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

arXiv:quant-ph/0205141 · Physics Essays

State Vectors and Physical States

William N. Boog Watson

Published Mar 1, 2000• 1 citation
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

Causality and the relativity of simultaneity seem at odds with the apparently sudden, acausal state-vector changes ("collapses") characteristic of quantum phenomena. The problem of how physical phenomena can be causally determined, have the probabilities predicted by quantum theory, and be consistent with special relativity appears to be solved by the assumption, essentially the same as one first used by Aharonov, Bergmann, and Lebowitz to address a different problem, that the "initial" and "final" state vectors of a phenomenon or observation, along with certain other state vectors, all represent the system's state at all times. Each member of such an aggregate of state vectors is postulated to represent a different aspect of a physical state rather than a state, so that most of the state vectors in effect constitute a set of nonlocal hidden variables. Various implications of this assumption are illustrated through several physical situations. Among the results is a somewhat surprising resolution of a paradox in a three-spin Greenberger-Horne-Zeilinger experiment (a "three-particle EPR" experiment), which involves a logical consequence that differs from familiar ideas of quantum physics that has no practical experimental consequence, and the prediction of new experimental phenomena related to the Zou-Wang-Mandel superposed-idler system. The potential value of the concepts described as heuristics for new predictions and for developing physical intuition by clarifying the interrelation and coherence of physical principles that would otherwise seem contradictory is briefly discussed.

DOI
10.4006/1.3025424

Related papers

Do we really understand quantum mechanics? Strange correlations, paradoxes, and theorems

Franck Laloë

This article presents a general discussion of several aspects of our present understanding of quantum mechanics. The emphasis is put on the very special correlations that this theory makes possible: They are forbidden by very general arguments based on realism and local causality. In fact, these correlations are completely impossible in any circumstance, except for very special situations designed by physicists especially to observe these purely quantum effects. Another general point that is emphasized is the necessity for the theory to predict the emergence of a single result in a single realization of an experiment. For this purpose, orthodox quantum mechanics introduces a special postulate: the reduction of the state vector, which comes in addition to the Schrödinger evolution postulate. Nevertheless, the presence in parallel of two evolution processes of the same object (the state vector) may be a potential source for conflicts; various attitudes that are possible to avoid this problem are discussed in this text. After a brief historical introduction, recalling how the very special status of the state vector has emerged in quantum mechanics, various conceptual difficulties are introduced and discussed. The Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen (EPR) theorem is presented with the help of a botanical parable, in a way that emphasizes how deeply the EPR reasoning is rooted into what is often called “scientific method.” In another section the Greenberger–Horne–Zeilinger argument, the Hardy impossibilities, as well as the Bell–Kochen–Specker theorem are introduced in simple terms. The final two sections attempt to give a summary of the present situation: One section discusses nonlocality and entanglement as we see it presently, with brief mention of recent experiments; the last section contains a (nonexhaustive) list of various attitudes that are found among physicists, and that are helpful to alleviate the conceptual difficulties of quantum mechanics.

American Journal of Physics•Jun 1, 2001•204 citations

Realistic theory of microscopic phenomena; a new solution of hidden-variable problem

M. V. Lokajíček

It has been shown that quantum paradoxes have followed from one special assumption, i.e., from attributing basic physical meaning to Hamiltonian eigenfunctions and representing all physical states by vectors of the Hilbert space spanned on these eigenfunctions. However, any paradoxical properties disappear if the physical states are represented by vectors from the extended Hilbert space on which the scattering theory of Lax and Phillips has been based. On the other side, all stationary characteristics and experimentally verified quantum-mechanical predictions remain the same. The extended mathematical model is also in full agreement with results of EPR experiments, if one takes into account that a further assumption (in addition to locality condition) is involved in derivation of Bell's inequalities as shown recently (see: quant-ph/9808005).

arXiv:quant-ph/9811030•Nov 13, 1998•4 citations

Statistical contextual explanation of quantum paradoxes

Marian Kupczyński

This year we celebrate 100 years of quantum mechanics (QM). Incorrect interpretations of QM and incorrect mental models of the invisible details of quantum phenomena lead to paradoxes. To explain these, we advocate the statistical contextual interpretation (SCI) of quantum mechanics. State vectors (wave functions) and various operators are purely mathematical entities that permit quantitative probabilistic predictions. “State vector” describes an ensemble of identically prepared physical systems, and a specific “operator” represents a class of equivalent measurements of a physical observable. A collapse of wavefunction is not a mysterious and instantaneous physical process; a collapsed quantum state describes a new ensemble of physical systems prepared in a particular way. A value of a physical observable, such as a spin projection, associated with a pure quantum ensemble is a characteristic of this ensemble created by its interaction with measuring instruments. Probabilities are objective properties of random experiments in which empirical frequencies stabilize. Following Einstein, SCI rejects the claim that QM provides a complete description of individual physical systems, but it remains agnostic about whether a more detailed subquantum description can be found or is necessary. In conformity with Bohr contextuality, SCI rejects Bell-local and Bell-causal hidden variable models. Nevertheless, by incorporating into a probabilistic model contextual hidden variable measuring instruments, long distance quantum correlations studied in Bell tests can be explained without evoking quantum nonlocality or retro-causality. SCI allows the explanation of several quantum phenomena without evoking quantum magic. SCI does not claim to provide a complete description of quantum phenomena; in fact, it is unknown whether quantum probabilities even provide a complete description of existing experimental data. Time series of experimental data may contain much more information than is obtained using empirical frequencies and histograms. Therefore, predictable completeness of QM must be tested and not taken for granted.

arXiv:2502.16048•Frontiers in Quantum Science and Technology•May 1, 2025•1 citation

Entanglement, decoherence, and the measurement problem

Art Hobson

The entangled Schrodinger cat state obtained immediately upon measurement of a superposed two-state quantum system is often considered paradoxical because it appears to predict two macroscopically different outcomes, such as an alive and dead cat. However, nonlocal interferometry experiments testing momentum-entangled photon pairs over all phases demonstrate that the cat state does not fit this description and is not paradoxical. Both experiment and theory imply that it instead represents a superposition of two nonlocally coherent (i.e. phase-dependent) statistical correlations between its sub-systems. This is not paradoxical. Standard quantum theory rigorously predicts the experimentally-observed outcomes of this state. Neither sub-system is superposed; rather, the correlations between the states of the subsystems are superposed. This resolves the problem of definite outcomes. The nonlocal properties of entanglement then ensure that only one outcome occurs while the other outcome simultaneously does not occur, resolving a problem posed by Einstein in 1927. The single outcome that occurs then triggers an irreversible process leading to macroscopic registration of the outcome. This resolves the quantum measurement problem. Collapse occurs because of entanglement and does not require a special collapse postulate. Collapse is a consequence of standard quantum physics and the irreversible nature of the macroscopic registration.

arXiv:1904.04234•Jan 1, 2019•0 citations

Quantum fluctuations, particles, entanglement and measurements

Kenichi Konishi

The quantum measurement problems are discussed from a new perspective. One of the main ideas of this work is that the basic entities of our world are various types of particles, elementary or composite. It follows that each elementary process, hence each measurement process at its core, is a spacetime, pointlike, event. Another key idea is that, when a microsystem $\psi$ gets into contact with the experimental device, factorization of $\psi$ rapidly fails and entangled mixed states appear. The wave functions for the microsystem-apparatus coupled systems for different measurement outcomes then lack overlapping spacetime support. It means that the aftermath of each measurement is a single term in the sum: a ``wave-function collapse. Our discussion leading to a diagonal density matrix, $\rho= {\rm diag} ( |c_1|^2, \ldots, |c_n|^2, \ldots )$ shows how the information encoded in the wave function $|\psi\rangle = \sum_n c_n | n \rangle$ gets transcribed, via entanglement with the experimental device and environment, into the relative frequencies ${\cal P}_n = |c_n|^2$ for various experimental results $F=f_n$. These results represent the first, significant steps towards filling in the logical gaps in the standard interpretation based on Born's rule, and replacing it with a more natural one. Accepting objective reality of quantum fluctuations, independent of any experiments, and independently of human presence, one renounces the idea that in a fundamental, complete theory of Nature the result of each single experiment must necessarily be predictable. A few well-known puzzles such as the Schr\odinger cat conundrum and the EPR paradox are briefly reviewed: they can all be naturally explained away.

•Nov 29, 2021•1 citation

Quantum fluctuations, particles and entanglement: A discussion towards the solution of the quantum measurement problems

Kenichi Konishi

The quantum measurement problems are revisited from a new perspective. One of the main ideas of this work is that the basic entities of our world are various types of particles, elementary or composite. It follows that each elementary process, hence each measurement process at its core, is a space–time, pointlike, event. Another key idea is that, when a microsystem [Formula: see text] gets into contact with the experimental device, factorization of [Formula: see text] rapidly fails and entangled mixed states appear. The wave functions for the microsystem-apparatus coupled systems for different measurement outcomes then lack overlapping space–time support. It means that the aftermath of each measurement is a single term in the sum: a “wave function collapse.” Our discussion leading to a diagonal density matrix, [Formula: see text] shows how the information encoded in the wave function [Formula: see text] gets transcribed, via entanglement with the experimental device and environment, into the relative frequencies [Formula: see text] for various experimental results [Formula: see text]. These results represent the first, significant steps towards filling in the logical gaps in the standard interpretation based on Born’s rule, and replacing it with a more natural one. Accepting objective reality of quantum fluctuations, independent of any experiments, and independently of human presence, one renounces the idea that in a fundamental, complete theory of Nature the result of each single experiment must necessarily be predictable. A few well-known puzzles such as the Schrödinger cat conundrum and the Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen (EPR) paradox are briefly reviewed: they can all be naturally explained away.

arXiv:2111.14723•International Journal of Modern Physics A•Jun 14, 2022•8 citations
Causality and the relativity of simultaneity seem at odds with the apparently sudden, acausal state-vector changes ("collapses") characteristic of quantum phenomena. The problem of how physical phenomena can be causally determined, have the probabilities predicted by quantum theory, and be consistent with special relativity appears to be solved by the assumption, essentially the same as one first used by Aharonov, Bergmann, and Lebowitz to address a different problem, that the "initial" and "final" state vectors of a phenomenon or observation, along with certain other state vectors, all represent the system's state at all times. Each member of such an aggregate of state vectors is postulated to represent a different aspect of a physical state rather than a state, so that most of the state vectors in effect constitute a set of nonlocal hidden variables. Various implications of this assumption are illustrated through several physical situations. Among the results is a somewhat surprising resolution of a paradox in a three-spin Greenberger-Horne-Zeilinger experiment (a "three-particle EPR" experiment), which involves a logical consequence that differs from familiar ideas of quantum physics that has no practical experimental consequence, and the prediction of new experimental phenomena related to the Zou-Wang-Mandel superposed-idler system. The potential value of the concepts described as heuristics for new predictions and for developing physical intuition by clarifying the interrelation and coherence of physical principles that would otherwise seem contradictory is briefly discussed.
This article presents a general discussion of several aspects of our present understanding of quantum mechanics. The emphasis is put on the very special correlations that this theory makes possible: They are forbidden by very general arguments based on realism and local causality. In fact, these correlations are completely impossible in any circumstance, except for very special situations designed by physicists especially to observe these purely quantum effects. Another general point that is emphasized is the necessity for the theory to predict the emergence of a single result in a single realization of an experiment. For this purpose, orthodox quantum mechanics introduces a special postulate: the reduction of the state vector, which comes in addition to the Schrödinger evolution postulate. Nevertheless, the presence in parallel of two evolution processes of the same object (the state vector) may be a potential source for conflicts; various attitudes that are possible to avoid this problem are discussed in this text. After a brief historical introduction, recalling how the very special status of the state vector has emerged in quantum mechanics, various conceptual difficulties are introduced and discussed. The Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen (EPR) theorem is presented with the help of a botanical parable, in a way that emphasizes how deeply the EPR reasoning is rooted into what is often called “scientific method.” In another section the Greenberger–Horne–Zeilinger argument, the Hardy impossibilities, as well as the Bell–Kochen–Specker theorem are introduced in simple terms. The final two sections attempt to give a summary of the present situation: One section discusses nonlocality and entanglement as we see it presently, with brief mention of recent experiments; the last section contains a (nonexhaustive) list of various attitudes that are found among physicists, and that are helpful to alleviate the conceptual difficulties of quantum mechanics.
It has been shown that quantum paradoxes have followed from one special assumption, i.e., from attributing basic physical meaning to Hamiltonian eigenfunctions and representing all physical states by vectors of the Hilbert space spanned on these eigenfunctions. However, any paradoxical properties disappear if the physical states are represented by vectors from the extended Hilbert space on which the scattering theory of Lax and Phillips has been based. On the other side, all stationary characteristics and experimentally verified quantum-mechanical predictions remain the same. The extended mathematical model is also in full agreement with results of EPR experiments, if one takes into account that a further assumption (in addition to locality condition) is involved in derivation of Bell's inequalities as shown recently (see: quant-ph/9808005).
This year we celebrate 100 years of quantum mechanics (QM). Incorrect interpretations of QM and incorrect mental models of the invisible details of quantum phenomena lead to paradoxes. To explain these, we advocate the statistical contextual interpretation (SCI) of quantum mechanics. State vectors (wave functions) and various operators are purely mathematical entities that permit quantitative probabilistic predictions. “State vector” describes an ensemble of identically prepared physical systems, and a specific “operator” represents a class of equivalent measurements of a physical observable. A collapse of wavefunction is not a mysterious and instantaneous physical process; a collapsed quantum state describes a new ensemble of physical systems prepared in a particular way. A value of a physical observable, such as a spin projection, associated with a pure quantum ensemble is a characteristic of this ensemble created by its interaction with measuring instruments. Probabilities are objective properties of random experiments in which empirical frequencies stabilize. Following Einstein, SCI rejects the claim that QM provides a complete description of individual physical systems, but it remains agnostic about whether a more detailed subquantum description can be found or is necessary. In conformity with Bohr contextuality, SCI rejects Bell-local and Bell-causal hidden variable models. Nevertheless, by incorporating into a probabilistic model contextual hidden variable measuring instruments, long distance quantum correlations studied in Bell tests can be explained without evoking quantum nonlocality or retro-causality. SCI allows the explanation of several quantum phenomena without evoking quantum magic. SCI does not claim to provide a complete description of quantum phenomena; in fact, it is unknown whether quantum probabilities even provide a complete description of existing experimental data. Time series of experimental data may contain much more information than is obtained using empirical frequencies and histograms. Therefore, predictable completeness of QM must be tested and not taken for granted.
The entangled Schrodinger cat state obtained immediately upon measurement of a superposed two-state quantum system is often considered paradoxical because it appears to predict two macroscopically different outcomes, such as an alive and dead cat. However, nonlocal interferometry experiments testing momentum-entangled photon pairs over all phases demonstrate that the cat state does not fit this description and is not paradoxical. Both experiment and theory imply that it instead represents a superposition of two nonlocally coherent (i.e. phase-dependent) statistical correlations between its sub-systems. This is not paradoxical. Standard quantum theory rigorously predicts the experimentally-observed outcomes of this state. Neither sub-system is superposed; rather, the correlations between the states of the subsystems are superposed. This resolves the problem of definite outcomes. The nonlocal properties of entanglement then ensure that only one outcome occurs while the other outcome simultaneously does not occur, resolving a problem posed by Einstein in 1927. The single outcome that occurs then triggers an irreversible process leading to macroscopic registration of the outcome. This resolves the quantum measurement problem. Collapse occurs because of entanglement and does not require a special collapse postulate. Collapse is a consequence of standard quantum physics and the irreversible nature of the macroscopic registration.
The quantum measurement problems are discussed from a new perspective. One of the main ideas of this work is that the basic entities of our world are various types of particles, elementary or composite. It follows that each elementary process, hence each measurement process at its core, is a spacetime, pointlike, event. Another key idea is that, when a microsystem ψ\psiψ gets into contact with the experimental device, factorization of ψ\psiψ rapidly fails and entangled mixed states appear. The wave functions for the microsystem-apparatus coupled systems for different measurement outcomes then lack overlapping spacetime support. It means that the aftermath of each measurement is a single term in the sum: a ``wave-function collapse. Our discussion leading to a diagonal density matrix, ρ=diag(∣c1∣2,…,∣cn∣2,…)\rho= {\rm diag} ( |c_1|^2, \ldots, |c_n|^2, \ldots )ρ=diag(∣c1​∣2,…,∣cn​∣2,…) shows how the information encoded in the wave function ∣ψ⟩=∑ncn∣n⟩|\psi\rangle = \sum_n c_n | n \rangle∣ψ⟩=∑n​cn​∣n⟩ gets transcribed, via entanglement with the experimental device and environment, into the relative frequencies Pn=∣cn∣2{\cal P}_n = |c_n|^2Pn​=∣cn​∣2 for various experimental results F=fnF=f_nF=fn​. These results represent the first, significant steps towards filling in the logical gaps in the standard interpretation based on Born's rule, and replacing it with a more natural one. Accepting objective reality of quantum fluctuations, independent of any experiments, and independently of human presence, one renounces the idea that in a fundamental, complete theory of Nature the result of each single experiment must necessarily be predictable. A few well-known puzzles such as the Schr\odinger cat conundrum and the EPR paradox are briefly reviewed: they can all be naturally explained away.
The quantum measurement problems are revisited from a new perspective. One of the main ideas of this work is that the basic entities of our world are various types of particles, elementary or composite. It follows that each elementary process, hence each measurement process at its core, is a space–time, pointlike, event. Another key idea is that, when a microsystem [Formula: see text] gets into contact with the experimental device, factorization of [Formula: see text] rapidly fails and entangled mixed states appear. The wave functions for the microsystem-apparatus coupled systems for different measurement outcomes then lack overlapping space–time support. It means that the aftermath of each measurement is a single term in the sum: a “wave function collapse.” Our discussion leading to a diagonal density matrix, [Formula: see text] shows how the information encoded in the wave function [Formula: see text] gets transcribed, via entanglement with the experimental device and environment, into the relative frequencies [Formula: see text] for various experimental results [Formula: see text]. These results represent the first, significant steps towards filling in the logical gaps in the standard interpretation based on Born’s rule, and replacing it with a more natural one. Accepting objective reality of quantum fluctuations, independent of any experiments, and independently of human presence, one renounces the idea that in a fundamental, complete theory of Nature the result of each single experiment must necessarily be predictable. A few well-known puzzles such as the Schrödinger cat conundrum and the Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen (EPR) paradox are briefly reviewed: they can all be naturally explained away.