Paul Budnik paul@mtnmath.com

The formulation of QM describes the deterministic unitary
evolution of a wave function. This wave function is never observed
experimentally. The wave function allows us to compute the
probability that certain macroscopic events will be observed. There
are no events and no mechanism for creating events in the
mathematical model. It is this dichotomy between the wave function
model and observed macroscopic events that is the source of the
interpretation issue in QM. In classical physics the mathematical
model talks about the things we observe. In QM the mathematical
model by itself never produces observations. We must
*interpret* the wave function in order to relate it to
experimental observations.

It is important to understand that this is not simply a philosophical question or a rhetorical debate. In QM one often must model systems as the superposition of two or more possible outcomes. Superpositions can produce interference effects and thus are experimentally distinguishable from mixed states. How does a superposition of different possibilities resolve itself into some particular observation? This question (also known as the measurement problem) affects how we analyze some experiments such as tests of Bell's inequality and may raise the question of interpretations from a philosophical debate to an experimentally testable question. So far there is no evidence that it makes any difference. The wave function evolves in such a way that there are no observable effects from macroscopic superpositions. It is only superposition of different possibilities at the microscopic level that leads to experimentally detectable interference effects.

Thus it would seem that there is no criterion for objective
events and perhaps no need for such a criterion. However there is
at least one small fly in the ointment. In analyzing a test of
Bell's inequality one must make some determination as to when an
observation was complete, i. e. could not be reversed. These
experiments depend on the timing of macroscopic events. The natural
assumption is to use classical thermodynamics to compute the
probability that a macroscopic event can be reversed. This however
implies that there is some *objective* process that produces
the *particular* observation. Since no such objective
process exists in current models this suggests that QM is an
incomplete theory. This might be thought of as the Einstein
interpretation of QM, i. e., that there are objective physical
processes that create observations and we do not yet understand
these processes. This is the view of the compiler of this
document.

For more information:

Ed. J. Wheeler, W. Zurek, *Quantum theory and
measurement*, Princeton University Press, 1983.

J. S. Bell, *Speakable and unspeakable in quantum
mechanics*, Cambridge University Press, 1987.

R.I.G. Hughes, *The Structure and Interpretation of Quantum
Mechanics*, Harvard University Press, 1989.

Previous Next Table of Contents

home | consulting | videos | book | QM FAQ | contact |