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

Universe

On the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Measurement

Michael Luke Walker

Published Mar 1, 2024• 3 citations
Publisher

Abstract

We claim that quantum collapse, as per the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, follows naturally from the energetics of measurement. We argue that a realistic device generates an interaction energy that drives a random walk in Hilbert space and generates the probabilistic interpretation of Born.
DOI
10.3390/universe10030113

Related papers

The High-Energy Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics

Stefano Forte

We address the issue of the interpretation of quantum mechanics by asking why the issue never arises in the description of high-energy interactions. We argue that several tenets of quantum mechanics, specifically the collapse of the wave function, follow directly once one accepts the essential randomness of fundamental interaction events. We then show that scale separation of fundamental interactions ensures that decoherent measurement can be unambiguously separated from the random quantum events. Finally, we argue that the fundamental symmetries of space and time guarantee the existence of a unique preferred basis. We argue that this set of ideas might lead to an interpretation of quantum mechanics, or rather, show in which sense an "interpretation" is (or is not) necessary.

arXiv:1309.1996•Sep 8, 2013•0 citations

The emergent Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics

Timothy J. Hollowood

We introduce a new and conceptually simple interpretation of quantum mechanics based on reduced density matrices of sub-systems from which the standard Copenhagen interpretation emerges as an effective description of macroscopically large systems. This interpretation describes a world in which definite measurement results are obtained with probabilities that reproduce the Born rule. Wave function collapse is seen to be a useful but fundamentally unnecessary piece of prudent book keeping which is only valid for macro-systems. The new interpretation lies in a class of modal interpretations in that it applies to quantum systems that interact with a much larger environment. However, we show that it does not suffer from the problems that have plagued similar modal interpretations like macroscopic superpositions and rapid flipping between macroscopically distinct states. We describe how the interpretation fits neatly together with fully quantum formulations of statistical mechanics and that a measurement process can be viewed as a process of ergodicity breaking analogous to a phase transition. The key feature of the new interpretation is that joint probabilities for the ergodic subsets of states of disjoint macro-systems only arise as emergent quantities. Finally we give an account of the EPR–Bohm thought experiment and show that the interpretation implies the violation of the Bell inequality characteristic of quantum mechanics but in a way that is rather novel. The final conclusion is that the Copenhagen interpretation gives a completely satisfactory phenomenology of macro-systems interacting with micro-systems.

arXiv:1312.3427•Journal of Physics A Mathematical and Theoretical•Apr 17, 2014•14 citations

The Quantum Measurement Problem and Two Famous Questions

Guang-Liang Li

By revisiting two famous questions about the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, this article presents a concise analysis of the quantum measurement problem concerning both microscopic and macroscopic objects. The method used here is mainly based on the concept ``isolated point'' in ``point-set topology''. The findings reported are as follows. (a) Einstein's argument has been misunderstood; he was opposed to the so-called ``inherently probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics'' in the Copenhagen interpretation rather than to the use of probability in quantum mechanics. (b) Probability used in Einstein's ensemble interpretation is identical to the quantum-mechanically calculated probability. (c) The wave-functions in Einstein's ensemble interpretation neither describe any single quantum object purportedly possessing mutually exclusive properties simultaneously when nobody looks nor collapse abruptly when an observer performs a measurement.

•Aug 12, 2025•0 citations

The Quantum Measurement Problem and Two Famous Questions

Guang-Liang Li

By revisiting two famous questions concerning the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, this article presents a concise analysis of the quantum measurement problems with measuring both microscopic and macroscopic objects. The method used here is mainly based on the concept ``isolated point'' in ``point-set topology''. The findings reported are as follows. (a) Einstein's argument has been misunderstood; he was opposed to the so-called ``inherently probabilistic nature'' attached by the Copenhagen interpretation to quantum mechanics rather than to the use of probability in quantum mechanics. (b) Probability used in Einstein's ensemble interpretation is identical to the quantum-mechanically calculated probability. (c) The wave-functions in Einstein's ensemble interpretation neither describe any single quantum object purportedly possessing mutually exclusive properties simultaneously when nobody looks nor collapse abruptly when an observer performs a measurement.

•Aug 25, 2025•0 citations

Foundations of quantum physics III. Measurement

Arnold Neumaier

This paper presents the measurement problem from the point of view of the thermal interpretation of quantum physics introduced in Part II. The measurement of a Hermitian quantity $A$ is regarded as giving an uncertain value approximating the q-expectation $\langle A\rangle$ rather than (as tradition wanted to have it) as an exact revelation of an eigenvalue of $A$. Single observations of microscopic systems are (except under special circumstances) very uncertain measurements only. The thermal interpretation * treats detection events as a statistical measurement of particle beam intensity. * claims that the particle concept is only asymptotically valid, under conditions where particles are essentially free. * claims that the unmodeled environment influences the results enough to cause all randomness in quantum physics. * allows one to derive Born's rule for scattering and in the limit of ideal measurements; but in general, only part of Born's rule holds exactly: Whenever a quantity A with zero uncertainty is measured exactly, its value is an eigenvalue of A. * has no explicit collapse -- the latter emerges approximately in non-isolated subsystems. * gives a valid interpretation of systems modeled by a quantum-classical dynamics. * explains the peculiar features of the Copenhagen interpretation (lacking realism between measurements) and the minimal statistical interpretation (lacking realism for the single case) where these interpretations apply -- in the microscopic domain. The thermal interpretation is an interpretation of quantum physics that is in principle refutable by theoretical arguments leading to a negative answer to a number of open issues collected at the end of the paper, since there is plenty of experimental evidence for each of the points mentioned there.

arXiv:1902.10782•Feb 27, 2019•0 citations

Is the standard quantum mechanics a completely nondeterministic theory?

H. Razmi, Jafar Bahreini

It is argued that although quantum theory isn't an absolutely deterministic theory, it is partially deterministic. The approach followed here is in the framework of the standard (Copenhagen interpretation of) quantum mechanics without any additional assumption or alternative interpretation. The argument is based on the conceptual meaning of determinism and by means of some well-known phenomena in the quantum world (measurement of a quantum particle spin, energy values and spatial states of an electron in atoms, the so-called wavefunction collapse problem) which are usually considered in rejecting determinism.

arXiv:2007.03553•Jul 4, 2020•0 citations
We address the issue of the interpretation of quantum mechanics by asking why the issue never arises in the description of high-energy interactions. We argue that several tenets of quantum mechanics, specifically the collapse of the wave function, follow directly once one accepts the essential randomness of fundamental interaction events. We then show that scale separation of fundamental interactions ensures that decoherent measurement can be unambiguously separated from the random quantum events. Finally, we argue that the fundamental symmetries of space and time guarantee the existence of a unique preferred basis. We argue that this set of ideas might lead to an interpretation of quantum mechanics, or rather, show in which sense an "interpretation" is (or is not) necessary.
We introduce a new and conceptually simple interpretation of quantum mechanics based on reduced density matrices of sub-systems from which the standard Copenhagen interpretation emerges as an effective description of macroscopically large systems. This interpretation describes a world in which definite measurement results are obtained with probabilities that reproduce the Born rule. Wave function collapse is seen to be a useful but fundamentally unnecessary piece of prudent book keeping which is only valid for macro-systems. The new interpretation lies in a class of modal interpretations in that it applies to quantum systems that interact with a much larger environment. However, we show that it does not suffer from the problems that have plagued similar modal interpretations like macroscopic superpositions and rapid flipping between macroscopically distinct states. We describe how the interpretation fits neatly together with fully quantum formulations of statistical mechanics and that a measurement process can be viewed as a process of ergodicity breaking analogous to a phase transition. The key feature of the new interpretation is that joint probabilities for the ergodic subsets of states of disjoint macro-systems only arise as emergent quantities. Finally we give an account of the EPR–Bohm thought experiment and show that the interpretation implies the violation of the Bell inequality characteristic of quantum mechanics but in a way that is rather novel. The final conclusion is that the Copenhagen interpretation gives a completely satisfactory phenomenology of macro-systems interacting with micro-systems.
By revisiting two famous questions about the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, this article presents a concise analysis of the quantum measurement problem concerning both microscopic and macroscopic objects. The method used here is mainly based on the concept ``isolated point'' in ``point-set topology''. The findings reported are as follows. (a) Einstein's argument has been misunderstood; he was opposed to the so-called ``inherently probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics'' in the Copenhagen interpretation rather than to the use of probability in quantum mechanics. (b) Probability used in Einstein's ensemble interpretation is identical to the quantum-mechanically calculated probability. (c) The wave-functions in Einstein's ensemble interpretation neither describe any single quantum object purportedly possessing mutually exclusive properties simultaneously when nobody looks nor collapse abruptly when an observer performs a measurement.
By revisiting two famous questions concerning the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, this article presents a concise analysis of the quantum measurement problems with measuring both microscopic and macroscopic objects. The method used here is mainly based on the concept ``isolated point'' in ``point-set topology''. The findings reported are as follows. (a) Einstein's argument has been misunderstood; he was opposed to the so-called ``inherently probabilistic nature'' attached by the Copenhagen interpretation to quantum mechanics rather than to the use of probability in quantum mechanics. (b) Probability used in Einstein's ensemble interpretation is identical to the quantum-mechanically calculated probability. (c) The wave-functions in Einstein's ensemble interpretation neither describe any single quantum object purportedly possessing mutually exclusive properties simultaneously when nobody looks nor collapse abruptly when an observer performs a measurement.
This paper presents the measurement problem from the point of view of the thermal interpretation of quantum physics introduced in Part II. The measurement of a Hermitian quantity AAA is regarded as giving an uncertain value approximating the q-expectation ⟨A⟩\langle A\rangle⟨A⟩ rather than (as tradition wanted to have it) as an exact revelation of an eigenvalue of AAA. Single observations of microscopic systems are (except under special circumstances) very uncertain measurements only. The thermal interpretation * treats detection events as a statistical measurement of particle beam intensity. * claims that the particle concept is only asymptotically valid, under conditions where particles are essentially free. * claims that the unmodeled environment influences the results enough to cause all randomness in quantum physics. * allows one to derive Born's rule for scattering and in the limit of ideal measurements; but in general, only part of Born's rule holds exactly: Whenever a quantity A with zero uncertainty is measured exactly, its value is an eigenvalue of A. * has no explicit collapse -- the latter emerges approximately in non-isolated subsystems. * gives a valid interpretation of systems modeled by a quantum-classical dynamics. * explains the peculiar features of the Copenhagen interpretation (lacking realism between measurements) and the minimal statistical interpretation (lacking realism for the single case) where these interpretations apply -- in the microscopic domain. The thermal interpretation is an interpretation of quantum physics that is in principle refutable by theoretical arguments leading to a negative answer to a number of open issues collected at the end of the paper, since there is plenty of experimental evidence for each of the points mentioned there.
It is argued that although quantum theory isn't an absolutely deterministic theory, it is partially deterministic. The approach followed here is in the framework of the standard (Copenhagen interpretation of) quantum mechanics without any additional assumption or alternative interpretation. The argument is based on the conceptual meaning of determinism and by means of some well-known phenomena in the quantum world (measurement of a quantum particle spin, energy values and spatial states of an electron in atoms, the so-called wavefunction collapse problem) which are usually considered in rejecting determinism.