Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Relational quantum mechanics

  • Published:
International Journal of Theoretical Physics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

I suggest that the common unease with taking quantum mechanics as a fundamental description of nature (the “measurement problem”) could derive from the use of an incorrect notion, as the unease with the Lorentz transformations before Einstein derived from the notion of observer-independent time. I suggest that this incorrect notion that generates the unease with quantum mechanics is the notion of “observer-independent state” of a system, or “observer-independent values of physical quantities.” I reformulate the problem of the “interpretation of quantum mechanics” as the problem of deriving the formalism from a set of simple physical postulates. I consider a reformulation of quantum mechanics in terms of information theory. All systems are assumed to be equivalent, there is no observer-observed distinction, and the theory describes only the information that systems have about each other; nevertheless, the theory is complete.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Albert, D. (1992).Quantum Mechanics and Experience, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

    Google Scholar 

  • Albert, D., and Loewer, B. (1988).Synthese,77, 195–213.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Albert, D., and Loewer, B. (1989).Nous,23, 169–186.

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Ashtekar, A. (1993). Personal communication.

  • Bacciagaluppi, G. (1995). A kochen-Specker theorem in the modal interpretation of quantum theory,International Journal of Theoretical Physics,34, 1205.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Bacciagaluppi, G., and Hemmo, M. (n.d.). Modal interpretations of imperfect measurement,Foundations of Physics, to appear.

  • Belifante, F. J. (1973).A Survey of Hidden Variable Theories, Pergamon Press, Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bell, J. (1987). InSchrödinger: Centenary of a Polymath, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beltrametti, E. G., and Cassinelli, G. (1981).The Logic of Quantum Mechanics, Addison-Wesley, Reading, Massachusetts.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bohm, D. (1951).Quantum Theory, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bohr, N. (1935).Nature,12, 65.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bohr, N. (1949). InAlbert Einstein: Philosopher-Scientist, Open Court, La Salle, Illinois, p. 199.

    Google Scholar 

  • Born, M. (1926).Zeitschrift für Physik,38, 803.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bragagnolo, W., Cesari, P., and Facci, G. (1993).Teoria e metodo dell'apprendimento motorio, Societa' Stampa Sportiva, Bologna.

    Google Scholar 

  • Breuer, (1994). The impossibility of accurate state self-measurement,Philosophy of Science.

  • Butterfield, J. (1995). Words, Minds and Quanta, inSymposium on Quantum Theory and the Mind, Liverpool.

  • Crane, L. (1995). Clock and category: Is quantum gravity algebraic?Journal of Mathematical Physics.

  • D'Espagnat, B. (1971).Conceptual, Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Addison-Wesley, Reading, Massachusetts.

    Google Scholar 

  • DeWitt, B. S. (1970).Physics Today,23, 30.

    Google Scholar 

  • DeWitt, B. S., and Graham, N. (1973).The Many World Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dirac, P. M. A. (1930).The Principles of Quantum Mechanics, Clarendon Press, Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Donald, M. (1990).Proceedings of the Royal Society of London A,427, 43.

    ADS  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Earman, J. (1986).A Primer on Determinism, Reidel, Dordrecht.

    Google Scholar 

  • Einstein, A., Podolsky, B., and Rosen, N. (1935).Physical Review,47, 777.

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Everett, H. (1957).Review of Modern Physics,29, 454.

    ADS  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Finkelstein, D. (1969). InBoston Studies in the Philosophy of Sciences, Vol. 5, R. S. Cohen and M. W. Wartofski, eds., Reidel, Dordrecht.

    Google Scholar 

  • Finkelstein, D. (1988). InThe Universal Turing Machine, Vol. 5, R. Herken, ed., Oxford University Press, Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fleming, N. G. (1992).Journal of Speculative Philosophy,VI(4), 256.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gadamer, H. G. (1989).Truth and Method, Crossroad, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gell-Mann, M., and Hartle, J. (1990). InComplexity, Entropy, and the Physics of Information, W. Zurek, ed., Addison-Wesley, Reading, Massachusetts.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ghirardi, G. C., Rimini, A., and Weber, T. (1986).Physical Review D,34, 470.

    Article  ADS  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Greenberger, Horne, and Zeilinger. (1993).Physics Today.

  • Griffiths, R. B. (1984).Journal of Statistical Physics,36, 219.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Griffiths, R. B. (1993). In Seminar on Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Carnegie-Mellon University, Pittsburgh (October 1993).

    Google Scholar 

  • Halliwell. (1994). InStochastic Evolution of Quantum States in Open Systems and Measurement Process, L. Diosi, ed., Budapest.

  • Heisenberg, W. (1927).Zeitschrift für Physik,43, 172.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Heisenberg, W. (1936).Funf Wiener Vortage, Deuticke, Leipzig.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hughes, R. I. G. (1989).The Structure and Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jauch, J. (1968).Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Addison-Wesley, Reading, Massachusetts.

    Google Scholar 

  • Joos, E., and Zeh, H. D. (1985).Zeitschrift für Physik B,59, 223.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kant, I. (1787).Critique of Pure Reason [English translation, Modern Library, New York (1958)].

    Google Scholar 

  • Kent, A., and Dowker, F. (1994). On the consistent histories approach to quantum mechanics, preprint [pampt/94–48].

  • Landau, L. D., and Lifshitz, E. M. (1977).Quantum Mechanics, Pergamon Press, Oxford, Introduction.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lockwood, M. (1989).Mind Brain and the Quantum, Blackwell, Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mackey, G. W. (1963).Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Benjamin, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maczinski, H. (1967).Bulletin de l'Academic Polonaise des Sciences,15, 583.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maturana, H., and Varela, F. (1980).Autopoiesis and Cognition. The Realization of the Living, Reidel, Dordrecht.

    Google Scholar 

  • Messiah, A. (1958).Quantum Mechanics, Wiley, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Newman, E. T. (1993). Talk at the inaugural ceremony of the Center for Gravitational Physics, Penn State University, August 1993.

  • Omnès, R. (1988).Journal of Statistical Physics,57, 357.

    Google Scholar 

  • Penrose, R. (1989).The Emperor's New Mind, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peres, A., and Zurek, W. H. (1982).American Journal of Physics,50, 807.

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Piron, C. (1972).Foundations of Physics,2, 287.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Primas, H. (1990). InSixty-Two Years of Uncertainty, A. I. Miller,ed., Plenum Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roessler, O. E. (1987). InReal Brains—Artificial Minds, J. L. Casti and A. Karlqvist, eds., North-Holland, Amsterdam.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rovelli, C. (1995). Half way through the woods—Contemporary physics of space and time, inAnnual Lectures at the Center for the History and Philosophy of Science, Pittsburgh University, in press.

  • Shannon, C. E. (1949).The Mathematical Theory of Communications, University of Illinois Press, Champaign-Urbana, Illinois.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shimony, A. (1969). InQuantum Concepts and Spacetime, R. Penrose and C. Isham, eds., Clarendon Press, Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schrödinger, E. (1935).Naturwissenshaften,22, 807.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Fraassen, B. (1991).Quantum Mechanics: An Empiricist View, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Von Neumann, J. (1932).Mathematische Grundlagen der Quantenmechanik, Springer, Berlin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wheeler, J. A. (1957).Reviews of Modern Physics,29, 463.

    Article  ADS  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Wheeler, J. A. (1988).IBM Journal of Research and Development,32, 1.

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Wheeler, J. A. (1989). InProceedings of the 3rd International Symposium on the Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Tokyo.

  • Wheeler, J. A. (1992). It from bit and quantum gravity, Princeton University Report.

  • Wheeler, J., and Zureck, W. (1983).Quantum Theory and Measurement, Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wigner, E. P. (1961). Inthe Scientist Speculates, Good, ed., Basic Books, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zureck, W. H. (1981).Physical Review D,24, 1516.

    ADS  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Zureck, W. H. (1982).Physical Review D,26, 1862.

    ADS  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Pittsburgh, 15260, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

    Carlo Rovelli

Authors
  1. Carlo Rovelli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Rovelli, C. Relational quantum mechanics. Int J Theor Phys 35, 1637–1678 (1996). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02302261

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02302261

Keywords

Search

Navigation