What Is Really There in the Quantum World?

  • Jeffrey BubEmail author
Part of the Synthese Library book series (SYLI, volume 406)


The state of a classical system represents physical reality by assigning truth values, true or false, to every proposition about the values of the system’s physical quantities. I present an analysis of the Frauchiger-Renner thought experiment (Frauchiger D, Renner R: Single-world interpretations of quantum mechanics cannot be self-consistent. arXiv eprint quant-ph/1604.07422, 2016), an extended version of the ‘Wigner’s friend’ thought experiment (Wigner E: Remarks on the mind-body question. In: Good IJ (ed) The scientist speculates. Heinemann, London, 1961), to argue that the state of a quantum system should be understood as purely probabilistic and not representational.



Thanks to Bill Demopoulos, Michel Janssen, Matthew Leifer, and Allen Stairs for illuminating discussions.


  1. Bell, J. (1990). Against measurement. PhysicsWorld, 8, 33–40. Reprinted in A. Miller (Ed.), Sixty-two years of uncertainty: Historical, philosophical and physical inquiries into the foundations of quantum mechanics (pp. 17–31). New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
  2. Born, M., & Jordan, P. (1925). Zur Quantenmechanik. Zeitschrift fur Physik, 34, 858–888.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Born, M., Heisenberg, W., & Jordan, P. (1925). Zur Quantenmechanik II. Zeitschrift fur Physik, 35, 557–615CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brown, H. R. (2006). Physical relativity: Space-time structure from a dynamical perspective. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  5. Bub, J. (2016). Bananaworld: Quantum mechanics for primates (p. 211). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bub, J., & Pitowsky, I. (2010). Two dogmas about quantum mechanics. In S. Saunders, J. Barrett, A. Kent, & D. Wallace (Eds.), Many worlds? Everett, quantum theory, and reality (pp. 431–456). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Clauser, J. F., Horne, M. A., Shimony, A., & Holt, R. A. (1969). Proposed experiment to test local hidden-variable theories. Pysical Review Letters, 23, 880–884.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Colbeck, R., & Renner, R. (2011). No extension of quantum theory can have improved predictive power. Nature Communications, 2, 411. For two qubits in an entangled Bell state, Colbeck and Renner show that there can’t be a variable, z, associated with the history of the qubits before the preparation of the entangled state in the reference frame of any inertial observer, that provides information about the outcomes of measurements on the qubits, so that Alice’s and Bob’s marginal probabilities conditional on z are closer to 1 than the probabilities of the Bell state. They show how the argument can be extended to any entangled state, and then to any quantum state.Google Scholar
  9. Einstein, A. (1949). Autobiographical notes. In P. A. Schillp (Ed.), Albert Einstein: Philosopher-scientist (p. 85). Open Court: La Salle. But on one supposition we should, in my opinion, absolutely hold fast: the real factual situation of the system S 2 is independent of what is done with the system S 1, which is spatially separated from the former.Google Scholar
  10. Einstein, A. (1954). What is the theory of relativity? Ideas and opinions (p. 228). New York: Bonanza Books. Reprinted from an article in the London Times, 28 Nov 1919.Google Scholar
  11. Frauchiger, D., & Renner, R. (2016). Single-world interpretations of quantum mechanics cannot be self-consistent. arXiv eprint quant-ph/1604.07422.Google Scholar
  12. Gleason, A. N. (1957). Measures on the closed subspaces of Hilbert space. Journal of Mathematics and Mechanics, 6, 885–893.Google Scholar
  13. Gross, D., Müller, M., Colbeck, R., & Dahlsten, O. C. (2010). All reversible dynamics in maximally nonlocal theories are trivial. Physical Review Letters, 104, 080402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Heisenberg, W. (1925). ‘Über Quantentheoretischer Umdeutung kinematischer und mechanischer Beziehungen. Zeitschrift fur Physik, 33, 879–893.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Janssen, M. (2009). Drawing the line between kinematics and dynamics in special relativity. Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 40, 26–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kent, A. (2005). Secure classical bit commitment over finite channels. Journal of Cryptology, 18, 313–335; Unconditionally secure bit commitment. Physical Review Letters, 83, 1447–1450 (1999).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lo, H.-K., & Chau, H. F. (1997). Is quantum bit commitment really possible? Physical Review Letters, 78, 3410–3413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Mayers, D. (1997). Unconditionally secure quantum bit commitment is impossible. Physical Review Letters, 78, 3414–3417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Menahem, Y. B. (1988). Realism and quantum mechanics. In A. van der Merwe (Ed.), Microphysical reality and quantum formalism. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  20. Pitowsky, I. (2003). Betting on the outcomes of measurements: A Bayesian theory of quantum probability. Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 34, 395–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Pitowsky, I. (2004). Macroscopic objects in quantum mechanics: A combinatorial approach. Physical Review A, 70, 022103–1–6.Google Scholar
  22. Pitowsky, I. (2007). Quantum mechanics as a theory of probability. In W. Demopoulos & I. Pitowsky (Eds.), Festschrift in honor of Jeffrey Bub. New York: Springer. arXiv e-print quant-ph/0510095.Google Scholar
  23. Popescu, S., & Rohrlich, D. (1994). Quantum nonlocality as an axiom. Foundations of Physics, 24, 379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Pusey, M. (2016). Is QBism 80% complete, or 20%? Talk presented at a workshop: Information-theoretic interpretations of quantum mechanics, 11–12 June 2016, Western University, London.
  25. Uhlhorn, U. (1963). Representation of symmetry transformations in quantum mechanics. Arkiv Fysik, 23, 307.Google Scholar
  26. Wallace, D. (2016). What is orthodox quantum mechanics? arXiv eprint quant-ph/1604.05973.Google Scholar
  27. Wigner, E. (1959). Group theory and its applications to quantum mechanics of atomic spectra. New York: Academic.Google Scholar
  28. Wigner, E. (1961). Remarks on the mind-body question. In I. J. Good (Ed.), The scientist speculates. London: Heinemann.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of MarylandCollege ParkUSA

Personalised recommendations