Abstract
A goal of most interpretations of quantum mechanics is to avoid the apparent intrusion of the observer into the measurement process. Such intrusion is usually seen to arise because observation somehow selects a single actuality from among the many possibilities represented by the wavefunction. The issue is typically treated in terms of the mathematical formulation of the quantum theory. We attempt to address a different manifestation of the quantum measurement problem in a theory-neutral manner. With a version of the two-slit experiment, we demonstrate that an enigma arises directly from the results of experiments. Assuming that no observable physical phenomena exist beyond those predicted by the theory, we argue that no interpretation of the quantum theory can avoid a measurement problem involving the observer.
Similar content being viewed by others
REFERENCES
N. D. Mermin, “What's Wrong with These Questions?”, Physics Today 54(2), 11–12 (2001).
S. Goldstein, “Quantum mechanics without observers—part one, ” Physics Today 51(3), 42–46 (1998); “Quantum mechanics without observers—part two, ” Physics Today 51(4), 38–42 (1998), and references therein. R. B. Griffiths and R. Omnès, “Consistent histories and quantum measurements, ” Physics Today 52(8), 26–31 (1999).
C. A. Fuchs and A. Peres, “Quantum theory needs no “interpretation”, ” Physics Today 53(3), 70–71 (2000).
H. P. Stapp, “Attention, intention, and will in quantum physics, ” J. Consciousness Studies 6(8–9), 143–164 (1999).
E. Aronson, Encyclopedia of Psychology 2000 (American Psychological Association, Washington, D.C).
J. A. Wheeler, “Delayed-choice experiments and the Bohr-Einstein dialog, ” The American Philosophical Society and the Royal Society, Papers read at a meeting June 5, 1980.
M. Arndt, O. Nairz, J. Vos-Andreae, C. Keller, G. van der Zouw, and A. Zeilinger, “Wave-particle duality of C60 molecules, ” Nature 401(6754), 680–2 (1999).
J. R. Friedman, V. Patel, W. Chen, S. K. Tolpygo, and J. E. Lukens, “Quantum superposition of distinct macroscopic states, ” Nature 406(6791), 43–46 (2000).
B. Julsgaard, A. Kozhekin, and E. S. Polzik, “Experimental long-lived entanglement of two macroscopic objects, ” Nature 413, 400–403 (2001).
K. Hess and W. Philipp, “Bell's theorem and the problems of decidability between the views of Einstein and Bohr, ” Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. 98, 14228–14223 (2001).
R. Omnès, The Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 1994), p. 342.
J. von Neumann, The Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 1955; originally published 1932).
O. Ulfbeck and A. Bohr. “Genuine fortuitousness. Where did that click come from?, ” Found. Phys. 31, 757 (2001).
W. H. Zurek, “Decoherence and the transition from quantum to classical, ” Physics Today 50(10), 36–44 (1991).
W. H. Zurek, “Preferred states, predictability, classicality and the environment-induced decoherence, ” Progr. Theoret. Phys. 88(2), 282–312 (1999).
R. B. Griffiths and R. Omnès, “Consistent histories and quantum measurements, ” Physics Today 52(8), 26–31 (1999).
H. Everett, III, “'Relative state’ formulation of quantum mechanics, ” Rev. Mod. Phys. 29(3), 454–462 (1957).
E. J. Squires, “Many views of one world-an interpretation of quantum theory, ” Eur. J. Phys. 8(3), 171–173 (1987).
N. D. Mermin, “What is quantum mechanics trying to tell us?, ” Amer. J. Phys. 66(9), 753–767 (1998).
G. C. Ghirardi, A. Rimini, and T. Weber, “Unified dynamics for microscopic and macroscopic systems, ” Phys. Rev. D 34(2), 470–491 (1986).
R. Penrose, The Emperor's New Mind: Concerning Computers, Minds, and the Laws of Physics (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1989).
H. P. Stapp, “Quantum theory and the role of mind in nature, ” Found. Phys. 31, 1465 (2001).
D. Bohm, “A suggested interpretation of the quantum theory in terms of ‘hidden’ variables, ” Phys. Rev. 85, 166–193 (1952).
J. R. Fanchi, “Quantum potential in relativistic dynamics, ” Found. Phys. 30, 1161 (2000).
D. Bohm and B. J. Hiley, The Undivided Universe (Routledge, London, 1993), p. 181.
D. Bohm, Wholeness and the Implicate Order (Routledge & Kegan Paul, London, 1980). D. Bohm and B. J. Hiley, The Undivided Universe (Routledge, London, 1993).
J. S. Bell, Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1987), p. 27.
F. Wilczek, Physics Today 52(6), 11–12 (2000).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Rosenblum, B., Kuttner, F. The Observer in the Quantum Experiment. Foundations of Physics 32, 1273–1293 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1019723420678
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1019723420678