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/0608079 · Beyond the Quantum

UNDERSTANDING LONG-DISTANCE QUANTUM CORRELATIONS

L. Marchildon

Published Sep 1, 2007• 0 citations
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

The interpretation of quantum mechanics (or, for that matter, of any physical theory) consists in answering the question: How can the world be for the theory to be true? That question is especially pressing in the case of the long-distance correlations predicted by Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen, and rather convincingly established during the past decades in various laboratories. I will review four different approaches to the understanding of long-distance quantum correlations: (i) the Copenhagen interpretation and some of its modern variants; (ii) Bohmian mechanics of spin-carrying particles; (iii) Cramer's transactional interpretation; and (iv) the Hess-Philipp analysis of extended parameter spaces.

DOI
10.1142/9789812771186_0013

Related papers

Foreword

Enrico G. Beltrametti, Gianni Cassinelli, Peter Carruthers

For many years the physical interpretation of quantum theory has been dominated by the “wave-particle duality” attitude of the “Copenhagen school.” This point of view is eloquently described in Bohr's collection of essays on the subject. Despite persistent concerns with apparent paradoxes and limitations to this interpretation (as exemplified by Schrodinger's cat, the paradox of Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen, among others), the Copenhagen view persists de facto in the daily life of the modern physicist. Traditional quantum theory has so successfully explained such a vast amount of data in atomic and molecular physics, solid state physics (and to a lesser extent, elementary particle physics) that little doubt can exist concerning its essential validity. As a consequence of the overwhelming practical success of the “Copenhagen interpretation, ” the latter has acquired the status of dogma. For many years, therefore, most physicists have found it expedient to relegate the puzzling aspects of the theory to philosophers, and mathematicians. Nevertheless, a persistent interest in this subject has produced a significant and fascinating literature, reviewed by Jammer. In recent years, concerns over the proper meaning to be ascribed to quantum theory have produced an increasingly deep and incisive series of investigations. These investigations fall generally into two categories: either (1) discussion of the philosophical content of the theory, or (2) analyses of the mathematical variants of the theory and their connection with differing interpretational schemes. Physicists tend to be detached from a commitment to philosophical issues, because of their realization of the transient character of the meanings attached to theories of the day. As a simple illustration of this we can mention the profound differences between nonrelativistic and relativistic quantum mechanics.

Cambridge University Press eBooks•Dec 28, 1984•0 citations

Quantum Mechanics

Bas C. van Fraassen

The author argues that quantum theory admits a plurality of interpretations, each aiding further understanding of the theory, but also advocating specifically the Copenhagen Variant of the Modal Interpretation. That variant is applied to topics like the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox and the problem of 'identical' particles.

Oxford University Press eBooks•Sep 26, 1991•464 citations

Quantum Mechanics Needs Interpretation

‎Louis Marchildon

Abstract—Since the beginning, quantum mechanics has raised major foundational and interpretative problems. Foundational research has been an important factor in the development of quantum cryptography, quantum information theory and, per-haps one day, practical quantum computers. Many believe that, in turn, quantum information theory has bearing on foundational research. This is largely related to the so-called epistemic view of quantum states, which maintains that the state vector represents information on a system and which has led to the suggestion that quantum theory needs no interpretation. I will argue that this and related approaches fail to take into consideration two different explanatory functions of quantum mechanics, that of accounting for classically unexplainable correlations between classical phenomena and that of explaining the microscopic structure of classical objects. The epistemic view provides no answer to what constitutes the main question of interpretation: How can the world be for quantum mechanics to be true? I will then review three different approaches to understanding quan-tum mechanics, namely, Bohmian mechanics, Everett’s relative states, and Cramer’s transactional interpretation. I will show that these approaches answer the above question, as well as other foundational ones. This paper is written from the perspective that different logically consistent interpretations, far from leading to confusion, in fact contribute to increased understanding of the theory. I.

•Dec 1, 2009•2 citations

On the problem of the interpretation of quantum physics

A A Grib

Current thinking on the interpretation of quantum physics is reviewed, with special detail given to the Copenhagen and Everett many-worlds interpretations.

arXiv:1404.2784•Physics-Uspekhi•Dec 4, 2013•17 citations

Analysis of the Mainstream Interpretation of Quantum Physics

Yitian Zhang

Abstract Quantum physics is changed in an unexpected way. Scientists believe that the study of quantum physics will play an important role in future technology. Therefore, it is meaningful to study quantum physics. The aim of this paper is to provide an initial explanation of the quantum world through the classical single particle double-slit interpretation experiment, and to answer a few questions about the experiment using mainstream quantum mechanical interpretations, such as the Copenhagen interpretation and the Many-Worlds interpretation. The superposition state, which is the core of the Copenhagen interpretation, is then introduced. The Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox and locality are also introduced, and the relationship between the latter and special relativity is analyzed. The author also discusses whether non-locality leads to retrocausality. Finally, the author discusses the relationship between multi-world interpretation and Schrodinger’s cat, but this may raise some philosophical questions. However, realist and hidden variable interpretation are also consistent as long as locality is abandoned.

Journal of Physics Conference Series•Sep 1, 2021•0 citations

Puzzling over quantum mechanics

Alastair I. M. Rae

What is it about quantum mechanics that continues to make its interpretation so difficult and controversial? It is now more than 70 years after its inception and at least half a century since the verification of its predictions of physical phenomena that range from the motion of electrons in solids to the basic structure and properties of the atomic nucleus. After reading the first half of this book one could be forgiven for believing that it has been just our unwillingness or inability to understand properly what Niels Bohr said from the beginning, and to update these ideas in the light of later experience. The aim of the present book is to do just this: to restate the Copenhagen interpretation and to show us how it has been developed to take modern results and ideas into account.

Physics World•Feb 1, 1995•0 citations
The interpretation of quantum mechanics (or, for that matter, of any physical theory) consists in answering the question: How can the world be for the theory to be true? That question is especially pressing in the case of the long-distance correlations predicted by Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen, and rather convincingly established during the past decades in various laboratories. I will review four different approaches to the understanding of long-distance quantum correlations: (i) the Copenhagen interpretation and some of its modern variants; (ii) Bohmian mechanics of spin-carrying particles; (iii) Cramer's transactional interpretation; and (iv) the Hess-Philipp analysis of extended parameter spaces.
For many years the physical interpretation of quantum theory has been dominated by the “wave-particle duality” attitude of the “Copenhagen school.” This point of view is eloquently described in Bohr's collection of essays on the subject. Despite persistent concerns with apparent paradoxes and limitations to this interpretation (as exemplified by Schrodinger's cat, the paradox of Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen, among others), the Copenhagen view persists de facto in the daily life of the modern physicist. Traditional quantum theory has so successfully explained such a vast amount of data in atomic and molecular physics, solid state physics (and to a lesser extent, elementary particle physics) that little doubt can exist concerning its essential validity. As a consequence of the overwhelming practical success of the “Copenhagen interpretation, ” the latter has acquired the status of dogma. For many years, therefore, most physicists have found it expedient to relegate the puzzling aspects of the theory to philosophers, and mathematicians. Nevertheless, a persistent interest in this subject has produced a significant and fascinating literature, reviewed by Jammer. In recent years, concerns over the proper meaning to be ascribed to quantum theory have produced an increasingly deep and incisive series of investigations. These investigations fall generally into two categories: either (1) discussion of the philosophical content of the theory, or (2) analyses of the mathematical variants of the theory and their connection with differing interpretational schemes. Physicists tend to be detached from a commitment to philosophical issues, because of their realization of the transient character of the meanings attached to theories of the day. As a simple illustration of this we can mention the profound differences between nonrelativistic and relativistic quantum mechanics.
Abstract—Since the beginning, quantum mechanics has raised major foundational and interpretative problems. Foundational research has been an important factor in the development of quantum cryptography, quantum information theory and, per-haps one day, practical quantum computers. Many believe that, in turn, quantum information theory has bearing on foundational research. This is largely related to the so-called epistemic view of quantum states, which maintains that the state vector represents information on a system and which has led to the suggestion that quantum theory needs no interpretation. I will argue that this and related approaches fail to take into consideration two different explanatory functions of quantum mechanics, that of accounting for classically unexplainable correlations between classical phenomena and that of explaining the microscopic structure of classical objects. The epistemic view provides no answer to what constitutes the main question of interpretation: How can the world be for quantum mechanics to be true? I will then review three different approaches to understanding quan-tum mechanics, namely, Bohmian mechanics, Everett’s relative states, and Cramer’s transactional interpretation. I will show that these approaches answer the above question, as well as other foundational ones. This paper is written from the perspective that different logically consistent interpretations, far from leading to confusion, in fact contribute to increased understanding of the theory. I.
Abstract Quantum physics is changed in an unexpected way. Scientists believe that the study of quantum physics will play an important role in future technology. Therefore, it is meaningful to study quantum physics. The aim of this paper is to provide an initial explanation of the quantum world through the classical single particle double-slit interpretation experiment, and to answer a few questions about the experiment using mainstream quantum mechanical interpretations, such as the Copenhagen interpretation and the Many-Worlds interpretation. The superposition state, which is the core of the Copenhagen interpretation, is then introduced. The Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox and locality are also introduced, and the relationship between the latter and special relativity is analyzed. The author also discusses whether non-locality leads to retrocausality. Finally, the author discusses the relationship between multi-world interpretation and Schrodinger’s cat, but this may raise some philosophical questions. However, realist and hidden variable interpretation are also consistent as long as locality is abandoned.
What is it about quantum mechanics that continues to make its interpretation so difficult and controversial? It is now more than 70 years after its inception and at least half a century since the verification of its predictions of physical phenomena that range from the motion of electrons in solids to the basic structure and properties of the atomic nucleus. After reading the first half of this book one could be forgiven for believing that it has been just our unwillingness or inability to understand properly what Niels Bohr said from the beginning, and to update these ideas in the light of later experience. The aim of the present book is to do just this: to restate the Copenhagen interpretation and to show us how it has been developed to take modern results and ideas into account.