Pith. sign in

REVIEW 8 minor 106 references

An Introduction to the Foundations and Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics

T0 review · 0 major / 8 minor · reviewed 2026-07-14 · grok-4.5

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read Quantum mechanics forces trade-offs among locality, realism, determinism, and completeness; a decision-tree map shows how leading interpretations handle what the theory says about reality.

desk verdict Competent, non-exhaustive introductory survey of standard QM foundations material; useful as a map for newcomers, not a research advance. read the letter →

arxiv 2603.09818 v2 pith:AOSCHFGY submitted 2026-03-10 quant-ph physics.hist-ph

Theodore McKeever , Ahsan Nazir This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phphysics.hist-ph
keywords quantumfoundationsinterpretationsofmechanicsBell'stheoremmeasurementproblemdecoherencecontextualityobjectivecollapsemany-worlds
topics The Measurement Problem
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper is a concise introductory survey of quantum foundations and interpretations. It starts from the standard postulates (Hilbert space, unitary evolution, observables, Born rule, collapse) and the Copenhagen family, then walks through the PBR result on the status of the quantum state, the EPR argument, Bell's theorem, Hardy's paradox, and the de Broglie–Bohm pilot-wave theory. It next treats contextuality, the measurement problem, and objective collapse models, before turning to decoherence and the frameworks of many-worlds and consistent histories. The authors' aim is not to crown a winner but to show that every prominent approach pays a price: the empirical success of quantum mechanics cannot be kept while simultaneously holding onto locality, realism, determinism, and full explanatory completeness. A decision-tree figure organizes the main forks so a reader with ordinary quantum training can see the structure of the problem space and use the paper as a springboard for further study.

What carries the argument

The decision-tree overview (Figure 1) that organizes the surveyed forks—epistemic vs ontic states, locality vs realism, collapse vs unitary evolution, decoherence-based accounts of classicality—and thereby structures the argument that every viable interpretation sacrifices at least one classical desideratum.

What would settle it

A clear, widely accepted interpretation that reproduces all quantum predictions while preserving locality, realism, determinism, and a complete account of definite outcomes without the trade-offs the paper treats as unavoidable—or an experimental result that decisively eliminates one major branch of the decision tree (for example a loophole-free confirmation or refutation of objective-collapse predictions in the mesoscopic regime).

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The empirical success of quantum mechanics, together with classic no-go results, forces unavoidable trade-offs among locality, realism, determinism, and explanatory completeness; the paper supplies a coherent introductory map (via a decision tree and a selective tour of postulates, no-go theorems, and leading interpretations) of how those interpretations answer what the theory tells us about physical reality.

Load-bearing premise

That a selective, non-exhaustive tour of the standard postulates, classic no-go theorems, and a short list of popular interpretations is enough to represent the structure of the foundations problem space without important omissions warping the map.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Readers can treat the decision tree as a checklist: any new interpretation must declare which classical desideratum it drops.
  • No-go results (PBR, Bell, Kochen–Specker/Hardy-style contextuality) remain the binding constraints that any completion or reinterpretation must respect.
  • Decoherence is positioned as a shared technical ingredient that many-worlds and consistent histories use differently to address definite outcomes.
  • Objective collapse models remain the only surveyed approaches that make the measurement problem empirically testable by modifying the dynamics.
  • The survey frames foundational progress as clarifying jointly untenable assumption packages rather than declaring a single correct ontology.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same decision-tree structure could be extended to less-discussed programs (relational, modal, retrocausal, information-theoretic reconstructions) to test whether the claimed trade-offs still hold.
  • Classroom or self-study use of the figure as a living map would let students place new experimental constraints (collapse bounds, loophole-free Bell tests) on specific branches as they appear.
  • The paper’s emphasis on trade-offs suggests that future work might usefully quantify ‘cost’ of each sacrifice (e.g., relativistic compatibility of Bohmian models vs empirical parameters of collapse models) rather than only listing them.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

0 major / 8 minor

Summary. This manuscript is a concise, physically grounded introductory survey of quantum foundations and interpretations. It begins from the standard Hilbert-space postulates, distinguishes older and newer Copenhagen views and QBism, then develops the PBR theorem, EPR, Bell/CHSH, Hardy’s paradox, and de Broglie–Bohm theory as probes of locality and realism. Contextuality (Peres–Mermin and a Hardy-like argument), the measurement problem, and objective collapse (GRW/CSL) follow, after which decoherence, many-worlds, and consistent histories are used to discuss the emergence of classicality. The central pedagogical claim, crystallized in the Abstract, Conclusion, and the decision-tree of Figure 1, is that the empirical success of quantum mechanics forces unavoidable trade-offs among locality, realism, determinism, and explanatory completeness, and that a selective map of prominent interpretations clarifies what the theory does and does not say about physical reality.

Significance. If accepted as an accurate entry-point review, the paper fills a useful niche: a contemporary, non-exhaustive but coherent conceptual guide for readers already trained in quantum physics who need orientation in foundations. Strengths include careful reproduction of standard textbook derivations (CHSH bound and singlet correlator, Hardy’s logical constraints with an explicit state, Peres–Mermin square, von Neumann measurement chain, reduced density matrix under environmental orthogonality, schematic GRW/CSL dynamics) and an explicit framing of trade-offs rather than advocacy for a single interpretation. The work does not claim new theorems or experimental results; its value is pedagogical and organizational. That is appropriate for a survey, provided the exposition remains accurate and the selectivity is clearly signaled—which the Introduction and Figure 1 caption already do.

minor comments (8)
  1. Figure 1 is described as a decision tree mirroring the paper’s structure, but the manuscript text does not fully expand every branch (e.g., some red ‘no-go’ boxes and blue interpretation boxes are only lightly annotated). A short caption expansion or one-sentence walk-through in §1 would make the figure self-contained for readers who use it as a map.
  2. §3.1 (PBR): the two-qubit entangled measurement basis is given only in a footnote. Moving the four |ξ_z angle states into the main text (or an equation) would improve readability without lengthening the argument.
  3. §4.2, Eq. (3) and surrounding text: the CHSH derivation is correct, but a brief explicit statement that the bound holds for any deterministic response functions A(a,λ), B(b,λ) ∈ {±1} (before averaging) would help readers who first meet the inequality here.
  4. §5.1 (Peres–Mermin square): the 3 imes3 array of two-qubit observables is clear, yet the claim that ‘the product of the observables in each row is +I’ etc. would be easier to verify if one row/column product were written out explicitly.
  5. §5.4: GRW/CSL dynamics are presented schematically; a single sentence noting that the quoted λ ≈ 10^{-16} s^{-1} is the conventional GRW value (and that experimental bounds constrain the CSL parameter space) would prevent readers from treating the number as derived rather than conventional.
  6. §6.3–6.4: the probability problem in many-worlds and the single-framework rule in consistent histories are mentioned accurately but briefly. One or two additional pointers to the decision-theoretic and self-locating-uncertainty literature (already partially cited) would better serve the ‘springboard’ aim stated in the Introduction.
  7. Minor typographical and formatting points: occasional missing spaces around operators, inconsistent use of ‘Schrödinger’ vs ‘Schr ¨odinger’, and a few long footnotes that could be shortened or moved to the main text for accessibility.
  8. References are extensive and appropriate; a handful of recent pedagogical or experimental reviews on loophole-free Bell tests and collapse-model bounds could be added if space permits, but this is optional.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: pedagogical survey restates external theorems and interpretations without self-justifying equations or load-bearing self-citations.

full rationale

The paper is an introductory review, not a derivation of new predictions. Its structure (postulates → Copenhagen/QBism → PBR → EPR/Bell/Hardy → de Broglie–Bohm → contextuality/KS → measurement problem → objective collapse → decoherence → many-worlds/consistent histories) simply recapitulates standard, externally sourced results with ordinary citations (Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen 1935, Bell 1964, Hardy 1993, Pusey–Barrett–Rudolph 2012, Kochen–Specker, Ghirardi–Rimini–Weber, Everett, Griffiths, etc.). No parameter is fitted to data and then re-presented as a prediction; no quantity is defined in terms of the target claim; the authors cite no prior work of their own that carries the load of any uniqueness or completeness claim; and the concluding trade-offs among locality, realism, determinism and explanatory completeness follow directly from the cited no-go theorems rather than from any self-referential construction. The Introduction and Fig. 1 caption already label the selection non-exhaustive, which is ordinary for a concise survey and does not create circularity. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained against external benchmarks and exhibits none of the enumerated circular patterns.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

As a review, the paper inherits the standard quantum postulates and the assumptions of the no-go theorems and interpretations it summarizes. It introduces no fitted constants and no new physical entities of its own; free parameters appear only when describing existing collapse models. The main modeling choice is which interpretations and results to include.

free parameters (1)
  • GRW collapse rate λ = ≈10^{-16} s^{-1}
    Quoted as the conventional GRW mean localization frequency when describing objective collapse models; not fitted by this paper.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Standard five operational postulates of quantum mechanics (Hilbert-space states, unitary Schrödinger evolution, Hermitian observables, Born rule, projection update).
    Section 2.1 takes these as the shared starting framework for all later interpretational discussion.
  • domain assumption Preparation independence for separately prepared systems in the PBR setting.
    Section 3.1 presents this as a key assumption used to rule out ψ-overlap models.
  • domain assumption Locality plus predetermined outcome values (local realism) as the target of Bell/CHSH and Hardy arguments.
    Sections 4.2-4.3 derive contradictions with quantum predictions under these assumptions.
  • domain assumption Noncontextual predetermined value assignments respecting functional relations among commuting observables.
    Section 5.1 uses this for the Kochen-Specker/Peres-Mermin contradiction.
  • domain assumption Quantum equilibrium p = |ψ|^2 as initial condition for de Broglie-Bohm statistical agreement with Born rule.
    Section 4.4 states this condition is typically assumed rather than derived.
  • ad hoc to paper Selective non-exhaustive coverage of popular interpretations is adequate for a coherent map of the problem space.
    Introduction and Fig. 1 explicitly mark the survey as non-exhaustive; this is a presentational axiom of the paper itself.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of An Introduction to the Foundations and Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/AOSCHFGY

@misc{pith2026260309818,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: An Introduction to the Foundations and Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/AOSCHFGY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2603.09818}
}
read the original abstract

This article surveys a selection of key conceptual and interpretational developments in quantum mechanics, tracing the theory from its foundational postulates to contemporary discussions of measurement, nonlocality, and the emergence of classicality. Beginning with the structure of Hilbert space and the postulates governing state evolution and measurement, the epistemic stance of the Copenhagen interpretation and its modern reformulations are examined. The Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen argument, Bell's theorem, and Hardy's paradox are then discussed as probes of locality and realism, alongside the deterministic but explicitly nonlocal de Broglie-Bohm theory. The measurement problem and the implications of contextuality are analyzed in relation to objective collapse models, which introduce new physical dynamics to account for definite outcomes. Finally, the role of decoherence in the suppression of interference and the emergence of classical behavior is explored, together with the interpretational frameworks of many-worlds and consistent histories. This material aims to provide a coherent introductory overview of how several of the most prominent interpretations address the central concern of what quantum mechanics tells us about the nature of physical reality.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

106 extracted references

  1. [1]

    J. S. Bell and A. Aspect,Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics: Collected Papers on Quantum Philosophy. Cambridge University Press, 2 ed., 2004

    2004

  2. [2]

    Survey of the interpretations of quantum mechanics,

    M. Bunge, “Survey of the interpretations of quantum mechanics,”Am. J. Phys., vol. 24, pp. 272–286, 04 1956

    1956

  3. [3]

    Four ways to interpret quantum mechan- ics

    C. Rovelli, “Four ways to interpret quantum mechan- ics.” Online article, July 2025. CERN Courier

    2025

  4. [4]

    Interpretation of quantum mechanics

    S. R. D. French, “Interpretation of quantum mechanics.” EBSCO Research Starters: Science, 2022

    2022

  5. [5]

    The many interpretations of quantum mechanics

    G. P. Collins, “The many interpretations of quantum mechanics.” Scientific American online, Nov. 2007

    2007

  6. [6]

    Norsen,Foundations of Quantum Mechanics: An Ex- ploration of the Physical Meaning of Quantum Theory

    T. Norsen,Foundations of Quantum Mechanics: An Ex- ploration of the Physical Meaning of Quantum Theory. Springer Cham, 2017

    2017

  7. [7]

    Adlam,Foundations of Quantum Mechanics

    E. Adlam,Foundations of Quantum Mechanics. Cam- bridge University Press, 2021

    2021

  8. [8]

    Foundations of quantum mechanics,

    S. Yasmineh, “Foundations of quantum mechanics,” Encyclopedia, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 1082–1090, 2022

    2022

Show all 106 references
  1. [9]

    Interpretations of quantum mechanics,

    P. Pickl, “Interpretations of quantum mechanics,”EPJ Web Conf., vol. 71, no. 00110, 2014

    2014

  2. [10]

    Interpretation of quantum mechanics,

    S. Sabathiel, “Interpretation of quantum mechanics,” diploma thesis (institut f ¨ur physik), Karl-Franzens- Universit¨at Graz, Nov. 2014. 11

    2014

  3. [11]

    Kok,The Nature of Reality, pp

    P. Kok,The Nature of Reality, pp. 249–275. Cham: Springer, 2023

    2023

  4. [12]

    Davies and J

    P. Davies and J. Brown,The ghost in the atom. Cam- bridge University Press., 1986

    1986

  5. [13]

    Lecture notes: Foundations of quan- tum mechanics

    M. S. Leifer, “Lecture notes: Foundations of quan- tum mechanics.” Solstice of Foundations 2019 work- shop lecture notes, 2019

    2019

  6. [14]

    Interpretation of quantum theory - an overview,

    D. Lazarou, “Interpretation of quantum theory - an overview,” 2009

    2009

  7. [15]

    Foundations of quantum mechanics

    H. Osborn, “Foundations of quantum mechanics.” Lec- ture notes (DAMTP, University of Cambridge), 1997

    1997

  8. [16]

    Lecture notes on foundations of quantum mechanics

    R. Tumulka, “Lecture notes on foundations of quantum mechanics.” Eberhard-Karls University, 2017

    2017

  9. [17]

    Foundations and interpretations of quan- tum mechanics

    C. Johnson, “Foundations and interpretations of quan- tum mechanics.” Senior Honors Thesis, Colby College, 2008

    2008

  10. [18]

    Dirac,The Principles of Quantum Mechanics

    P. Dirac,The Principles of Quantum Mechanics. Ox- ford: Clarendon Press, 1930

    1930

  11. [19]

    Pade,Postulates of Quantum Mechanics, pp

    J. Pade,Postulates of Quantum Mechanics, pp. 187–

  12. [20]

    Cham: Springer, 2018

    2018

  13. [21]

    Can quantum- mechanical description of physical reality be consid- ered complete?,

    A. Einstein, B. Podolsky, and N. Rosen, “Can quantum- mechanical description of physical reality be consid- ered complete?,”Phys. Rev., vol. 47, pp. 777–780, May 1935

    1935

  14. [22]

    On the einstein podolsky rosen paradox,

    J. S. Bell, “On the einstein podolsky rosen paradox,” Phys. Phys. Fiz., vol. 1, pp. 195–200, Nov 1964

    1964

  15. [23]

    Quantisierung als eigenwertproblem,

    E. Schr ¨odinger, “Quantisierung als eigenwertproblem,” Ann. Phys., vol. 384, no. 4, pp. 361–376, 1926

    1926

  16. [24]

    D. J. Griffiths and D. F. Schroeter,Introduction to Quantum Mechanics. Cambridge University Press, 3 ed., 2018

    2018

  17. [25]

    Quantenmechanik der stoßvorg ¨ange,

    M. Born, “Quantenmechanik der stoßvorg ¨ange,”Z. Phys., vol. 38, no. 11, pp. 803–827, 1926

    1926

  18. [26]

    N. P. Landsman,Born Rule and its Interpretation, pp. 64–70. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer, 2009

    2009

  19. [27]

    Der experimentelle nachweis der richtungsquantelung im magnetfeld,

    W. Gerlach and O. Stern, “Der experimentelle nachweis der richtungsquantelung im magnetfeld,”Zeitschrift f ¨ur Physik, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 349–352, 1922

    1922

  20. [28]

    Einstein, incom- pleteness, and the epistemic view of quantum states,

    N. Harrigan and R. W. Spekkens, “Einstein, incom- pleteness, and the epistemic view of quantum states,” Found. Phys., vol. 40, no. 2, pp. 125–157, 2010

    2010

  21. [29]

    On the reality of the quantum state,

    M. F. Pusey, J. Barrett, and T. Rudolph, “On the reality of the quantum state,”Nat. Phys., vol. 8, no. 6, pp. 475– 478, 2012

    2012

  22. [30]

    The quantum postulate and the recent devel- opment of atomic theory1,

    N. Bohr, “The quantum postulate and the recent devel- opment of atomic theory1,”Nature, vol. 121, no. 3050, pp. 580–590, 1928

    1928

  23. [31]

    Heisenberg,Physics and Philosophy: The Revolu- tion in Modern Science, vol

    W. Heisenberg,Physics and Philosophy: The Revolu- tion in Modern Science, vol. 19 ofWorld Perspectives. New York: Harper & Brothers, 1958

    1958

  24. [32]

    The philosophy of niels bohr,

    A. Petersen, “The philosophy of niels bohr,”Bull. At. Sci., vol. 19, no. 7, pp. 8–14, 1963

    1963

  25. [33]

    What’s wrong with this quantum world?,

    N. D. Mermin, “What’s wrong with this quantum world?,”Phys. Today, vol. 57, no. 2, pp. 10–12, 2004

    2004

  26. [34]

    Heisenberg,The Physical Principles of the Quantum Theory: Transl

    W. Heisenberg,The Physical Principles of the Quantum Theory: Transl. Into Engl. By Carl Eckart and Frank C. Hoyt. Chicago: Ill., The University of Chicago Press, 1930

    1930

  27. [35]

    Significance of complementarity in physics : Dialec- tica,

    “Significance of complementarity in physics : Dialec- tica,”Nature, vol. 163, no. 4142, pp. 435–435, 1949

    1949

  28. [36]

    ¨Uber den anschaulichen inhalt der quantentheoretischen kinematik und mechanik,

    W. Heisenberg, “ ¨Uber den anschaulichen inhalt der quantentheoretischen kinematik und mechanik,”Z. Phys., vol. 43, no. 3, pp. 172–198, 1927

    1927

  29. [37]

    ¨Uber die serienspektra der elemente,

    N. Bohr, “ ¨Uber die serienspektra der elemente,” Zeitschrift f¨ur Physik, vol. 2, no. 5, pp. 423–469, 1920

    1920

  30. [38]

    An intro- duction to qbism with an application to the locality of quantum mechanics,

    C. A. Fuchs, N. D. Mermin, and R. Schack, “An intro- duction to qbism with an application to the locality of quantum mechanics,”Am. J. Phys., vol. 82, pp. 749– 754, 08 2014

    2014

  31. [39]

    Commentary: Quantum mechanics: Fixing the shifty split,

    N. D. Mermin, “Commentary: Quantum mechanics: Fixing the shifty split,”Phys. Today, vol. 65, no. 7, pp. 8–10, 2012

    2012

  32. [40]

    Quantum-bayesian coher- ence,

    C. A. Fuchs and R. Schack, “Quantum-bayesian coher- ence,”Rev. Mod. Phys., vol. 85, pp. 1693–1715, Dec 2013

    2013

  33. [41]

    Quantum bayesianism: A study,

    C. G. Timpson, “Quantum bayesianism: A study,”Stud. Hist. Philos. Sci. A, vol. 39, no. 3, pp. 579–609, 2008

    2008

  34. [42]

    The two bell’s theorems of john bell,

    H. M. Wiseman, “The two bell’s theorems of john bell,” J. Phys. A., vol. 47, p. 424001, oct 2014

    2014

  35. [43]

    Maudlin,Quantum Non-Locality and Relativity

    T. Maudlin,Quantum Non-Locality and Relativity. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, 3rd ed., 2011

    2011

  36. [44]

    Experimental re- alization of einstein-podolsky-rosen-bohm gedankenex- periment: A new violation of bell’s inequalities,

    A. Aspect, P. Grangier, and G. Roger, “Experimental re- alization of einstein-podolsky-rosen-bohm gedankenex- periment: A new violation of bell’s inequalities,”Phys. Rev. Lett., vol. 49, pp. 91–94, Jul 1982

    1982

  37. [45]

    Proposed experiment to test local hidden-variable the- ories,

    J. F. Clauser, M. A. Horne, A. Shimony, and R. A. Holt, “Proposed experiment to test local hidden-variable the- ories,”Phys. Rev. Lett., vol. 23, no. 15, p. 880, 1969

    1969

  38. [46]

    Loophole-free bell inequality violation using electron spins separated by 1.3 kilometres,

    B. Hensen, H. Bernien, A. E. Dr ´eau, A. Reiserer, N. Kalb, M. S. Blok, J. Ruitenberg, R. F. L. Vermeulen, R. N. Schouten, C. Abell ´an, W. Amaya, V . Pruneri, M. W. Mitchell, M. Markham, D. J. Twitchen, D. Elk- ouss, S. Wehner, T. H. Taminiau, and R. Hanson, “Loophole-free be...

    2015

  39. [47]

    Strong loophole-free test of local realism,

    L. K. Shalm, E. Meyer-Scott, B. G. Christensen, P. Bier- horst, M. A. Wayne, M. J. Stevens, T. Gerrits, S. Glancy, D. R. Hamel, M. S. Allman, K. J. Coakley, S. D. Dyer, C. Hodge, A. E. Lita, V . B. Verma, C. Lam- brocco, E. Tortorici, A. L. Migdall, Y . Zhang, D. R. Ku- mor, W...

    2015

  40. [48]

    Significant-loophole- free test of bell’s theorem with entangled photons,

    M. Giustina, M. A. M. Versteegh, S. Wengerowsky, J. Handsteiner, A. Hochrainer, K. Phelan, F. Steinlech- ner, J. Kofler, J.-A. Larsson, C. Abell ´an, W. Amaya, V . Pruneri, M. W. Mitchell, J. Beyer, T. Gerrits, A. E. Lita, L. K. Shalm, S. W. Nam, T. Scheidl, R. Ursin, B. Wittm...

    2015

  41. [49]

    Nonlocality for two particles without in- equalities for almost all entangled states,

    L. Hardy, “Nonlocality for two particles without in- equalities for almost all entangled states,”Phys. Rev. Lett., vol. 71, pp. 1665–1668, Sep 1993

    1993

  42. [50]

    La m ´ecanique ondulatoire et la structure atomique de la mati`ere et du rayonnement,

    L. de Broglie, “La m ´ecanique ondulatoire et la structure atomique de la mati`ere et du rayonnement,”J. Phys. Ra- dium, vol. 8, pp. 225–241, May 1927

    1927

  43. [51]

    A suggested interpretation of the quantum theory in terms of

    D. Bohm, “A suggested interpretation of the quantum theory in terms of ”hidden” variables. i,”Phys. Rev., vol. 85, pp. 166–179, Jan 1952

    1952

  44. [52]

    A suggested interpretation of the quantum theory in terms of

    D. Bohm, “A suggested interpretation of the quantum theory in terms of ”hidden” variables. ii,”Phys. Rev., vol. 85, pp. 180–193, Jan 1952

    1952

  45. [53]

    On the impossible pilot wave,

    J. S. Bell, “On the impossible pilot wave,”Found. Phys., vol. 12, no. 10, pp. 989–999, 1982

    1982

  46. [54]

    P. R. Holland,The Quantum Theory of Motion: An Account of the de Broglie-Bohm Causal Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. Cambridge University Press, 1993

    1993

  47. [55]

    Quantum theory without observers—part two,

    S. Goldstein, “Quantum theory without observers—part two,”Phys. Today, vol. 51, no. 4, pp. 38–42, 1998

    1998

  48. [56]

    Non- locality, lorentz invariance, and bohmian quantum the- ory,

    K. Berndl, D. D ¨urr, S. Goldstein, and N. Zangh`ı, “Non- locality, lorentz invariance, and bohmian quantum the- ory,”Phys. Rev. A, vol. 53, pp. 2062–2073, Apr 1996

  49. [57]

    Can bohmian mechanics be made relativis- tic?,

    D. D ¨urr, S. Goldstein, T. Norsen, W. Struyve, and N. Zangh`ı, “Can bohmian mechanics be made relativis- tic?,”Proc. R. Soc. A., vol. 470, p. 20130699, 02 2014

    2014

  50. [58]

    Hypersurface bohm-dirac models,

    D. D ¨urr, S. Goldstein, K. M ¨unch-Berndl, and N. Zangh`ı, “Hypersurface bohm-dirac models,”Phys. Rev. A, vol. 60, pp. 2729–2736, Oct 1999

    1999

  51. [59]

    Beables for quantum field theory,

    J. S. Bell, “Beables for quantum field theory,” inQuan- tum Implications: Essays in Honour of David Bohm (B. J. Hiley and D. Peat, eds.), pp. 227–234, Methuen, 1987

    1987

  52. [60]

    Probabilities and certainties within a causally symmetric model,

    R. I. Sutherland, “Probabilities and certainties within a causally symmetric model,”Found. Phys., vol. 52, no. 4, p. 75, 2022

    2022

  53. [61]

    The problem of hid- den variables in quantum mechanics,

    S. Kochen and E. P. Specker, “The problem of hid- den variables in quantum mechanics,”J. Math. Mech., vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 59–87, 1967

    1967

  54. [62]

    Incompatible results of quantum measure- ments,

    A. Peres, “Incompatible results of quantum measure- ments,”Phys. Lett. A, vol. 151, no. 3, pp. 107–108, 1990

    1990

  55. [63]

    Simple unified form for the major no- hidden-variables theorems,

    N. D. Mermin, “Simple unified form for the major no- hidden-variables theorems,”Phys. Rev. Lett., vol. 65, pp. 3373–3376, Dec 1990

    1990

  56. [64]

    Hidden variables and the two theorems of john bell,

    N. D. Mermin, “Hidden variables and the two theorems of john bell,”Rev. Mod. Phys., vol. 65, pp. 803–815, Jul 1993

    1993

  57. [65]

    Simple hardy-like proof of quantum contextuality,

    A. Cabello, P. Badzia ¸ g, M. Terra Cunha, and M. Bourennane, “Simple hardy-like proof of quantum contextuality,”Phys. Rev. Lett., vol. 111, p. 180404, Oct 2013

    2013

  58. [66]

    von Neumann,Mathematical Foundations of Quan- tum Mechanics

    J. von Neumann,Mathematical Foundations of Quan- tum Mechanics. Princeton University Press, new edi- tion ed., 2018

    2018

  59. [67]

    Schlosshauer,Decoherence

    M. Schlosshauer,Decoherence. The Frontiers Collec- tion, Springer, 2007

    2007

  60. [68]

    Three measurement problems,

    T. Maudlin, “Three measurement problems,”Topoi, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 7–15, 1995

    1995

  61. [69]

    Die gegenw ¨artige situation in der quantenmechanik,

    E. Schr ¨odinger, “Die gegenw ¨artige situation in der quantenmechanik,”Naturwissenschaften, vol. 23, no. 48, pp. 807–812, 1935

    1935

  62. [70]

    Gao,Collapse of the Wave Function: Models, Ontol- ogy, Origin, and Implications

    S. Gao,Collapse of the Wave Function: Models, Ontol- ogy, Origin, and Implications. Cambridge University Press, 2018

    2018

  63. [71]

    Collapse mod- els: A theoretical, experimental and philosophical re- view,

    A. Bassi, M. Dorato, and H. Ulbricht, “Collapse mod- els: A theoretical, experimental and philosophical re- view,”Entropy, vol. 25, no. 4, 2023

    2023

  64. [72]

    Dynamical reduction mod- els,

    A. Bassi and G. Ghirardi, “Dynamical reduction mod- els,”Phys. Rep., vol. 379, no. 5, pp. 257–426, 2003

    2003

  65. [73]

    Models of wave-function collapse, underly- ing theories, and experimental tests,

    A. Bassi, K. Lochan, S. Satin, T. P. Singh, and H. Ul- bricht, “Models of wave-function collapse, underly- ing theories, and experimental tests,”Rev. Mod. Phys., vol. 85, pp. 471–527, Apr 2013

    2013

  66. [74]

    Unified dynamics for microscopic and macroscopic systems,

    G. C. Ghirardi, A. Rimini, and T. Weber, “Unified dynamics for microscopic and macroscopic systems,” Phys. Rev. D, vol. 34, pp. 470–491, Jul 1986

    1986

  67. [75]

    Markov pro- cesses in hilbert space and continuous spontaneous lo- calization of systems of identical particles,

    G. C. Ghirardi, P. Pearle, and A. Rimini, “Markov pro- cesses in hilbert space and continuous spontaneous lo- calization of systems of identical particles,”Phys. Rev. A, vol. 42, pp. 78–89, Jul 1990

    1990

  68. [76]

    Lisa pathfinder appreciably constrains col- lapse models,

    B. Helou, B. J. J. Slagmolen, D. E. McClelland, and Y . Chen, “Lisa pathfinder appreciably constrains col- lapse models,”Phys. Rev. D, vol. 95, p. 084054, Apr 2017

    2017

  69. [77]

    Improved noninterferometric test of collapse models using ultracold cantilevers,

    A. Vinante, R. Mezzena, P. Falferi, M. Carlesso, and A. Bassi, “Improved noninterferometric test of collapse models using ultracold cantilevers,”Phys. Rev. Lett., vol. 119, p. 110401, Sep 2017

    2017

  70. [78]

    Mass-coupled relativistic spontaneous collapse models,

    C. Jones, G. Gasbarri, and A. Bassi, “Mass-coupled relativistic spontaneous collapse models,”J. Phys. A., vol. 54, p. 295306, jun 2021. 13

    2021

  71. [79]

    The emergence of classical properties through interaction with the environment,

    E. Joos and H. D. Zeh, “The emergence of classical properties through interaction with the environment,” Zeitschrift f ¨ur Physik B: Condensed Matter, vol. 59, no. 2, pp. 223–243, 1985

    1985

  72. [80]

    Decoherence, the measurement problem, and interpretations of quantum mechanics,

    M. Schlosshauer, “Decoherence, the measurement problem, and interpretations of quantum mechanics,” Rev. Mod. Phys., vol. 76, pp. 1267–1305, Feb 2005

    2005

  73. [81]

    Wahrscheinlichkeitstheoretischer aufbau der quantenmechanik,

    J. von Neumann, “Wahrscheinlichkeitstheoretischer aufbau der quantenmechanik,”Nachr. Ges. Wiss. G¨ottingen, Math.-Phys. Kl., pp. 245–272, 1927

    1927

  74. [82]

    von Neumann,Mathematical Foundations of Quan- tum Mechanics

    J. von Neumann,Mathematical Foundations of Quan- tum Mechanics. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1955

    1955

  75. [83]

    M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang,Quantum Computa- tion and Quantum Information. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000

    2000

  76. [84]

    Breuer and F

    H.-P. Breuer and F. Petruccione,The Theory of Open Quantum Systems. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002

    2002

  77. [85]

    Deco- herence, einselection and the existential interpretation (the rough guide),

    A. Ekert, R. Jozsa, R. Penrose, and W. H. Zurek, “Deco- herence, einselection and the existential interpretation (the rough guide),”Philos. Trans. R. Soc. A, vol. 356, pp. 1793–1821, 08 1998

    1998

  78. [86]

    Environment-induced superselection rules,

    W. H. Zurek, “Environment-induced superselection rules,”Phys. Rev. D, vol. 26, pp. 1862–1880, Oct 1982

    1982

  79. [87]

    Deco- herence from spin environments,

    F. M. Cucchietti, J. P. Paz, and W. H. Zurek, “Deco- herence from spin environments,”Phys. Rev. A, vol. 72, p. 052113, Nov 2005

    2005

  80. [88]

    Decoherence, einselection, and the quan- tum origins of the classical,

    W. H. Zurek, “Decoherence, einselection, and the quan- tum origins of the classical,”Rev. Mod. Phys., vol. 75, pp. 715–775, May 2003

    2003

  81. [89]

    Quantum darwinism,

    W. H. Zurek, “Quantum darwinism,”Nature Physics, vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 181–188, 2009

    2009

  82. [90]

    ”relative state

    H. Everett, “”relative state” formulation of quantum mechanics,”Rev. Mod. Phys., vol. 29, pp. 454–462, Jul 1957

    1957

  83. [91]

    Against many-worlds interpretations,

    A. Kent, “Against many-worlds interpretations,”Int. J. Mod. Phys. A, vol. 05, no. 09, pp. 1745–1762, 1990

    1990

  84. [92]

    Probability in the everett interpretation,

    H. Greaves, “Probability in the everett interpretation,” Philos. Compass, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 109–128, 2007

    2007

  85. [93]

    Probability in the everett picture,

    D. Albert, “Probability in the everett picture,” inMany Worlds?: Everett, Quantum Theory & Reality(S. Saun- ders, J. Barrett, A. Kent, and D. Wallace, eds.), Oxford University Press UK, 2010

    2010

  86. [94]

    Quantum theory of probability and deci- sions,

    D. Deutsch, “Quantum theory of probability and deci- sions,”Proc. R. Soc. A., vol. 455, pp. 3129–3137, 08 1999

    1999

  87. [95]

    Quantum probability from subjective like- lihood: Improving on deutsch’s proof of the probabil- ity rule,

    D. Wallace, “Quantum probability from subjective like- lihood: Improving on deutsch’s proof of the probabil- ity rule,”Stud. Hist. Phil. Mod. Phys. B, vol. 38, no. 2, pp. 311–332, 2007. Probabilities in quantum mechan- ics

    2007

  88. [96]

    Wallace,The Emergent Multiverse: Quantum Theory According to the Everett Interpretation

    D. Wallace,The Emergent Multiverse: Quantum Theory According to the Everett Interpretation. Oxford, GB: Oxford University Press, 2012

    2012

  89. [97]

    Quantum jumps, born’s rule, and objective reality,

    W. Hubert Zurek, “Quantum jumps, born’s rule, and objective reality,” inMany Worlds?: Everett, Quantum Theory, and Reality, Oxford University Press, 06 2010

    2010

  90. [98]

    Branching and uncer- tainty,

    S. Saunders and D. Wallace, “Branching and uncer- tainty,”Br. J. Philos. Sci., vol. 59, 09 2008

    2008

  91. [99]

    Self-locating uncer- tainty and the origin of probability in everettian quan- tum mechanics,

    C. T. Sebens and S. M. Carroll, “Self-locating uncer- tainty and the origin of probability in everettian quan- tum mechanics,”Br. J. Philos. Sci., vol. 69, no. 1, pp. 25–74, 2018

    2018

  92. [100]

    Understanding deutsch’s probability in a deterministic multiverse,

    H. Greaves, “Understanding deutsch’s probability in a deterministic multiverse,”Stud. Hist. Philos. Sci. A, vol. 35, no. 3, pp. 423–456, 2004

    2004

  93. [101]

    Consistent histories and the interpre- tation of quantum mechanics,

    R. B. Griffiths, “Consistent histories and the interpre- tation of quantum mechanics,”J. Stat. Phys., vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 219–272, 1984

    1984

  94. [102]

    Logical reformulation of quantum me- chanics. i. foundations,

    R. Omn `es, “Logical reformulation of quantum me- chanics. i. foundations,”J. Stat. Phys., vol. 53, no. 3, pp. 893–932, 1988

    1988

  95. [103]

    Classical equations for quantum systems,

    M. Gell-Mann and J. B. Hartle, “Classical equations for quantum systems,”Phys. Rev. D, vol. 47, pp. 3345– 3382, Apr 1993

    1993

  96. [104]

    Quantum mechanics in the light of quantum cosmology,

    M. Gell-Mann and J. B. Hartle, “Quantum mechanics in the light of quantum cosmology,” inComplexity, En- tropy, and the Physics of Information(W. H. Zurek, ed.), pp. 425–458, Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1990

    1990

  97. [105]

    Quantum theory without observers,

    S. Goldstein, “Quantum theory without observers,” Phys. Today, vol. 51, no. 3, pp. 42–46, 1998

    1998

  98. [106]

    Present status and future challenges of non-interferometric tests of collapse mod- els,

    M. Carlesso, S. Donadi, L. Ferialdi, M. Paternostro, H. Ulbricht, and A. Bassi, “Present status and future challenges of non-interferometric tests of collapse mod- els,”Nat. Phys., vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 243–250, 2022. 14

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed July 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.