Purchasing new hardware? Read our latest product comparisons

So you think YOU'RE confused about quantum mechanics?


March 21, 2013

Quantum physicists appear to be as confused about quantum mechanics as the average man in the street (Image: Shutterstock)

Quantum physicists appear to be as confused about quantum mechanics as the average man in the street (Image: Shutterstock)

Image Gallery (4 images)

An invitation-only conference held back in 2011 on the topic "Quantum Physics and the Nature of Reality" (QPNR) saw top physicists, mathematicians, and philosophers of science specializing in the meaning and interpretation of quantum mechanics wrangling over an array of fundamental issues. An interesting aspect of the gathering was that when informally polled on the main issues and open problems in the foundations of quantum mechanics, the results showed that the scientific community still has no clear consensus concerning the basic nature of quantum physics.

Quantum mechanics (QM), together with its extensions into quantum electrodynamics and quantum field theory, is our most successful scientific theory, with many results agreeing to better than a part in a billion with experiment. However, at its roots QM is ghost-like – when you try to pin down just what it means, it tends to slip between the fingers. It is full of apparent paradoxes, incompatible dualities, and "spooky actions." Simply put, although QM works amazingly well, why and how it works remains elusive.

While it's unlikely that many physicists lose much sleep over the meaning of quantum mechanics, the advent of quantum information physics (quantum cryptography, quantum computing, etc.) has directly confronted them with many fundamental questions about QM. Quantum mechanics works regardless of interpretation, but our intuition seems to be very weak when applied to situations that bring out the stranger aspects of QM. As a result, the amount of effort applied to clarifying the foundations of QM has increased considerably over the past three decades.

What, then, does the QPNR poll tell us about the state of our knowledge of quantum mechanics? While it is impractical to poke into every nook and cranny of the poll, the answers to a few of the questions merit our attention. (Note that people were allowed to vote for more than one answer, so the percentages in the source sometimes do not add up to 100 percent. I have taken the liberty of normalizing the results so they do equal 100 percent, and in some cases I have simplified the issues to more clearly state the options.)

Introduction to QM

We'll start with a QPNR poll question about the quantum measurement problem, as this will provide the opportunity to introduce some of the main concepts in QM.

In QM, the wavefunction of an object describes all measurable properties of that object. It is a complete description of what is called the quantum state of that object. The wavefunction is governed by the Schrödinger equation, which tells the wavefunction how to change in response to external conditions.

The mathematical details are not important right now, save for one – the Schrödinger equation is a linear equation. If you add together several different solutions to a linear equation, that sum is also a solution. This is called the principle of superposition, and is not a physical result, but rather a property of the basic mathematical structure of QM. The implication is that there exist a class of wavefunctions, called quantum superpositions, which simultaneously describe multiple quantum states of an object.

Let's put an object into a superposition, measure it, and see what results are found according to standard quantum mechanics. Begin with a red QM ball and a green QM ball that are otherwise identical. Set them each rotating with two quanta (one quantum is considered half a unit) of angular momentum (which we will call spin) so that the red ball has its spin up, while the blue ball has its spin down. The quantum state of the two balls before they interact is red-up + blue-down. If you measure the spin of the two balls, you will find the red ball always has a spin of +1, and the blue ball always has a spin of -1, making the total spin of the pair equal to zero. This is important because the total spin of a system is constant in QM.

Now knock the balls together. If their surfaces have some property analogous to friction, the two balls can pass spin from one to the other. The most likely results are no change (red-up + blue-down, which we'll call [1 -1]); spin exchange (red-down + blue-up, or [-1 1]); and spin cancellation (red-0 + blue-0, or [0 0]). As any of the three can happen, before either of the balls are measured they are in a state of entangled superposition. Their quantum state after colliding and before measuring is [1 -1] + [-1 1] + [0 0].

[For the quantum skeptics: If we measure the spin of the red and blue balls along different directions, Bell's theorem tells us that the correlations between the measurement results will be stronger than is possible for classical or predetermined systems. This theoretical result is also what is observed experimentally, providing experimental evidence that the spins of the balls following the collision have no definite value until they are measured.]

After the collision, measure the spin of the red ball. If you measure a spin of 1, the quantum state of the two balls after the measurement is the [1 -1] state – the other two superposed states have vanished, as they are not consistent with the measurement. Similarly, if the measurement is -1 or zero, after those measurements the quantum state of the two balls is [-1 1] and [0 0], respectively. Any states inconsistent with the measurement result disappear, even though those states existed in the original superposition.

The quantum measurement problem

So what happens if we decide to really believe quantum mechanics? Quantum mechanics is supposed to describe all measurable phenomena, after all. The instrument that measures spin is a rather complex quantum system, and the person operating it is a more complex quantum system. If I can get three different results out of a spin measurement, why don't I go into a superposition of having measured each of the three possible results?

As far as we know, no human has ever noticed being in a superposed state – even though we don't really know what that would feel like. The result of a measurement such as that described above is, in our experience, a single definite number.

To make QM treat observers as our experience suggests, standard QM assumes that measuring devices and observers are classical in their behavior. No superpositions of classical measuring devices and observers can exist, so measurements give a single unambiguous answer, just as we expect. This was originally thought to be a reasonable assumption, but has caused many arguments and sleepless nights among quantum physicists.

The problem is that there is every reason to believe that measuring devices and observers are not truly classical in behavior. Rather, their QM wavefunction combined with the Schrödinger equation provides a complete description of the possible behaviors of the object.

The nonclassical behavior of large measuring devices has been proven within standard QM by the insolubility theorem. If the structure of QM does hold for all systems, then at the end of a measurement process the observer, the measuring apparatus, and the object being measured exist in a quantum superposition of all states consistent with the wavefunction of the object being measured.

Given this, the quantum measurement problem can be summarized thusly: Why do measurements taken by complex, large-scale quantum devices (including ourselves) appear to have a single, definite result? If some aspect of QM interactions does cause the measurement process to narrow to a specific result, what is it? Does it exist within properties of quantum systems having many degrees of freedom, or does QM need to be extended?

  • The original notions of collapsing wavefunctions and classical observers were an attempt to answer this question, but the insolubility theorem shows this is inadequate for the purpose.
  • Some have proposed that the Schrödinger equation should be altered to include some nonlinear terms that will produce pure states under measurement. These attempts have their own problems, primarily because standard quantum mechanics works so well – it is difficult to change its fundamental equation without spoiling the good parts.
  • In Everett-type many-worlds theories, carrying out a measurement with multiple results causes the formation of a set of alternate universes – one for each possible result. This avoids the measurement problem – the observer splits with the measuring device, and so doesn't notice the multiplicity. But you have to be able to believe that bouncing a photon off an atom creates new universes...
  • Decoherence, which results from the interaction of a quantum system with its surroundings, can render the superposed states of the wavefunction incapable of interfering with each other, at which point their probabilities become independent. Some believe this takes the place of wavefunction collapse, but others believe it has no bearing at all on the measurement problem, as all that is accomplished is to make a superposition with the entangled environment.

So what did the QPNR poll say about the quantum measurement problem?

  • Pseudoproblem (will go away with additional work) – 20%
  • Solution through decoherence – 11%
  • Solution in some other manner – 30%
  • Seriously threatens QM – 18%
  • None of the above – 20%

These results are nearly indistinguishable from random choices.

Schrödinger's cat and macroscopic superpositions

The plight of Schrödinger's Cat is known to many readers. A cat, a conscious, complex quantum system, is placed in a box. Also in the box is a radiation-triggered hammer positioned to smash a glass bottle containing cyanide when radiation is detected. Finally, a very weak radiation source that on average emits one particle per hour is placed in the box, and the box is soundproof, opaque, and sealed. You are sitting outside the box. An hour later, is the cat dead, alive, neither, or both?

The structure of the experiment amplifies an issue accurately described by QM (has a particular radioactive atom decayed?) into what appears to be a classical issue (is the cat alive or dead?). We want to see at what step in the experiment the result stops being quantum mechanical and becomes a definite classical yes or no.

One direction of argument holds that until the box is opened, that cat is in a quantum superposition of dead cat and live cat. On the other hand, if the cat qualifies as an observer, it at least knows if it is alive. (In order for the cat to know it is dead depends on the physical existence of an afterlife – not a standard assumption in QM.) Discussions can become heated, as there are many possible answers.

In the many-worlds theories, the fate of the cat is a bit different. When the box is opened, the universe splits into two – one containing a live cat, the other containing a dead cat.

Schrödinger's Cat led to a specific quantum mechanics question on the QPNR poll: Are superpositions of macroscopically distinct states (such as a dead/alive cat) possible in principle, possible in a laboratory, or impossible in principle?

  • Macroscopic superpositions are possible in principle – 55%
  • Macroscopic superpositions can be formed in a lab – 30%
  • Macroscopic superpositions are impossible in principle – 15%
  • This issue is significant, as it can be tested experimentally.

    The largest system that has been successfully put into quantum superposition is a quantum microphone weighing about a nanogram (ten trillion atoms) with a volume around 450 cubic microns. This isn't very large, but is far beyond sizes associated with the usual atomic and subatomic interactions which we usually associate with quantum mechanics. The rapid evolution of the field in creating quantum superpositions of larger and larger objects is probably part of the reason that the QPNR poll was rather positive about macroscopic superpositions. This will be a theme – if you can test an idea, consensus forms over time.

    Reality or description?

    One issue at the foundations of QM involves the physical reality of quantum states. The QPNR poll asked if quantum states only describe reality (are epistemic), or if quantum states are as real as an electric field whose strength can easily be measured (are ontic).
    • Epistemic – 27%
    • Ontic – 24%
    • Both – 33%
    • Purely statistical – 3%
    • Other – 13%

    The answers to this very crucial question are consistent with random responses – the collective confusion appears very large.

    Randomness in QM

    Another fundamental issue in quantum mechanics involves the randomness of individual quantum events, such as the decay of a radioactive atom. Quantum mechanics predicts behavior that is consistent with random decays having a characteristic half-life for a given decay mode. But is the decay process actually random, or does it just seem that way? The QPNR poll offers four options: Hidden determinism; only appears to be random; irreducible randomness; and randomness is a fundamental concept in nature.

    Hidden determinism is Einstein's view – there is a hidden clockwork underlying what we perceive as quantum reality. Phenomena are really classical and mechanistic, but we can't see that at present.

    The universe only appears to be random in Everett-like many-world interpretations, in which the perception of randomness is an artifact of finding yourself in only one of the new branches of the universe.

    The tricky part is deciding on the difference between irreducible randomness and randomness as a fundamental concept in nature. The meaning of the latter is particularly fuzzy. Roughly speaking, irreducible randomness describes a universe in which measured phenomena yield unpredictable results, while fundamental randomness describes a universe whose innermost workings are random. Fundamental randomness is not hidden determinism, saying rather that if there are sublevels of reality, they are also random.

    The QPNR answers are:

    • Hidden determinism – 0%
    • Apparent randomness – 7%
    • Irreducible randomness – 40%
    • Fundamental randomness – 53%

    The lack of support for hidden determinism is probably related to the many experimental tests of Bell's Theorem, which strongly suggest the inapplicability of hidden-variable theories to our universe.

    Apparent randomness received fewer than half the votes received by Everett-like interpretations, suggesting that not all Everett supporters agree that the randomness observed therein is apparent.

    Irreducible randomness received 40 percent of the votes, while fundamental randomness received 53 percent. It would appear that confusion between these two positions is not limited to your scribe, as all fundamentally random systems are also irreducibly random, but the voting went the other way.

    Science or personal prejudice?

    To sum up the state of the field of QM interpretations, one particular QPNR poll question is quite revealing. The question is simply: How much is the choice of interpretation a matter of personal philosophical prejudice?
    • A lot – 58%
    • A little – 27%
    • None at all – 15%

    Eighty-five percent of those polled believe that the choice of QM interpretation depends to some extent on one's personal philosophical leanings. More than any of the other questions and answers, this shows that the interpretation of quantum mechanics, at present, is not science, little as I like to admit it.

    A sign that a description of nature is not fundamental is when it provides little if any justification for working. However, this is also a sign of a new fundamental description of nature lacking the correct language to make clear how and why it works. Personally, I believe the key to answering Feynman's question "But how can it be like that?" is linguistic – we lack a viewpoint and language from which understanding can flow. But the question, entertaining as it is, is really beyond my pay grade.

    Sources: arXiv.com, Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics: a critical survey

    About the Author
    Brian Dodson From an early age Brian wanted to become a scientist. He did, earning a Ph.D. in physics and embarking on an R&D career which has recently broken the 40th anniversary. What he didn't expect was that along the way he would become a patent agent, a rocket scientist, a gourmet cook, a biotech entrepreneur, an opera tenor and a science writer. All articles by Brian Dodson

    "In Everett-type many-worlds theories ... you have to be able to believe that bouncing a photon off an atom creates new universes..."

    Not necessarily. You could trying taking a five dimensional view of the situation. We know from relativity that time is a fourth dimension as real as the space dimensions and connected up with them into a four dimensional whole. This refutes the view that only the present moment is real with the past vanishing into non-existence and the future not yet formed. In the relativistic view, all moments in time, past, present and future are equally real and it is an illusion that only the present is real. We can extend this idea to include a fifth dimension of alternative possibilities. They are not suddenly and mysteriously created. They have "always" existed.


    With respect to quantum randomness, that can be interpreted in the context of my previous comment presenting a five dimensional view of the Many Worlds idea.

    Think of reality as a solid five dimensional block of space-time plus a possibility dimension hosting the many worlds alternatives. Discrete observable events can be viewed as tiny particle-like dots embedded in this greater reality. Some of these can be linked by directed lines, from past to future, in the time dimension which represent causality. From the dot in the past we could draw many such lines fanning out through the fifth dimension to the alternative causality linked results. Lines might also be drawn sideways in the time dimension representing not causality but quantum entanglement, suggesting an underlying unity between causality and entanglement. Perhaps some other dots could exist without causal links into the past. These are events that are simply there. They happened for no particular reason. They still have to conform to fundamental physical principles, especially the conservation laws, but they are otherwise random. If such dots exist, then there is fundamental randomness but if not then not. The Many Worlds interpretation is, in this five dimensional view, agnostic on the question.


    Whenever quantum mechanics threatens to overwhelm me, I think of the philosophical quagmire surrounding the physical interpretation of the mathematical results and thank my lucky stars it's not examinable :)

    Jamie Sheerin

    I do believe most probably the select few who's opinion on QM that are being taken seriously. Simply have already put to many limits on what they deem accurate or inaccurate. For Example: Who's to say super position exactly has any true real science to the principles of QM....? Like seriously the understanding of QM can not be defined with such theory or experiments of a cat being dead and alive, or multiple beings of the same body in different dimensions. If one has yet to realize, QM is for certain much more simplified than all previous works of science. It's the Salt & Pepper. Not the Cake.

    Using simple logic as QM or QM thinking.. When I listen to these guys say there's a cat dead and alive etc etc... My Quantum instinct says, Super Position in QM is more like the ability to recycle a plastic bottle into a Plastic Plate... The possibilities for the plastic bottle to make up any and every other object that is defined of its unique atomic property's is Infinite. So to say in the ideas of QM... If I have a Plastic Bottle.. I also have a Plastic Plate, Pen, Clip or anything else that is formed out of the same nature in which my plastic Bottle is..

    QM truly defines such principles that one with a value of energy can become any and all property's of mass in the universe with the right ingredients of Energy.


    @Adam_Smith. Agree with your extra-dimensional interpretation in parameter space, but we ought to look at CONVERGENCE of events in 5-space as well as an annealing of the quantum phenomena that cause divergence. As larger quantum objects, the experimenters and their apparatus are possibly subject to interactions that cause the diverging Everett worlds to come together again, so we do not experience superposed states on the macro level. I propose no mechanism for this. Julian Barbour's work has great bearing on this issue. He sees a "probability fog" spread along the parameter points denoting the higher probabilities of some positions over others. The tiny quantum splits just vanish leaving us a perceptible and stable timeline.

    Ken Brody

    Lucky for us we didn't need to invent matter & this all was provided to us for our enjoyment. Because of humanities backward engineering of everything. I will keep to this perspective and respectively read this piece backwards.

    Flipider Comm

    waves or particles- fluid dynamics? where is the transition from laminar to turbulent with neutrinos?

    The bending of space near gravitational bodies is only detectable if you are outside the effected space and then does your mass affect/effect the measurements? If space is shorter(bent) relative to the assumed constant speed of light(so the math is solveable) -Is it still constant when it traverses a 'bent' path that appears linear to us?

    Why would you limit God to physics? (paraphrased very loosely....)

    tri-state analogies keep getting in the way- alive or dead? or? The proverbial cat for any variation on unified field theory would be where the density is such that the neutron,proton and electron are all one mass that doesn't have any motion at all- possibly why gamma ray burst emit from black holes as the mass is converted to energy(???)...


    QM is such a horribly abused term.

    It seems that every time I turn around that somebody is mis-using it to try to bring credibility to whatever pop foolishness that they are trying to pass off as "scientific".

    Typical example: "Since Quantum Science has proven that anything is possible as long as there are an infinite number of variables and we KNOW that the Universe is infinite- therefore,somewhere there is a world where Dorothy still lives in Oz!"

    Such people also use "reasoning" such as "Ancient Aliens had to exist- because if they didn't, then how did they build everything?"

    As I watch science,history and politics devolve into un-reality TV shows, I am losing interest over straw-man arguments of all sorts.

    I think far too much of that which is called "science" is really just "scientism" impersonating science.


    At my age I love to try to understand things like QM, it chases the cobwebs out of the corner of my brain and replaces them with baffle. I am encouraged to find that real scientists have difficulties also.

    Bob Spencer

    The word "consensus" has no place in science.


    I liked this article a lot. Very, very interesting to see how one's own views measure against professional physicists.

    Anne Ominous

    Congratulations, Brian. You've discovered that if they knew how it worked, they wouldn't call it research.

    Charlie Martin

    My take on physics is controversial. I don't think that particles exists. I think that the universe is somposed of close to infinite standing waves, where the end point of each wave is the core of the atom.

    Quantum mechanics might not be confusing at all. If you split the entire universe into the physical universe (energy) and infinite separate mental parallel universes (opposite energy), the wave collapse might be explainable as where all the universes meet. Thewaves collapse in the orbit of the electron. The photons transferring energy between these orbits of electrons is what we as observers perceive as reality.

    Otto Krog

    I found to my surprise that in a LinkedIn discussion of this poll Nobel laureate Gerard 't Hooft was weighing in.

    Brian should take some comfort that he comes firmly down on his side, but nevertheless the question is far from settled.



    I used to be troubled by the strangeness of QM. Now it seems ok. Maybe the fact that QM's results are so puzzling is a sign that it really is a fundamental theory! Maybe we should expect the very best science to be astonishing and difficult to believe.

    Newton's "action at a distance" was certainly hard to imagine, even hard to believe. His theory of gravity was never a local theory either, but in practice, it made some powerful predictions that almost always turned out to be right.


    @Ken Brody: Thanks for the tip. As I understand him, Julian Barbour disagrees with the four dimensional, (much less a five dimensional), block universe model. He would do away with a geometrical space-time structure and even events as such and maintain that only specific "now" relations between specific objects are real. Says he: "I aim to abstract away everything we cannot see (directly or indirectly) and simply keep this idea of many different things coexisting at once in a definite mutual relationship." I'll think about it but for now, that's a more radically positivist attitude than I can feel comfortable with.


    Won't it be wonderful if they get this right. We will finally be able to build a supercomputer to predict lotto results!


    Any chance of a second breakdown of those answers, removing whatever all those "personal prejudice=A Lot" people ?


    Clearly the thought system of each individual physicist started out in a superposition of belief states. By asking one of the questions, you were performing a measurement of that physicist's thought system. As expected, you always got a simple multiple-choice answer -- one of the belief eigenstates of that system. Thus, the physicists had no beliefs on this subject until you asked them, and the answers you received were fundamentally random.

    This also explains why (as I realized when taking my first quantum physics course at Berkeley) none of the professors and grad students understood the thing they were supposed to be teaching us for that course. It really surprised me at the time, because up to that point, those same physicists had displayed an impressive, unshakeable grasp of all the material, including special relativity, a theory which is not so easy to absorb.


    I just want to know what happened to the "Green" ball?


    To be honest I feel that QM is not a theory it is a phenomenon that exists, and is observable. The human brain i believe is not only capable of understanding this but lives around it everyday. I am not sure if this forum is suitable for my experiences of this phenomena. But if you meditate with focus and keep an aware perception in the present you can experience this phenomenon for yourself and begin to manipulate it. So I have little doubt that QM is not a theory but a fundamental truth that we as humans are only just opening our eyes too.

    Keep an open mind



    "The Single Electron Theory" of Eheeler and Feynman, comes to mind. Quantum Reality is non-paradoxical in a Simulated Universe/Multiverse Model, as proposed by Oxford Professor Nick Bostrom et al.. Now that Lockheed Martin intend to market the D-Wave Quiantum Computer, Gizmag may have a job catching up with startling new developments out of research facilities that deploy them.

    Alastair Carnegie

    The non-human aspects of QM may be proof that it´s something real, not just our invention!

    Alfred Max Hofbauer

    I am surprised at the fact that all of these "experts" are willing to turn their nose up at Einstein and say he is wrong!!! He simplified physics. His math was not convoluded and complicated it was simple and logical.

    QP was only created to validate data samples. There was never an entire population used to verify the validity of the samples that created the math. It didn't evolve from a point of certainty which is why it can't produce certainty in its results.

    Part of the problem now is that we do not have science students who have not been brainwashed with this quackery. Everything was going so well with Newton and Einstein. Why can't you all just take a step back forget QP exists and start again from that point without clouding the process by peaking at data. I think you may find the answers you are looking for.

    Scientists love QP because there is almost no way to be wrong as everything is possible however improbable it may be, in a math that does not work in absolutes. It allows them to obfiscate the truth and make them feal important because it is so complicated.

    My own personal view is that randomness is only the inability of the observer to see or understand the cause and effect. When we gain sophisticated enough equipment to be able to capture these events and prove how they come about I am sure it will be the most logical and reasonable answer that is the correct one and not the most illogical complicated one.

    Foxy The cat is dead. Can someone please come and take it away.


    foxy, thanks for your last line...


    The statistics tell me something important. Although there is no consensus, there are enough people out there who think that the party line (let's say Copenhagen) is wrong. If we accept quantum mechanics is complete, as Einstein said in 1927, "I think that means we will have to accept non-locality"


    To me there is no option. SInce non-locality defies a logical interpretation, then it cannot happen.

    That means that qm is incomplete. (I favour the statistical ensemble interpretation)

    Over the last 15 years I have seen more and more reluctance to accept non-locality. The quantum info people surge ahead, and I am not saying the experiments are wrong, just the interpretations.

    Entanglement is a property of Quantum mechanics, not of Nature.

    I think we should all be agnostic. Accept that qm fails to explain EPR data in a logical (non-weird) way, and keep our eyes, ears and minds open to something that will resolve it all.

    My guess is it will not be long: see my blog if you want: http://quantummechanics.mchmultimedia.com/

    Bryan Sanctuary

    Beam me up Scotty before I get superpositioned and have to walk!


    Randomness is an epistemological statement, not a metaphysical one, i.e., the concept applies to the state of our knowledge, not to external reality. When we use such a concept we are making a statement about our knowledge or lack of it. The "possible" is in our mind, as opposed to the actual. Without knowledge, we say the cat is dead or alive, but we should not confuse that with metaphysical fact that it must be one or the other, it can't be both at the same time. Those who claim otherwise, are implying that nothing is real until we know it, which is subjectivism. Our knowing does not change reality. It changes our mental experience. Our mental state does not determine reality.

    In an objective philosophy there can only be 2 options: A or non A. The 4 options are really 2: hidden determinism = apparent randomness and irreducible randomness=fundamental randomness.

    We can deduce for this that Einstein had an objective philosophy.

    Don Duncan
    Post a Comment

    Login with your Gizmag account:

    Related Articles
    Looking for something? Search our articles