Abstract
It has been traditionally considered that Quantum Mechanics has two conceptual kinds of problems, namely, those related with local-realism and the so-called measurement problem. That is, the uniqueness of the result when we make a measurement. With the development of what is called generically Quantum Information Theory, a new form of the Copenhagen interpretation of the formalism has taken shape.(1) In this paper, we will analyse if this information interpretation is able to clarify these old problems. Although this interpretation seems to be the most promising approach we have, we have reached the conclusion that the answer cannot be given in a positive and clear way yet.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
C. A. Fuchs and A. Peres, “Quantum theory needs no ‘interpretation’, ” Phys. Today 53, 70–71 (March 2000) and C. A. Fuchs and A. PeresPhys. Today 53, 89–90 (September 2000).
A. Einstein, B. Podolsky, and N. Rosen. “Can quantum-mechanical description of physical reality be consider complete?, ” Phys. Rev. 47, 777–780 (1935).
N. Bohr, Atomic Physics and Human Knowledge (Wiley, New York, 1958). See also W. Heisenberg, Daedalus 87, 95(1958).
R. Clifton, J. Bub, and H. Halvorson, “Characterizing quantum theory in terms of information-theoretic constraints. ” Preprint quant-ph/0211089 (Los Alamos, 2002).
D. Bohm, Quantum Theory (Prentice–Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1951).
D. J. Griffiths, Introduction to Quantum Mechanics (Prentice–Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1995).
C. Brukner and A. Zeilinger, “Information and fundamental elements of the structure of quantum theory, ” preprint quant-ph/0212084 (Los Alamos, 2002).
R. E. Peierls, “In defence of measurement, ” Phys. World, 19–21 (January 1991).
N. D. Mermin. “Whose Knowledge?, ” in Quantum (Un)speakables, R. Bertlmann and A. Zeilinger, eds. (Springer, Berlin, 2002).
T. A. Brun, J. Finkelstein, and N. D. Mermin. “How much state assignments can differ, ” preprint quant-ph/0109041 (Los Alamos, 2001).
T. A. Brun. “How much state assignments can differ, ” preprint quant-ph/0208088 (Los Alamos, 2002).
F. Lalöe, “Do we really understand quantum mechanics? Strange correlations, paradoxes, and theorems, ” Amer. J. Phys. 69(6), 655–701 (2001).
C. C. Caves, C. A. Fuchs, and R. Schack. “Quantum probabilities as Bayesian probabilities, ” preprint quant-ph/0106133v2 (Los Alamos, 2001).
H. J. Lipkin. “The structure of matter, ” Nature 406, 127(2000) and H. J. Lipkin“Who ordered theorists?, ” Phys. Today 53, 15(July 2000). See also M. Ferrero. “Confluentism and the idea of truth in the construction of physics, ” preprint (Universidad de Oviedo, Oviedo, 1993).
S. E. Virgo, Sci. Progr. 27, 634(1933).
M. Ferrero, “Quantum Physics and Philosophy, ” in Foundations of Quantum Physics, R. Blanco et al., eds. (Real Sociedad Española de Física, Madrid, 2002), and M. Ferrero“Física Cuántica y Objetividad, ” Arbor CLXVII 659, 459–473 (2000).
P. Grangier. “Contextual objectivity: a realistic interpretation of quantum mechanics, ” preprint quant-ph/0012122v2 (Los Alamos, 2001) and P. Grangier“FAQ about the ‘contextual objectivity,’ ” preprint quant-ph/0203131 (Los Alamos, 2002). See also M. Ferrero, “What kind of realism?, ” in Determinism in Physics, E. Bitsakis and N. Tambakis, eds. (Gutenberg, Athens, 1985).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Ferrero, M. The Information Interpretation and the Conceptual Problems of Quantum Mechanics. Foundations of Physics 33, 665–676 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1023778822017
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1023778822017