- Interpretation of quantum mechanics
An

**interpretation of quantum mechanics**is a statement which attempts to explain howquantum mechanics informs ourunderstanding ofnature . Although quantum mechanics has received thorough experimental testing, many of these experiments are open to different interpretations. There exist a number of contending schools of thought, differing over whether quantum mechanics can be understood to be deterministic, which elements of quantum mechanics can be considered "real", and other matters.Although today this question is of special interest to philosophers of physics, many physicists continue to show a strong interest in the subject.

**Historical background**The definition of terms used by researchers in quantum theory (such as

wavefunction s andmatrix mechanics ) progressed through many stages. For instance, Schrödinger originally viewed the wavefunction associated with theelectron as the charge density of an object smeared out over an extended, possibly infinite, volume of space.Max Born interpreted it as simply aprobability distribution . These are two different interpretations of the wavefunction. In one it is material, in the other it is "just" a probability density.Most physicists don't think quantum mechanics "needs" interpretation.Fact|date=October 2008 More precisely, they think it only requires an instrumentalist interpretation. Besides the instrumentalist interpretation, the

Copenhagen interpretation is the most popular among physicists, followed by the many worlds andconsistent histories interpretations.Fact|date=October 2008 But it is also true that mostphysicist s consider non-instrumental questions (in particular ontological questions) to be irrelevant to physics.Fact|date=October 2008 They fall back onDavid Mermin 's expression: "shut up and calculate" often attributed (perhaps erroneously) toRichard Feynman (see [*http://scitation.aip.org/journals/doc/PHTOAD-ft/vol_57/iss_5/10_1.shtml*] ).**Obstructions to direct interpretation**The difficulties of interpretation reflect a number of points about the orthodox description of quantum mechanics, including:

# The abstract, mathematical nature of the description of quantum mechanics.

# The existence of what appear to be non-deterministic and irreversible processes in quantum mechanics.

# The phenomenon of entanglement, and in particular, the correlations between remote events that are not expected in classical theory.

# The complementarity of possible descriptions of reality.First, the accepted mathematical structure of quantum mechanics is based on fairly abstract mathematics, such as

Hilbert space s and operators on those Hilbert spaces. Inclassical mechanics andelectromagnetism , on the other hand, properties of a point mass or properties of a field are described byreal number s or functions defined on two or three dimensional sets. These have direct, spatial meaning, and in these theories there seems to be less need to provide a special interpretation for those numbers or functions.Further, the "process" of

measurement plays an apparently essential role in the theory. It relates the abstract elements of the theory, such as thewave function , to operationally definable values, such as probabilities. Measurement interacts with the system state, in somewhat peculiar ways, as is illustrated by thedouble-slit experiment .The mathematical formalism used to describe the

time evolution of a non-relativistic system proposes two somewhat different kinds of transformations:*Reversible transformations described by

unitary operator s on the state space. These transformations are determined by solutions to theSchrödinger equation .*Non-reversible and unpredictable transformations described by mathematically more complicated transformations (see

quantum operation s). Examples of these transformations are those that are undergone by a system as a result of measurement.A restricted version of the problem of interpretation in quantum mechanics consists in providing some sort of plausible picture, just for the second kind of transformation. This problem may be addressed by purely mathematical reductions, for example by the many-worlds or the

consistent histories interpretations.In addition to the unpredictable and irreversible character of measurement processes, there are other elements of quantum physics that distinguish it sharply from classical physics and which cannot be represented by any classical picture. One of these is the phenomenon of entanglement, as illustrated in the

EPR paradox , which seemingly violates principles of local causality.Another obstruction to direct interpretation is the phenomenon of complementarity, which seems to violate basic principles of propositional logic. Complementarity says there is no logical picture (obeying classical propositional logic) that can simultaneously describe and be used to reason about all properties of a quantum system

**S**. This is often phrased by saying that there are "complementary" sets "A" and "B" of propositions that can describe**S**, but not at the same time. Examples of "A" and "B" are propositions involving a wave description of**S**and a corpuscular description of**S**. The latter statement is one part of Niels Bohr's original formulation, which is often equated to the principle of complementarity itself.Complementarity is not usually taken to mean that classical logic fails, although

Hilary Putnam did take that view in his paperIs logic empirical? . Instead complementarity means that composition of physical properties for**S**(such as position and momentum both having values in certain ranges) using propositional connectives does not obey rules of classical propositional logic. As is now well-known (Omnès, 1999) the "origin of complementarity lies in the noncommutativity of operators" describing observables in quantum mechanics.**Problematic status of pictures and interpretations**The precise ontological status, of each one of the interpreting pictures, remains a matter of philosophical argument.

In other words, if we interpret the formal structure "X" of quantum mechanics by means of a structure "Y" (via a mathematical equivalence of the two structures), what is the status of "Y"? This is the old question of saving the phenomena, in a new guise.

Some physicists, for example

Asher Peres andChris Fuchs , seem to argue that an interpretation is nothing more than a formal equivalence between sets of rules for operating on experimental data. This would suggest that the whole exercise of interpretation is unnecessary.**Instrumentalist interpretation**Any modern scientific theory requires at the very least an instrumentalist description which relates the mathematical formalism to experimental practice and prediction. In the case of quantum mechanics, the most common instrumentalist description is an assertion of statistical regularity between state preparation processes and measurement processes. That is, if a measurement of a real-valued quantity is performed many times, each time starting with the same initial conditions, the outcome is a well-defined

probability distribution over the real numbers; moreover, quantum mechanics provides a computational instrument to determine statistical properties of this distribution, such as its expectation value.Calculations for measurements performed on a system

**S**postulate aHilbert space "H" over thecomplex numbers . When the system**S**is prepared in apure state , it is associated with a vector in "H". Measurable quantities are associated withHermitian operator s acting on "H": these are referred to asobservable s.Repeated measurement of an observable "A" for

**S**prepared in state ψ yields a distribution of values. The expectation value of this distribution is given by the expression:$langle\; psi\; vert\; A\; vert\; psi\; angle.$

This mathematical machinery gives a simple, direct way to compute a statistical property of the outcome of an experiment, once it is understood how to associate the initial state with a Hilbert space vector, and the measured quantity with an observable (that is, a specific Hermitian operator).

As an example of such a computation, the probability of finding the system in a given state $vertphi\; angle$ is given by computing the expectation value of a (rank-1)

projection operator :$Pi\; =\; vertphi\; angle\; langle\; phi\; vert$

The probability is then the non-negative real number given by

:$P\; =\; langle\; psi\; vert\; Pi\; vert\; psi\; angle\; =\; vert\; langle\; psi\; vert\; phi\; angle\; vert\; ^2.$

By abuse of language, the bare instrumentalist description can be referred to as an interpretation, although this usage is somewhat misleading since instrumentalism explicitly avoids any explanatory role; that is, it does not attempt to answer the question of what quantum mechanics is talking about.

**Summary of common interpretations of QM****Properties of interpretations**An interpretation can be characterized by whether it satisfies certain properties, such as:

* Realism

* Completeness

* Local realism

*Determinism To explain these properties, we need to be more explicit about the kind of picture an interpretation provides. To that end we will regard an interpretation as a correspondence between the elements of the mathematical formalism

**M**and the elements of an interpreting structure**I**, where:

* The mathematical formalism consists of the Hilbert space machinery of ket-vectors,self-adjoint operator s acting on the space of ket-vectors, unitary time dependence of ket-vectors and measurement operations. In this context a measurement operation can be regarded as a transformation which carries a ket-vector into a probability distribution on ket-vectors. See alsoquantum operation s for a formalization of this concept.

* The interpreting structure includes states, transitions between states, measurement operations and possibly information about spatial extension of these elements. A measurement operation here refers to an operation which returns a value and results in a possible system state change. Spatial information, for instance would be exhibited by states represented as functions on configuration space. The transitions may be non-deterministic or probabilistic or there may be infinitely many states. However, the critical assumption of an interpretation is that the elements of**I**are regarded as physically real.In this sense, an interpretation can be regarded as a

semantics for the mathematical formalism.In particular, the bare instrumentalist view of quantum mechanics outlined in the previous section is not an interpretation at all since it makes no claims about elements of physical reality.

The current use in physics of "completeness" and "realism" is often considered to have originated in the paper (Einstein et al., 1935) which proposed the

EPR paradox . In that paper the authors proposed the concept "element of reality" and "completeness" of a physical theory. Though they did not define "element of reality", they did provide a sufficient characterization for it, namely a quantity whose value can be predicted with certainty before measuring it or disturbing it in any way. EPR define a "complete physical theory" as one in which every element of physical reality is accounted for by the theory. In the semantic view of interpretation, an interpretation of a theory is complete if every element of the interpreting structure is accounted for by the mathematical formalism. Realism is a property of each one of the elements of the mathematical formalism; any such element is real if it corresponds to something in the interpreting structure. For instance, in some interpretations of quantum mechanics (such as the many-worlds interpretation) the ket vector associated to the system state is assumed to correspond to an element of physical reality, while in others it does not.Determinism is a property characterizing state changes due to the passage of time, namely that the state at an instant of time in the future is a function of the state at the present (see

time evolution ). It may not always be clear whether a particular interpreting structure is deterministic or not, precisely because there may not be a clear choice for a time parameter. Moreover, a given theory may have two interpretations, one of which is deterministic, and the other not.Local realism has two parts:

* The value returned by a measurement corresponds to the value of some function on the state space. Stated in another way, this value is an element of reality;

* The effects of measurement have a propagation speed not exceeding some universal bound (e.g., the speed of light). In order for this to make sense, measurement operations must be spatially localized in the interpreting structure.A precise formulation of local realism in terms of a

local hidden variable theory was proposed by John Bell.Bell's theorem , combined with experimental testing, restricts the kinds of properties a quantum theory can have. For instance, the experimental rejection of Bell's theorem implies that quantum mechanics cannot satisfy local realism.**Ensemble interpretation, or statistical interpretation**The

Ensemble interpretation , or statistical interpretation is an interpretation that can be viewed as a minimalist interpretation. That is, it is a quantum mechanical interpretation, that claims to make the fewest assumptions associated with the standard mathematical formalization. At its heart, it takes the statistical interpretation of Born to the fullest extent. The interpretation states that the wave function does not apply to an individual system, or for example, a single particle, but is an abstract mathematical, statistical quantity that only applies to an ensemble of similar prepared systems or particles. Probably the most notable supporter of such an interpretation was Einstein:To date, probably the most prominent advocate of the ensemble interpretation is

Leslie E. Ballentine , Professor atSimon Fraser University , and writer of the graduate level text book "Quantum Mechanics, A Modern Development".**The Copenhagen interpretation**The

Copenhagen interpretation is the "standard" interpretation of quantum mechanics formulated by Niels Bohr and Werner Heisenberg while collaborating in Copenhagen around 1927. Bohr and Heisenberg extended the probabilistic interpretation of the wavefunction, proposed by Max Born. The Copenhagen interpretation rejects questions like "where was the particle before I measured its position" as meaningless. The measurement process randomly picks out exactly one of the many possibilities allowed for by the state's wave function.**Participatory Anthropic Principle (PAP)**Viewed by some as mysticism (see "

consciousness causes collapse "), Wheeler's Participatory Anthropic Principle is the speculative theory that observation by a conscious observer is responsible for the wavefunction collapse. It is an attempt to solve theWigner's friend paradox by simply stating that collapse occurs at the first "conscious" observer, whilst also selecting our universe from all possible universes, as themany-worlds interpretation also seeks to do - thus PAP can be seen as one competitor to themany-worlds interpretation . The key differences between PAP v. many-worlds are: PAP (non-deterministic and not an infinite number of alternate universes), many-worlds (deterministic and an infinite number of alternate universes) - see also the comparison table below. Supporters claim PAP is not a revival of substance dualism, since (in a ramification of this view) consciousness and objects are entangled and cannot be considered as distinct. Although such an idea could be added to most interpretations of quantum mechanics, PAP was added to theCopenhagen interpretation (Wheeler studied in Copenhagen underNiels Bohr in the 1930s). It is possible an experiment could be devised to test this theory, since it depends on an observer to collapse a wavefunction. The observer has to be conscious, but whetherSchrödinger's cat or a person is necessary would be part of the experiment (hence the experiment could also define consciousness). However, the experiment would need to be carefully designed as, in Wheeler's view, it would need to ensure for an unobserved event that it remained unobserved for all time [*[*] .*http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/stories/2006/1572643.htm Science Show - 18 February 2006 - The anthropic universe*]**Consistent histories**The

consistent histories generalizes the conventional Copenhagen interpretation and attempts to provide a natural interpretation ofquantum cosmology . The theory is based on a consistency criterion that then allows the history of a system to be described so that the probabilities for each history obey the additive rules of classical probability while beingconsistent with theSchrödinger equation .According to this interpretation, the purpose of a quantum-mechanical theory is to predict the relative probabilities of various alternative histories.

**Objective collapse theories**Objective collapse theories differ from the

Copenhagen interpretation in regarding both the wavefunction and the process of collapse as ontologically objective. In objective theories, collapse occurs randomly ("spontaneous localization"), or when some physical threshold is reached, with observers having no special role. Thus, they are realistic, indeterministic, no-hidden-variables theories. The mechanism of collapse is not specified by standard quantum mechanics, which needs to be extended if this approach is correct, meaning that Objective Collapse is more of a theory than an interpretation. Examples include theGhirardi-Rimini-Weber theory [*[*] and the*http://www.romanfrigg.org/writings/GRW%20Theory.pdf Frigg, R. GRW theory*]Penrose interpretation . [*[*]*http://www.thymos.com/mind/penrose.html Review of Penrose's Shadows of the Mind*]**Many worlds**The

many-worlds interpretation (or**MWI**) is an interpretation of quantum mechanics that rejects the non-deterministic and irreversiblewavefunction collapse associated with measurement in the Copenhagen interpretation in favor of a description in terms of quantum entanglement and reversible time evolution of states. The phenomena associated with measurement are explained bydecoherence which occurs when states interact with the environment. As result of the decoherence the world-lines of macroscopic objects repeatedly split into mutually unobservable, branching histories -- distinct universes within a greater multiverse.**Stochastic mechanics**An entirely classical derivation and interpretation of the Schrödinger equation by analogy with

Brownian motion was suggested byPrinceton University professorEdward Nelson in 1966 (“Derivation of the Schrödinger Equation from Newtonian Mechanics”, "Phys. Rev."**150**, 1079-1085). Similar considerations were published already before, e.g. by R. Fürth (1933), I. Fényes (1952), W. Weizel (1953), and are referenced in Nelson's paper. More recent work on the subject can be found in M. Pavon, “Stochastic mechanics and the Feynman integral”, "J. Math. Phys."**41**, 6060-6078 (2000).**The decoherence approach**Decoherence occurs when a system interacts with its environment, or any complex external system, in such a thermodynamically irreversible way that ensures different elements in the quantum superposition of the system+environment's wave function can no longer interfere with each other. Decoherence does not provide a mechanism for the actual wave function collapse; rather it provides a mechanism for the "appearance" of wave function collapse. The quantum nature of the system is simply "leaked" into the environment so that a total superposition of the wave function still exists, but exists beyond the realm of measurement. Thus decoherence, as a philosophical interpretation, amounts to something similar to the many-worlds approach. It has the advantage of being supported by a detailed and plausible mathematical background, much of it developed byH. Dieter Zeh andWojciech H. Zurek , which help to make it one of the more popular approaches among current physicists.**Many minds**The

**many-minds interpretation**ofquantum mechanics extends themany-worlds interpretation by proposing that the distinction between worlds should be made at the level of the mind of an individual observer.**Quantum logic**Quantum logic can be regarded as a kind of propositional logic suitable for understanding the apparent anomalies regarding quantum measurement, most notably those concerning composition of measurement operations of complementary variables. This research area and its name originated in the 1936 paper byGarrett Birkhoff andJohn von Neumann , who attempted to reconcile some of the apparent inconsistencies of classical boolean logic with the facts related to measurement and observation in quantum mechanics.**The Bohm interpretation**The

Bohm interpretation of quantum mechanics is an interpretation postulated byDavid Bohm in which the existence of a non-local universal wavefunction allows distant particles to interact instantaneously. The interpretation generalizesLouis de Broglie 's pilot wave theory from 1927, which posits that both wave and particle are real. The wavefunction 'guides' the motion of the particle, and evolves according to the Schrödinger equation. The interpretation assumes a single, nonsplitting universe (unlike the Everett many-worlds interpretation) and is deterministic (unlike the Copenhagen interpretation). It says the state of the universe evolves smoothly through time, without the collapsing of wavefunctions when a measurement occurs, as in the Copenhagen interpretation. However, it does this by assuming a number of hidden variables, namely the positions of all the particles in the universe, which, like probability amplitudes in other interpretations, can never be measured directly.**Transactional interpretation**The

transactional interpretation of quantum mechanics (TIQM) byJohn G. Cramer [*http://www.npl.washington.edu/npl/int_rep/qm_nl.html*] is an interpretation of quantum mechanics inspired by the contributionRichard Feynman made toQuantum Electrodynamics . It describes quantum interactions in terms of a standing wave formed by retarded (forward-in-time) and advanced (backward-in-time) waves. The author argues that it avoids the philosophical problems with the Copenhagen interpretation and the role of the observer, and resolves various quantum paradoxes.**Relational quantum mechanics**The essential idea behind

relational quantum mechanics , following the precedent ofspecial relativity , is that different observers may give different accounts of the same series of events: for example, to one observer at a given point in time, a system may be in a single, "collapsed" eigenstate, while to another observer at the same time, it may be in a superposition of two or more states. Consequently, if quantum mechanics is to be a complete theory, relational quantum mechanics argues that the notion of "state" describes not the observed system itself, but the relationship, or correlation, between the system and its observer(s). Thestate vector of conventional quantum mechanics becomes a description of the correlation of some "degrees of freedom" in the observer, with respect to the observed system. However, it is held by relational quantum mechanics that this applies to all physical objects, whether or not they are conscious or macroscopic. Any "measurement event" is seen simply as an ordinary physical interaction, an establishment of the sort of correlation discussed above. Thus the physical content of the theory is to do not with objects themselves, but the relations between them [*http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-relational/*] . For more information, see Rovelli (1996).An independent relational approach to quantum mechanics was developed in analogy with David Bohm's elucidation of special relativity (The Special Theory of Relativity, Benjamin, New York, 1965), in which a detection event is regarded as establishing a relationship between the quantized field and the detector. The inherent ambiguity associated with applying Heisenberg's uncertainty principle is subsequently avoided [

*http://www.quantum-relativity.org/Quantum-Relativity.pdf*] . For a full account [*http://www.quantum-relativity.org/Quantum_Optics_as_a_Relativistic_Theory_of_Light.pdf*] , see Zheng et al. (1992, 1996).**Modal interpretations of quantum theory**Modal interpretations of quantum mechanics were first conceived of in 1972 by B. van Fraassen, in his paper “A formal approach to the philosophy of science.” However, this term now is used to describe a larger set of models that grew out of this approach. The [

*http://www.science.uva.nl/~seop/entries/qm-modal/ Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy*] describes several versions:* The Copenhagen variant

* Kochen-Dieks-Healey Interpretations

* Motivating Early Modal Interpretations, based on the work of R. Clifton, M. Dickson and J. Bub.**Incomplete measurements**The

theory of incomplete measurements (TIM) derives the main axioms of quantum mechanics from properties of the physical processes that are acceptable measurements. In that interpretation:

* wavefunctions collapse because we require measurements to give consistent and repeatable results.

* wavefunctions are complex-valued because they represent a field of "found/not-found" probabilities.

* eigenvalue equations are associated with symbolic values of measurements, which we often choose to be real numbers.The TIM is more than a simple interpretation of quantum mechanics, since in that theory, both

general relativity and the traditional formalism of quantum mechanics are seen as approximations. However, it does give an interesting interpretation to quantum mechanics.**Comparison**The most common interpretations are summarized here (however, the assignment of values in the table is not without controversy, for the precise meanings of some of the concepts involved are unclear and, in fact, the subject of the very controversy itself):

No experimental evidence exists that would distinguish between the interpretations listed. To that extent, the physical theory stands, and is consistent with, itself and with reality; troubles come only when one attempts to "interpret" it. Nevertheless, there is active research in attempting to come up with experimental tests which would allow differences between the interpretations to be experimentally tested.

^{1}If wavefunction is real then this becomes the many-worlds interpretation. If wavefunction less than real, but more than just information, then Zurek calls this the "existential interpretation".^{2}Quantum mechanics is regarded as a way of predicting observations, or a theory of measurement..^{3}But quantum logic is more limited in applicability than Coherent Histories.^{4}Observers separate the universal wavefunction into orthogonal sets of experiences.^{5}Both particle AND guiding wavefunction are real.^{6}Unique particle history, but multiple wave histories.^{7}In the TI the collapse of the state vector is interpreted as the completion of the transaction between emitter and absorber.^{8}Comparing histories between systems in this interpretation has no well-defined meaning.^{9}Any physical interaction is treated as a collapse event relative to the systems involved, not just macroscopic or conscious observers.^{10}The nature and collapse of the wavefunction are derived, not axiomatic.Each interpretation has many variants. It is difficult to get a precise definition of the Copenhagen interpretation. In the table above, two variants are shown: one that regards the waveform as being a tool for calculating probabilities only, and the other regards the waveform as an "element of reality".

**See also***

Afshar experiment

*Bell's theorem

*Bohm interpretation

*Bohr-Einstein debates

*Consistent Histories

*Copenhagen interpretation

*Many-minds interpretation

*Many-worlds interpretation

*Measurement problem

*Penrose Interpretation

*Philosophical interpretation of classical physics

* Quantum computation

*Quantum indeterminacy

*Quantum mechanics

*Quantum mysticism

*Relational quantum mechanics

*Pondicherry interpretation

*Transactional interpretation

*Theory of incomplete measurements

*Wave function collapse

*Quantum decoherence

*Minority interpretations of quantum mechanics **Related lists***

List of physics topics

*Unsolved problems in physics **References*** Bub, J. and Clifton, R. 1996. “A uniqueness theorem for interpretations of quantum mechanics,” Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 27B, 181-219

* R. Carnap, "The interpretation of physics", "Foundations of Logic and Mathematics" of the "International Encyclopedia of Unified Science", University of Chicago Press, 1939.

* D. Deutsch, "The Fabric of Reality", Allen Lane, 1997. Though written for general audiences, in this book Deutsch argues forcefully "against" instrumentalism.

* Dickson, M. 1994. "Wavefunction tails in the modal interpretation," Proceedings of the PSA 1994, Hull, D., Forbes, M., and Burian, R. (eds), Vol. 1, pp. 366-376. East Lansing, Michigan: Philosophy of Science Association.

*Dickson, M. and Clifton, R. 1998. "Lorentz-invariance in modal interpretations" The Modal Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, Dieks, D. and Vermaas, P. (eds), pp. 9-48. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers

* A. Einstein, B. Podolsky and N. Rosen, " Can quantum-mechanical description of physical reality be considered complete?" Phys. Rev. 47 777, 1935.

* C. Fuchs and A. Peres, "Quantum theory needs no ‘interpretation’ ", Physics Today, March 2000.

*Christopher Fuchs , Quantum Mechanics as Quantum Information (and only a little more), arXiv:quant-ph/0205039 v1, (2002)

* N. Herbert. "Quantum Reality: Beyond the New Physics", New York: Doubleday, ISBN 0-385-23569-0, LoC QC174.12.H47 1985.

* T. Hey and P. Walters, "The New Quantum Universe", New York: Cambridge University Press, 2003, ISBN 0-5215-6457-3.

* R. Jackiw and D. Kleppner, "One Hundred Years of Quantum Physics", Science, Vol. 289 Issue 5481, p893, August 2000.

* M. Jammer, "The Conceptual Development of Quantum Mechanics". New York: McGraw-Hill, 1966.

* M. Jammer, "The Philosophy of Quantum Mechanics". New York: Wiley, 1974.

* Al-Khalili, "Quantum: A Guide for the Perplexed". London: Weidenfeld & Nicholson, 2003.

* W. M. de Muynck, "Foundations of quantum mechanics, an empiricist approach", Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2002, ISBN 1-4020-0932-1

* R. Omnès, "Understanding Quantum Mechanics", Princeton, 1999.

* K. Popper, "Conjectures and Refutations", Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1963. The chapter "Three views Concerning Human Knowledge", addresses, among other things, the instrumentalist view in the physical sciences.

* H. Reichenbach, "Philosophic Foundations of Quantum Mechanics", Berkeley: University of California Press, 1944.

* C. Rovelli, "Relational Quantum Mechanics"; Int. J. of Theor. Phys. 35 (1996) 1637. arXiv: quant-ph/9609002 [*http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/quant-ph/9609002*]

* Q. Zheng and T. Kobayashi, "Quantum Optics as a Relativistic Theory of Light"; Physics Essays 9 (1996) 447. Annual Report, Department of Physics, School of Science, University of Tokyo (1992) 240.

* M. Tegmark and J. A. Wheeler, "100 Years of Quantum Mysteries", Scientific American 284, 68, 2001.

* van Fraassen, B. 1972. "A formal approach to the philosophy of science," in Paradigms and Paradoxes: The Philosophical Challenge of the Quantum Domain, Colodny, R. (ed.), pp. 303-366. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.

*John A. Wheeler andWojciech Hubert Zurek (eds), "Quantum Theory and Measurement", Princeton: Princeton University Press, ISBN 0-691-08316-9, LoC QC174.125.Q38 1983.**Further reading***

David Z Albert " [*http://astore.amazon.co.uk/physics-21/detail/0674741129 Quantum Mechanics and Experience*] "

*J S Bell " [*http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/0521523389/ Speakable and unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics*] "

*David Bohm "Wholeness and the Implicate Order "

*David Deutsch "The Fabric of Reality "

*Bernard D'Espagnat " [*http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/0521338468/ Reality and the physicist*] "

*Bernard D'Espagnat " [*http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/0387113991 In seach of Reality*] "

*Bernard D'Espagnat " [*http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/081334087X/ Veiled Reality Conceptual Foundation of Quantum Mechanics*] "

*Arthur Fine " [*http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/0226249484 The Shaky Game: Einstein Realism and the Quantum Theory. Science and its Conceptual Foundations. Chicago, 1986*] "

*Roland Omnes " [*http://www.amazon.com/dp/0691036691 The Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics*] "

*Roger Penrose "The Emperor's New Mind "

*Roger Penrose "Shadows of the Mind "**External links*** [

*http://www.phys.tue.nl/ktn/Wim/muynck.htm#quantum Willem M. de Muynck*] Broad overview, realist vs. empiricist interpretations, against oversimplified view of the measurement process

* [*http://members.aol.com/jmtsgibbs/Interpretation.htm Comparative interpretations*]

* [*http://www.csicop.org/si/9701/quantum-quackery.html Skeptical View of "New Age" Interpretations of QM*]

* [*http://www.sankey.ws/qm.html The many worlds of quantum mechanics*]

* [*http://www.decoherence.de Erich Joos' Decoherence Website*] Basic and in-depth information on decoherence

* [*http://home.sprynet.com/~owl1/qm.htm Quantum Mechanics for Philosophers*] An argument for the superiority of the Bohm interpretation.

* [*http://www.miguel-montenegro.com/Hidden_cultural_variables.htm Hidden Variables in Quantum Theory: The Hidden Cultural Variables of their Rejection*]

* [*http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-manyworlds/ Many-Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics*]

* [*http://www.station1.net/DouglasJones/many.htm Numerous Many Worlds-related Topics and Articles*]

* [*http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-relational/ Relational Quantum Mechanics*]

* [*http://www.quantum-relativity.org/ Relational Approach to Quantum Physics*]

* [*http://thisquantumworld.com/ht/index.php This Quantum World*] What is quantum mechanics trying to tell us about the nature of Nature?

* [*http://cc3d.free.fr/tim.pdf Theory of incomplete measurements*] Deriving quantum mechanics axioms from properties of acceptable measurements.

* [*http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9501014 Schreiber, Z. - The Nine Lives of Schrodinger's Cat (overview of interpretations)*]

* [*http://www.mat.univie.ac.at/~neum/physics-faq.txt Alfred Neumaier's FAQ*]

* [*http://www.mtnmath.com/faq/meas-qm.html Measurement in Quantum Mechanics FAQ*]

*Wikimedia Foundation.
2010.*