantum effects have not been fully resolved after half a century. Part of the reason for this is undoubtedly to be found in the mutual ignorance which prevails between physicists and philosophers. In his book Heisenberg brings together a philosophically inclined temperament with an unrivalled knowledge of physics. The result is a book of very great interest, however much one might disagree with his conclusions. The collection of essays of which the other book is made up is intended to bring crucial conceptual problems in physics especially to the notice of philosophers. The design and intention of the collection is admirable for this is the proper way to overcome the departmentalization of interest that has left the deep conceptual problems still unresolved. Men like Heisenberg who combine philosophical temperament with scientic knowledge of great distinction are rare, and yet the difficulties can only be cleared up by the application of philosophical techniques of analysis to problems which are an intimate and difficult part of physics. A great deal of the interest of Heisenberg's book lies in the very comprehensive account he gives of the origin and growth of the Copenhagen school, and the way the new phenomena forced a largely unwelcome picture of nature upon Bohr and his friends. The most important chapter from a philosophical point of view is that in which Heisenberg defends this interpretation against the attacks to which it has been subjected. The essence of his argument for the interpretation can be summed up in two propositions. (i) The Copenhagen interpretation of physical theory, which depends upon the acceptance of the so-called Principle of Complementarity, is an inevitable and final interpretation. The reason for this is that there are only two possible general models for understanding given physical phenomena; a particle model or a wave model. These are exhaustive and exclusive because the former depends upon discontinuous and the latter upon continuous (using substance here in the traditional philosophical sense). If we find, as we do, that the two fundamental constituents of the universe, matter and radiation, each exhibit two classes of phenomena, one explainable only on a particle model and one on a wave model, then we are compelled to adopt a complementarity hypothesis and give up the idea of finding a single and uniform model for the understanding of phenomena. There are only two kinds of models; they are mutually exclusive; both are required; hence we either despair before an insoluble problem or adopt the Copenhagen interpretation. (2) Any serious criticism of this interpretation must offer an alternative
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.
Abstract In the previous chapters we have shown many successful applications of quantum mechanics, and it would be a major problem not having this excellent theory available. Despite these successes, however, the basic conceptual framework has been considered by many scientists to be unsatisfactory. In this chapter we will outline the standard Copenhagen –G öttingen interpretation and some of the alternative approaches. Quantum mechanics has to be seen as a major part of more basic quantum field theories. Inevitably, many of the questions that arise are matters of opinion rather than of fact, and therefore many physicists consider that they belong more properly to philosophy than to physics. However, the conceptual basis of quantum mechanics is so fundamental to our understanding of nature that it should surely be important to physicists as well. The conception of determinism differs substantially from classical physics because quantum theory predicts only the relative probabilities of different outcomes. The feature of non-locality is another new concept which makes space-like separated events instantaneously entangled.
Quantum mechanics is a very successful theory that has impacted on many areas of physics, from pure theory to applications. However, it is difficult to interpret, and philosophical contradictions and counterintuitive results are apparent at a fundamental level. In this book, Laloë presents our current understanding of the theory. The book explores the basic questions and difficulties that arise with the theory of quantum mechanics. It examines the various interpretations that have been proposed, describing and comparing them and discussing their success and difficulties. The book is ideal for researchers in physics and mathematics who want to know more about the problems faced in quantum mechanics but who do not have specialist knowledge in the subject. It will also interest philosophers of science, as well as all scientists who are curious about quantum physics and its peculiarities.
Quantum mechanics, one of the most successful theories in the history of science, was created to account for physical systems not describable by classical physics. Though it is consistent with all experiments conducted thus far, many of its core concepts (amplitudes, global phases, etc.) can not be directly accessed and its interpretation is still the subject of intense debate, more than 100 years since it was introduced. So, a fundamental question is why this particular mathematical model is the one that nature chooses, if indeed it is the correct model. In the past two decades there has been a renewed effort to determine what physical or informational principles define quantum mechanics. In this paper, recent attempts at establishing reasonable physical principles are reviewed and their degree of success is tabulated. An alternative approach using joint quasi-probability distributions is shown to provide a common basis of representing most of the proposed principles. It is argued that having a common representation of the principles can provide intuition and guidance to relate current principles or advance new principles. The current state of affairs, along with some alternative views are discussed.