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

I think, therefore

Jim Baggott

Published Nov 6, 2003• 0 citations
Publisher

Abstract

Abstract The orthodox Copenhagen interpretation of quantum theory is silent on the question of the collapse of the wave function. The field is therefore wide open. If we choose to reject the strict Copenhagen interpretation, we are, given our present level of understanding, free to choose exactly how we wish to fill the void. Any suggestion, no matter how strange, is in principle legitimate, provided that it does not produce a theory inconsistent with the predictions of quantum theory known to have been upheld so far by experiment. We are not constrained to a specific solution. Our choice is therefore a matter of personal taste.

DOI
10.1093/oso/9780198529279.003.0013

Related papers

Critique of a recent claim of a formal difference between the Copenhagen and statistical interpretations of quantum theory

Dipankar Home, M. A. B. Whitaker

Physics Letters A•Nov 1, 1991•3 citations

Anti Bohr — Quantum Theory and Causality

Internist. Horandstrasse, DE-26441 Jever, Germany, Ilija Barukčić

The political attitude and the ideology of a very small elite of physicists (Niels Bohr, Werner Heisenberg, Max Born and view other) played a major role in the construction of the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics in the 1920s.Lastly, the hegemonic standard acausal Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics abandoned the principle of causality in quantum mechanics and opened a very wide door to mysticism, logical fallacies and wishful thinking in physics and in science as such.Historically, the Second International Congress for the Unity of Science (Copenhagen, June 21-26, 1936) tried to solve the problem of causality within physics but without a success.Thus far, 80 years after the Second International Congress for the Unity of Science this publication will expel Bohr's and Heisenberg's dogma of non-causality out of quantum mechanics and re-establish the unrestricted validity of the principle of causality at quantum level and under conditions of relativity theory by mathematizing the relationship between cause and effect in the form of the mathematical formula of the causal relationship k.In contrast to Bohr, Heisenberg and other representatives of the Copenhagen interpretation quantum mechanics, a realistic interpretation of quantum theory grounded on the unrestricted validity of the principle of causality will expel any kind of mysticism from physics and enable a quantization of the gravitational field too.

International Journal of Applied Physics and Mathematics•Jan 1, 2017•11 citations

The physical reality of the quantum wave function

Gerd Leuchs

Can it possibly be that the proper interpretation of quantum theory, which allows a quantum system to be in a superposition of mutually exclusive states, is itself a superposition of seemingly contradicting interpretations?

arXiv:1501.07199•Jan 28, 2015•2 citations

Quantum Mechanics: The Greatest Speculation of the 20th Century

Mary Kartansky

Quantum mechanics emerged in the first decades of the 20th century as a powerful mathematical framework for describing microscopic phenomena. While its predictive success in specific domains is widely acknowledged, its ontological foundations remain deeply problematic nearly a century after its formulation. This paper examines the historical development of quantum mechanics, focusing on the introduction of key concepts such as the collapse of the wave function and quantum entanglement. It argues that these notions did not arise as direct consequences of experimental findings, but were introduced as additional postulates to resolve internal inconsistencies within the theory. The analysis highlights the circular nature of experimental confirmation in quantum mechanics and demonstrates that even the most rigorous tests, including loophole-free Bell inequality experiments, primarily validate mathematical predictions rather than resolve fundamental ontological questions. Multiple alternative interpretations proposed over the decades have failed to achieve consensus, indicating persistent conceptual difficulties. The paper concludes that quantum mechanics, particularly in its standard interpretation, functions more as a speculative mathematical construction than as a coherent and ontologically consistent theory of physical reality. «Keywords:» quantum mechanics, wave function collapse, quantum entanglement, measurement problem, ontology, Copenhagen interpretation, Bell inequalities, alternative interpretations, philosophy of physics

•Jul 14, 2026•0 citations

AN EXAMINATION OF THE COPENHAGEN INTERPRETATION OF QUANTUM THEORY

Ramakrishna Puligandla

•Jan 1, 1966•0 citations

On the Interpretation and Philosophical Foundation of Quantum Mechanics

Anton Zeilinger

When investigating various interpretations of quantum mechanics one notices that each interpretation contains an element which escapes a complete and full description. This element is always associated with the stochasticity of the individual event in the quantum measurement process. It appears that the implications of this limit to any description of the world has not been sufficiently appreciated with notable exceptions of, for example, Heisenberg, Pauli and Wheeler. If we assume that a deeper foundation of quantum mechanics is possible, the question arises which features such a philosophical foundation might have. It is suggested that the objective randomness of the individual quantum event is a necessity of a description of the world in view of the significant influence the observer in quantum mechanics has. It is also suggested that the austerity of the Copenhagen interpretation should serve as a guiding principle in a search for deeper understanding. In recent years, a significant increase of interest in the foundations of quantum mechanics can be observed. This increase is certainly related to the immense progress made during the last two decades in experiments with individual quantum systems. This technological progress has made it possible to really perform more and more of the famous gedanken experiments which were so important in the early days of the theory. Not only did these experiments confirm the theory in every detail, they also opened up avenues for new experimental directions which might even lead some day to new technology. While such applications are certainly still far away, areas like quantum cryptography[1], quantum computation[2] and interaction-free measurement[3], just to name a few examples, certainly deserve the attention they receive. All this activity has also drawn more attention to the problems of understanding and interpreting quantum mechanics. It seems that there, a definitive consensus has not yet been reached. As witnesses quote authorities like Feynman as saying[4]: I think can safely say that nobody today understands quantum mechanics, whereby he apparently included himself, or like Roger Penrose[5], who describes his opinion remarking that while the theory agrees incredibly well with experiment and while it is of profound mathematical beauty, it makes absolutely no sense. Why did even physicists who have contributed so significantly to quantum theory Feynman was even rewarded the Nobel Prize for one of its mathematical formulations choose such emphatic and strong formulations? Why is it that the average physicist hears very little about such problems during his/her education? Why is the comprehension of the theory very often focused on formalism while questions that probe for deeper meaning are usually not tackled? To take a closer look at the situation, let us turn to a brief analysis of the interpretation of quantum mechanics. We note that there are at least two levels of interpreting a formalism, a physical theory. The first, basic, level supplies the rules that determine which element of the formalism corresponds to which measurable quantity or to which observable fact in a concrete experimental situation. Theses rules are a large, mostly not explicated but only implicit, set of instructions. These instructions concern the manner of working with the statements of the theory in order to obtain predictions for future experiments or events, and they concern the instructions on how to proceed in experiment in order to demonstrate or test a theoretical

•Jan 1, 2008•26 citations
Abstract The orthodox Copenhagen interpretation of quantum theory is silent on the question of the collapse of the wave function. The field is therefore wide open. If we choose to reject the strict Copenhagen interpretation, we are, given our present level of understanding, free to choose exactly how we wish to fill the void. Any suggestion, no matter how strange, is in principle legitimate, provided that it does not produce a theory inconsistent with the predictions of quantum theory known to have been upheld so far by experiment. We are not constrained to a specific solution. Our choice is therefore a matter of personal taste.
The political attitude and the ideology of a very small elite of physicists (Niels Bohr, Werner Heisenberg, Max Born and view other) played a major role in the construction of the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics in the 1920s.Lastly, the hegemonic standard acausal Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics abandoned the principle of causality in quantum mechanics and opened a very wide door to mysticism, logical fallacies and wishful thinking in physics and in science as such.Historically, the Second International Congress for the Unity of Science (Copenhagen, June 21-26, 1936) tried to solve the problem of causality within physics but without a success.Thus far, 80 years after the Second International Congress for the Unity of Science this publication will expel Bohr's and Heisenberg's dogma of non-causality out of quantum mechanics and re-establish the unrestricted validity of the principle of causality at quantum level and under conditions of relativity theory by mathematizing the relationship between cause and effect in the form of the mathematical formula of the causal relationship k.In contrast to Bohr, Heisenberg and other representatives of the Copenhagen interpretation quantum mechanics, a realistic interpretation of quantum theory grounded on the unrestricted validity of the principle of causality will expel any kind of mysticism from physics and enable a quantization of the gravitational field too.
Quantum mechanics emerged in the first decades of the 20th century as a powerful mathematical framework for describing microscopic phenomena. While its predictive success in specific domains is widely acknowledged, its ontological foundations remain deeply problematic nearly a century after its formulation. This paper examines the historical development of quantum mechanics, focusing on the introduction of key concepts such as the collapse of the wave function and quantum entanglement. It argues that these notions did not arise as direct consequences of experimental findings, but were introduced as additional postulates to resolve internal inconsistencies within the theory. The analysis highlights the circular nature of experimental confirmation in quantum mechanics and demonstrates that even the most rigorous tests, including loophole-free Bell inequality experiments, primarily validate mathematical predictions rather than resolve fundamental ontological questions. Multiple alternative interpretations proposed over the decades have failed to achieve consensus, indicating persistent conceptual difficulties. The paper concludes that quantum mechanics, particularly in its standard interpretation, functions more as a speculative mathematical construction than as a coherent and ontologically consistent theory of physical reality. «Keywords:» quantum mechanics, wave function collapse, quantum entanglement, measurement problem, ontology, Copenhagen interpretation, Bell inequalities, alternative interpretations, philosophy of physics
When investigating various interpretations of quantum mechanics one notices that each interpretation contains an element which escapes a complete and full description. This element is always associated with the stochasticity of the individual event in the quantum measurement process. It appears that the implications of this limit to any description of the world has not been sufficiently appreciated with notable exceptions of, for example, Heisenberg, Pauli and Wheeler. If we assume that a deeper foundation of quantum mechanics is possible, the question arises which features such a philosophical foundation might have. It is suggested that the objective randomness of the individual quantum event is a necessity of a description of the world in view of the significant influence the observer in quantum mechanics has. It is also suggested that the austerity of the Copenhagen interpretation should serve as a guiding principle in a search for deeper understanding. In recent years, a significant increase of interest in the foundations of quantum mechanics can be observed. This increase is certainly related to the immense progress made during the last two decades in experiments with individual quantum systems. This technological progress has made it possible to really perform more and more of the famous gedanken experiments which were so important in the early days of the theory. Not only did these experiments confirm the theory in every detail, they also opened up avenues for new experimental directions which might even lead some day to new technology. While such applications are certainly still far away, areas like quantum cryptography[1], quantum computation[2] and interaction-free measurement[3], just to name a few examples, certainly deserve the attention they receive. All this activity has also drawn more attention to the problems of understanding and interpreting quantum mechanics. It seems that there, a definitive consensus has not yet been reached. As witnesses quote authorities like Feynman as saying[4]: I think can safely say that nobody today understands quantum mechanics, whereby he apparently included himself, or like Roger Penrose[5], who describes his opinion remarking that while the theory agrees incredibly well with experiment and while it is of profound mathematical beauty, it makes absolutely no sense. Why did even physicists who have contributed so significantly to quantum theory Feynman was even rewarded the Nobel Prize for one of its mathematical formulations choose such emphatic and strong formulations? Why is it that the average physicist hears very little about such problems during his/her education? Why is the comprehension of the theory very often focused on formalism while questions that probe for deeper meaning are usually not tackled? To take a closer look at the situation, let us turn to a brief analysis of the interpretation of quantum mechanics. We note that there are at least two levels of interpreting a formalism, a physical theory. The first, basic, level supplies the rules that determine which element of the formalism corresponds to which measurable quantity or to which observable fact in a concrete experimental situation. Theses rules are a large, mostly not explicated but only implicit, set of instructions. These instructions concern the manner of working with the statements of the theory in order to obtain predictions for future experiments or events, and they concern the instructions on how to proceed in experiment in order to demonstrate or test a theoretical