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

Observers at the moment of observation

冨美代 内山

Published Aug 21, 2013• 0 citations
OpenAlex

Abstract

量子力学においては、観察者(すなわち主体すsubject）が、観測中の物体(す なわち客体object）の状態に無視できない影響を与えてしまう場合がある。こ の事は、量子力学の最終理論は、観測者をも含まなくてはならない事を示唆し ている。それ故、「測定をしている瞬間」の「観測者」とは何かという問いが物 理学で発せられる。 この問いに答えるため、我々は、現象論的に「測定を行っている瞬間の観測者」 を観察し, 分析を行った。その結果、観察している瞬間時には、観察者は全て、 一つの共通の状態にある事がわかった。この論文では、その状態を、場の理論 の真空状態になぞらえ、「測定を行っている瞬間の観測者」を「観測者の真空状 態」とし観測するという行為を「観測オペレーター」として導入する。この真 空状態は、物理学の研究対象になりうる「もの」が持っていなければならない 普遍性、再現性などをもっている。 ２個のもつれた中性K 粒子の例を用いて、「観測者の真空状態」と「観測オペ レーター」とがどのようにスタンダードな物理の記述法に取り入れられるかの 一例を示す。 In quantum mechanics, measurer(subject) plays important roles influencing the state of an object under experimental observation. That implies the necessity of inclusion of the subject(obervers) at the moment of observation in the final theory. What is ”the obervers at the moment of observation”? To answer this question, we observe and analyse phenomenologically ”observers at the moment of observation” and find that there exists the state which is common, at the moment of observation, to all observers. In this paper, we describe what it is by introducing a vaccum state of observer and observation operators by using analogies. Taking the entangled two neutral kaons as example, we show how they can be used. The state satisfies the requirements of the universality and reproducibility which are necessary for any object studied in physics.

Related papers

The quantum world and the completeness of quantum mechanics

James T. Cushing

What does not satisfy me in that theory [quantum mechanics], from the standpoint of principle, is its attitude towards that which appears to me to be the programmatic aim of all physics: the complete description of any (individual) real situation (as it supposedly exists irrespective of any act of observation or substantiation). Albert Einstein, Reply to Criticisms [This] implies the impossibility of any sharp separation between the behaviour of atomic objects and the interaction with the measuring instruments which serve to define the conditions under which the phenomena appear . In fact, the individuality of the typical quantum effects finds its proper expression in the circumstance that any attempt of subdividing the phenomena will demand a change in the experimental arrangement introducing new possibilities of interaction between objects and measuring instruments which in principle cannot be controlled. Consequently, evidence obtained under different experimental conditions cannot be comprehended within a single picture, but must be regarded as complementary in the sense that only the totality of the phenomena exhausts the possible information about the objects. Indeed the finite interaction between object and measuring agencies conditioned by the very existence of the quantum of action entails – because of the impossibility of controlling the reaction of the object on the measuring instruments, if these are to serve their purpose – the necessity of a final renunciation of the classical idea of causality and a radical revision of our attitude towards the problem of physical reality. […]

Cambridge University Press eBooks•Jan 29, 1998•0 citations

SDI: Observation as Frame Selection

Kingsland, Sean

Observation is traditionally modeled as a passive measurement process that reveals the state of a quantum system. However, experimental results in Bell-type entanglement tests indicate that correlations between entangled particles are only defined at the moment of measurement, implying that observation plays an active role in establishing the shared state. In this work, we propose that observation functions as a basis selection operator that synchronizes distinct observers into a single shared observational frame. Under this interpretation, entanglement does not require superluminal signaling or hidden variables; instead, it reflects the collapse of independent state-spaces into a common reference basis at the moment of measurement. We formalize this by introducing observation as a dimension-like coordination parameter (O), orthogonal to spacetime coordinates (x,y,z,t), which selects the realized eigenbasis of a system. Entanglement is then defined as the condition in which multiple observers share the same value of O, ensuring simultaneous collapse into a consistent outcome. This framework resolves the measurement problem without invoking observer consciousness, wavefunction realism, or retrocausal models. It situates observation as an intrinsic physical operation necessary for establishing coherence across multiple observers in spacetime. The result is a reformulation of entanglement as a synchronization process rather than an information exchange, restoring locality at the level of physical interaction while preserving nonlocal correlations at the level of observational frame selection.

•Nov 11, 2025•0 citations

Observers in quantum mechanics at the moment of observation

Fumiyo Uchiyama

Physics Essays•Mar 26, 2015•0 citations

Can We Determine the Role of the Observer in Quantum Mechanics?

Fred H. Thaheld

Physics Essays•Jun 1, 1998•0 citations

Quantum theories of mind and decoherence

Gregory R. Mulhauser

Two principle concerns prompt some theorists to link quantum mechanics and theories of mind or theories of consciousness. On the one hand, it is commonly thought that conscious minds play some important role in processes of quantum measurement and that any good theory of mind ought to explain how a mind can play such a role. On the other hand, a few people think that the framework of classical physics is not, by itself, sufficiently powerful to explain the myriad remarkable properties of minds and that a good explanation must rely on some special features of quantum mechanics. Usually, these features include either state vector reduction-the collapse of the wave function-or special capabilities, often computational or super-computational ones, allegedly displayed by physical substrates while existing in hypothesised coherent states of linear superposition. Two questions summarise the author's misgivings about both the above motivations for linking quantum mechanics and theories of mind. First, does the process of quantum measurement really require a conscious observer? Second, does quantum mechanics underwrite any special effects in, say, intraneuronal protein lattices, which could play a role in instantiating consciousness in biological systems? It turns out that the particular character of the negative answer suggested for the first question also prompts a negative answer for the second. He summarises these negative answers after describing briefly some popular attempts to forge quantum theories of mind.

•Jan 1, 1997•0 citations

Unobservable Entities in QBism and Phenomenology

Jacques Pienaar

The interpretation of quantum theory known as QBism argues that many elements of the formalism have a subjective interpretation. At the same time, QBism claims to be a broadly realist programme. This implies that reality in QBism must be somehow founded upon an agent's subjective experiences (measurement outcomes). To make this idea more precise, we propose to interpret QBism's “experiences” as synonymous with the concept of “perceived phenomena” in phenomenology. This suggests an approach to ontology in which objects can only be physically real if they are in principle observable. But what does “observable” mean? Are atoms, electromagnetic fields, quantum states, or probabilities observable? Here we discuss the different answers to this question given by QBists and phenomenologists, and attempt to reconcile them.

arXiv:2112.14302•Routledge eBooks•Nov 20, 2023•6 citations
量子力学においては、観察者(すなわち主体すsubject）が、観測中の物体(す なわち客体object）の状態に無視できない影響を与えてしまう場合がある。こ の事は、量子力学の最終理論は、観測者をも含まなくてはならない事を示唆し ている。それ故、「測定をしている瞬間」の「観測者」とは何かという問いが物 理学で発せられる。 この問いに答えるため、我々は、現象論的に「測定を行っている瞬間の観測者」 を観察し, 分析を行った。その結果、観察している瞬間時には、観察者は全て、 一つの共通の状態にある事がわかった。この論文では、その状態を、場の理論 の真空状態になぞらえ、「測定を行っている瞬間の観測者」を「観測者の真空状 態」とし観測するという行為を「観測オペレーター」として導入する。この真 空状態は、物理学の研究対象になりうる「もの」が持っていなければならない 普遍性、再現性などをもっている。 ２個のもつれた中性K 粒子の例を用いて、「観測者の真空状態」と「観測オペ レーター」とがどのようにスタンダードな物理の記述法に取り入れられるかの 一例を示す。 In quantum mechanics, measurer(subject) plays important roles influencing the state of an object under experimental observation. That implies the necessity of inclusion of the subject(obervers) at the moment of observation in the final theory. What is ”the obervers at the moment of observation”? To answer this question, we observe and analyse phenomenologically ”observers at the moment of observation” and find that there exists the state which is common, at the moment of observation, to all observers. In this paper, we describe what it is by introducing a vaccum state of observer and observation operators by using analogies. Taking the entangled two neutral kaons as example, we show how they can be used. The state satisfies the requirements of the universality and reproducibility which are necessary for any object studied in physics.
What does not satisfy me in that theory [quantum mechanics], from the standpoint of principle, is its attitude towards that which appears to me to be the programmatic aim of all physics: the complete description of any (individual) real situation (as it supposedly exists irrespective of any act of observation or substantiation). Albert Einstein, Reply to Criticisms [This] implies the impossibility of any sharp separation between the behaviour of atomic objects and the interaction with the measuring instruments which serve to define the conditions under which the phenomena appear . In fact, the individuality of the typical quantum effects finds its proper expression in the circumstance that any attempt of subdividing the phenomena will demand a change in the experimental arrangement introducing new possibilities of interaction between objects and measuring instruments which in principle cannot be controlled. Consequently, evidence obtained under different experimental conditions cannot be comprehended within a single picture, but must be regarded as complementary in the sense that only the totality of the phenomena exhausts the possible information about the objects. Indeed the finite interaction between object and measuring agencies conditioned by the very existence of the quantum of action entails – because of the impossibility of controlling the reaction of the object on the measuring instruments, if these are to serve their purpose – the necessity of a final renunciation of the classical idea of causality and a radical revision of our attitude towards the problem of physical reality. […]
Observation is traditionally modeled as a passive measurement process that reveals the state of a quantum system. However, experimental results in Bell-type entanglement tests indicate that correlations between entangled particles are only defined at the moment of measurement, implying that observation plays an active role in establishing the shared state. In this work, we propose that observation functions as a basis selection operator that synchronizes distinct observers into a single shared observational frame. Under this interpretation, entanglement does not require superluminal signaling or hidden variables; instead, it reflects the collapse of independent state-spaces into a common reference basis at the moment of measurement. We formalize this by introducing observation as a dimension-like coordination parameter (O), orthogonal to spacetime coordinates (x,y,z,t), which selects the realized eigenbasis of a system. Entanglement is then defined as the condition in which multiple observers share the same value of O, ensuring simultaneous collapse into a consistent outcome. This framework resolves the measurement problem without invoking observer consciousness, wavefunction realism, or retrocausal models. It situates observation as an intrinsic physical operation necessary for establishing coherence across multiple observers in spacetime. The result is a reformulation of entanglement as a synchronization process rather than an information exchange, restoring locality at the level of physical interaction while preserving nonlocal correlations at the level of observational frame selection.
Two principle concerns prompt some theorists to link quantum mechanics and theories of mind or theories of consciousness. On the one hand, it is commonly thought that conscious minds play some important role in processes of quantum measurement and that any good theory of mind ought to explain how a mind can play such a role. On the other hand, a few people think that the framework of classical physics is not, by itself, sufficiently powerful to explain the myriad remarkable properties of minds and that a good explanation must rely on some special features of quantum mechanics. Usually, these features include either state vector reduction-the collapse of the wave function-or special capabilities, often computational or super-computational ones, allegedly displayed by physical substrates while existing in hypothesised coherent states of linear superposition. Two questions summarise the author's misgivings about both the above motivations for linking quantum mechanics and theories of mind. First, does the process of quantum measurement really require a conscious observer? Second, does quantum mechanics underwrite any special effects in, say, intraneuronal protein lattices, which could play a role in instantiating consciousness in biological systems? It turns out that the particular character of the negative answer suggested for the first question also prompts a negative answer for the second. He summarises these negative answers after describing briefly some popular attempts to forge quantum theories of mind.
The interpretation of quantum theory known as QBism argues that many elements of the formalism have a subjective interpretation. At the same time, QBism claims to be a broadly realist programme. This implies that reality in QBism must be somehow founded upon an agent's subjective experiences (measurement outcomes). To make this idea more precise, we propose to interpret QBism's “experiences” as synonymous with the concept of “perceived phenomena” in phenomenology. This suggests an approach to ontology in which objects can only be physically real if they are in principle observable. But what does “observable” mean? Are atoms, electromagnetic fields, quantum states, or probabilities observable? Here we discuss the different answers to this question given by QBists and phenomenologists, and attempt to reconcile them.