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

Indeterminacy and Entanglement: The Challenge of Quantum Mechanics

Jeffrey Bub

Published May 1, 2003• 0 citations
Publisher

Abstract

Abstract I explore the nature of the problem generated by the transition from classical to quantum mechanics, and I survey some of the different responses to this problem. I show briefly how recent work on quantum information over the past ten years has led to a shift of focus, in which the puzzling features of quantum mechanics are seen as a resource to be developed rather than a problem to be solved. What is so puzzling about quantum mechanics? Remarkably, there is no general consensus among physicists as to the nature of the problem, or even whether there is a genuine problem. As Feynman ([1982], p. 467) put it: ‘I cannot define the real problem, therefore I suspect there’s no real problem, but I’m not sure there’s no real problem.’

DOI
10.1093/oso/9780199250547.003.0011

Related papers

Indeterminacy and entanglement: the challenge of quantum mechanics

Jeffery Bub

I explore the nature of the problem generated by the transition from classical to quantum mechanics, and I survey some of the different responses to this problem. I show briefly how recent work on quantum information over the past ten years has led to a shift of focus, in which the puzzling features of quantum mechanics are seen as a resource to be developed rather than a problem to be solved.

The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science•Dec 1, 2000•10 citations

Making better sense of quantum mechanics

N. David Mermin

We still lack any consensus about what one is actually talking about as one uses quantum mechanics. There is a gap between the abstract terms in which the theory is couched and the phenomena the theory enables each of us to account for so well. Because it has no practical consequences for how we each use quantum mechanics to deal with physical problems, this cognitive dissonance has managed to coexist with the quantum theory from the very beginning. The absence of conceptual clarity for almost a century suggests that the problem might lie in some implicit misconceptions about the nature of scientific explanation that are deeply held by virtually all physicists, but are rarely explicitly acknowledged. I describe here such unvoiced but widely shared assumptions. Rejecting them clarifies and unifies a range of obscure remarks about quantum mechanics made almost from the beginning by some of the giants of physics, many of whom are held to be in deep disagreement. This new view of physics requires physicists to think about science in an unfamiliar way. My primary purpose is to explain the new perspective and urge that it be taken seriously. My secondary aims are to explain why this perspective differs significantly from what Bohr, Heisenberg, and Pauli had been saying from the very beginning, and why it is not solipsism, as some have maintained. To emphasize that this is a general view of science, and not just of quantum mechanics, I apply it to a long-standing puzzle in classical physics: the apparent inability of physics to give any meaning to 'Now'-the present moment.

arXiv:1809.01639•Reports on Progress in Physics•Sep 20, 2018•58 citations

About the Nature of Quantum Information

Olímpia Lombardi

Although the interpretation of the concept of information is not clear, even in the classical framework, new interpretive problems have arisen with the advent of the so-called quantum information, which combine the difficulties in understanding the concept of information with the well-known foundational puzzles derived from quantum mechanics itself. The aim of this paper is to consider some arguments traditionally put forward to support the idea that quantum information is qualitatively different from classical information. The final conclusion is that there are no reasons to admit the existence of quantum information as qualitatively different from classical information: there is only one kind of information, physically neutral, which can be encoded by means of classical or quantum states.

International Society for the Study of Information Summit (IS4SI Summit)•Sep 19, 2021•0 citations

Quantum Mechanics

Peter E. Hodgson

The difficulties of the old quantum theory were largely dispelled by the development of quantum mechanics in the 1920s. First Heisenberg (1925) developed the rather abstract matrix mechanics and soon after Schro¨dinger (1926; see also Eckart, 1926) developed the physically more appealing wave mechanics. Subsequently he showed them to be mathematically equivalent. The physicists were greatly relieved; now they had once again a mathematical formalism that enabled the results of experiments to be calculated. It was possible to move forward. It is certainly a very elegant and indeed beautiful formalism, and does enable the results of many physical measurements to be calculated with great accuracy. It is used daily by atomic and nuclear physicists; there is no other way to make calculations. From the earliest days there has been intense debate about the interpretation of quantum mechanics, and it shows no signs of being settled; if anything it is becoming more intense over the years. As Penrose has remarked, no one understands quantum mechanics. Feynman (1967; see also Sykes, 1994) also admitted that ‘nobody understands quantum mechanics’, and Einstein once remarked: ‘I have thought a hundred times as much about the quantum problems as I have about general relativity theory’ (Pais, 1994, p. 57). It should therefore be evident that the most that can be done here is to try to show where the real difficulties lie, and how the failure to recognize that quantum mechanics is an essentially statistical theory has led to a series of confusing quantum paradoxes. It is just these paradoxes that have often been used to support theological speculations. It is useful to ask what ‘understanding quantum mechanics’ actually means. Certainly it means being able to calculate the results of many measurements. The same applies to Newton’s theory of gravitation, which we understand in the sense that we can use it as a basis of calculation, although we do not really understand the gravitational force itself. Very often, especially in modern physics, the mathematical formalism does not give us the sort of intuitive physical feeling for what is going on that we often obtain from classical mechanics. Perhaps we can never achieve more than this for quantum mechanics. In classical mechanics we can assume that a property that is measured objectively exists prior to the interaction of the measuring apparatus with the observed system. Quantum mechanics, however, ‘is incompatible with the proposition that measurement discovers some unknown but pre-existing property’ (Peres, 1997, p. 14). There is an important distinction between mysteries and absurdities. We may be forced to live with mysteries, but there is no reason why we should put up with absurdities such as the wave-particle duality, tunnelling through potential barriers, acausal events and the collapse of the wave function. These are the quantum paradoxes that will be discussed later on. They arise within the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics and are solved by other interpretations. These alternative interpretations enable us to make conjectures about what is going on, even though we cannot understand it in detail. This is acceptable and a stimulus to further research. It is certainly difficult enough to understand quantum mechanics, but there is no need to try to visualize logical absurdities in the effort to do so. Quantum mechanics is a mathematical formalism that makes it possible to calculate the results of some experiments. Anything more than this, such as questions about the interpretation of what is measured and whether it tells us what is actually going on in the system being studied, belongs to philosophy. Thus we are concerned here with what is essentially a philosophical debate; if it were just a matter of physics the debate would have been settled long ago. One of the difficulties is that it invokes the results of experiments and uses the language of quantum mechanics. Inevitably this language uses philosophical terms and then it is easy to give the impression that the philosophical propositions are in some way entailed by the physical results. These in turn can influence theological thinking. In order to be quite clear which arguments are justified and which are not, it is essential to separate the three levels of discourse: physical, philosophical and theological. Our task is to relate these together, and this immediately raises the traditional problems of the philosophy of science, including the relation of experiment to theory, and of theory to explanation. We begin by discussing experiments, distinguishing between those that are real and those that are imaginary.

Routledge eBooks•Sep 8, 2017•0 citations

Quantum Theory without Observers—Part One

Sheldon Goldstein

Since its inception some 70 years ago and despite its extraordinary predictive successes, quantum mechanics has been plagued by conceptual difficulties. Plainly put, the basic problem is this: It is not at all clear what quantum mechanics is about. What, in fact, does quantum mechanics describe?

Physics Today•Mar 1, 1998•202 citations

Engineering Entanglement, Conceptualizing Quantum Information

Chen‐Pang Yeang

Summary Proposed by Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen (EPR) in 1935, the entangled state has played a central part in exploring the foundation of quantum mechanics. At the end of the twentieth century, however, some physicists and mathematicians set aside the epistemological debates associated with EPR and turned it from a philosophical puzzle into practical resources for information processing. This paper examines the origin of what is known as quantum information. Scientists had considered making quantum computers and employing entanglement in communications for a long time. But the real breakthrough only occurred in the 1980s when they shifted focus from general-purpose systems such as Turing machines to algorithms and protocols that solved particular problems, including quantum factorization, quantum search, superdense code, and teleportation. Key to their development was two groups of mathematical manipulations and deformations of entanglement—quantum parallelism and ‘feedback EPR’—that served as conceptual templates. The early success of quantum parallelism and feedback EPR was owed to the idealized formalism of entanglement researchers had prepared for philosophical discussions. Yet, such idealization is difficult to hold when the physical implementation of quantum information processors is at stake. A major challenge for today's quantum information scientists and engineers is thus to move from Einstein et al.'s well-defined scenarios into realistic models.

Annals of Science•Jul 1, 2011•11 citations
Abstract I explore the nature of the problem generated by the transition from classical to quantum mechanics, and I survey some of the different responses to this problem. I show briefly how recent work on quantum information over the past ten years has led to a shift of focus, in which the puzzling features of quantum mechanics are seen as a resource to be developed rather than a problem to be solved. What is so puzzling about quantum mechanics? Remarkably, there is no general consensus among physicists as to the nature of the problem, or even whether there is a genuine problem. As Feynman ([1982], p. 467) put it: ‘I cannot define the real problem, therefore I suspect there’s no real problem, but I’m not sure there’s no real problem.’
We still lack any consensus about what one is actually talking about as one uses quantum mechanics. There is a gap between the abstract terms in which the theory is couched and the phenomena the theory enables each of us to account for so well. Because it has no practical consequences for how we each use quantum mechanics to deal with physical problems, this cognitive dissonance has managed to coexist with the quantum theory from the very beginning. The absence of conceptual clarity for almost a century suggests that the problem might lie in some implicit misconceptions about the nature of scientific explanation that are deeply held by virtually all physicists, but are rarely explicitly acknowledged. I describe here such unvoiced but widely shared assumptions. Rejecting them clarifies and unifies a range of obscure remarks about quantum mechanics made almost from the beginning by some of the giants of physics, many of whom are held to be in deep disagreement. This new view of physics requires physicists to think about science in an unfamiliar way. My primary purpose is to explain the new perspective and urge that it be taken seriously. My secondary aims are to explain why this perspective differs significantly from what Bohr, Heisenberg, and Pauli had been saying from the very beginning, and why it is not solipsism, as some have maintained. To emphasize that this is a general view of science, and not just of quantum mechanics, I apply it to a long-standing puzzle in classical physics: the apparent inability of physics to give any meaning to 'Now'-the present moment.
Although the interpretation of the concept of information is not clear, even in the classical framework, new interpretive problems have arisen with the advent of the so-called quantum information, which combine the difficulties in understanding the concept of information with the well-known foundational puzzles derived from quantum mechanics itself. The aim of this paper is to consider some arguments traditionally put forward to support the idea that quantum information is qualitatively different from classical information. The final conclusion is that there are no reasons to admit the existence of quantum information as qualitatively different from classical information: there is only one kind of information, physically neutral, which can be encoded by means of classical or quantum states.
The difficulties of the old quantum theory were largely dispelled by the development of quantum mechanics in the 1920s. First Heisenberg (1925) developed the rather abstract matrix mechanics and soon after Schro¨dinger (1926; see also Eckart, 1926) developed the physically more appealing wave mechanics. Subsequently he showed them to be mathematically equivalent. The physicists were greatly relieved; now they had once again a mathematical formalism that enabled the results of experiments to be calculated. It was possible to move forward. It is certainly a very elegant and indeed beautiful formalism, and does enable the results of many physical measurements to be calculated with great accuracy. It is used daily by atomic and nuclear physicists; there is no other way to make calculations. From the earliest days there has been intense debate about the interpretation of quantum mechanics, and it shows no signs of being settled; if anything it is becoming more intense over the years. As Penrose has remarked, no one understands quantum mechanics. Feynman (1967; see also Sykes, 1994) also admitted that ‘nobody understands quantum mechanics’, and Einstein once remarked: ‘I have thought a hundred times as much about the quantum problems as I have about general relativity theory’ (Pais, 1994, p. 57). It should therefore be evident that the most that can be done here is to try to show where the real difficulties lie, and how the failure to recognize that quantum mechanics is an essentially statistical theory has led to a series of confusing quantum paradoxes. It is just these paradoxes that have often been used to support theological speculations. It is useful to ask what ‘understanding quantum mechanics’ actually means. Certainly it means being able to calculate the results of many measurements. The same applies to Newton’s theory of gravitation, which we understand in the sense that we can use it as a basis of calculation, although we do not really understand the gravitational force itself. Very often, especially in modern physics, the mathematical formalism does not give us the sort of intuitive physical feeling for what is going on that we often obtain from classical mechanics. Perhaps we can never achieve more than this for quantum mechanics. In classical mechanics we can assume that a property that is measured objectively exists prior to the interaction of the measuring apparatus with the observed system. Quantum mechanics, however, ‘is incompatible with the proposition that measurement discovers some unknown but pre-existing property’ (Peres, 1997, p. 14). There is an important distinction between mysteries and absurdities. We may be forced to live with mysteries, but there is no reason why we should put up with absurdities such as the wave-particle duality, tunnelling through potential barriers, acausal events and the collapse of the wave function. These are the quantum paradoxes that will be discussed later on. They arise within the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics and are solved by other interpretations. These alternative interpretations enable us to make conjectures about what is going on, even though we cannot understand it in detail. This is acceptable and a stimulus to further research. It is certainly difficult enough to understand quantum mechanics, but there is no need to try to visualize logical absurdities in the effort to do so. Quantum mechanics is a mathematical formalism that makes it possible to calculate the results of some experiments. Anything more than this, such as questions about the interpretation of what is measured and whether it tells us what is actually going on in the system being studied, belongs to philosophy. Thus we are concerned here with what is essentially a philosophical debate; if it were just a matter of physics the debate would have been settled long ago. One of the difficulties is that it invokes the results of experiments and uses the language of quantum mechanics. Inevitably this language uses philosophical terms and then it is easy to give the impression that the philosophical propositions are in some way entailed by the physical results. These in turn can influence theological thinking. In order to be quite clear which arguments are justified and which are not, it is essential to separate the three levels of discourse: physical, philosophical and theological. Our task is to relate these together, and this immediately raises the traditional problems of the philosophy of science, including the relation of experiment to theory, and of theory to explanation. We begin by discussing experiments, distinguishing between those that are real and those that are imaginary.
Summary Proposed by Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen (EPR) in 1935, the entangled state has played a central part in exploring the foundation of quantum mechanics. At the end of the twentieth century, however, some physicists and mathematicians set aside the epistemological debates associated with EPR and turned it from a philosophical puzzle into practical resources for information processing. This paper examines the origin of what is known as quantum information. Scientists had considered making quantum computers and employing entanglement in communications for a long time. But the real breakthrough only occurred in the 1980s when they shifted focus from general-purpose systems such as Turing machines to algorithms and protocols that solved particular problems, including quantum factorization, quantum search, superdense code, and teleportation. Key to their development was two groups of mathematical manipulations and deformations of entanglement—quantum parallelism and ‘feedback EPR’—that served as conceptual templates. The early success of quantum parallelism and feedback EPR was owed to the idealized formalism of entanglement researchers had prepared for philosophical discussions. Yet, such idealization is difficult to hold when the physical implementation of quantum information processors is at stake. A major challenge for today's quantum information scientists and engineers is thus to move from Einstein et al.'s well-defined scenarios into realistic models.