Proceedings

EPJ H Highlight - Were Bohr and von Neumann really in conflict over quantum measurements?

alt
Niels Bohr and John von Neumann

Analysis suggests that the two pioneers of quantum mechanics may have had more similar views than previously thought regarding the nature of quantum systems, and the classical apparatus used to measure them.

In the early years of quantum theory, two foundational thinkers developed independent ideas about how measurements of quantum systems should be interpreted. While Niels Bohr suggested that these measurements require a clear distinction between the quantum system being measured and the classical apparatus performing the measurement, John von Neumann argued that quantum mechanics should apply to everything, including the measurement apparatus.

Since these interpretations emerged, quantum theorists have widely viewed them as being in conflict with each other. Yet through new analysis published in EPJ H: Historical Perspectives on Contemporary Physics, Federico Laudisa at the University of Trento suggests that Bohr and von Neumann’s views are far closer than currently thought.

The concept of measurement is central in Bohr’s interpretation of quantum mechanics, especially in its description of interactions between quantum systems and classical measurement apparatus. Developed in the late 1920s, Bohr’s theories didn’t include a formal model of the measurement process, but did highlight a crucial need for classical concepts when describing quantum experiments.

This led to early debates on the relationship between the classical and quantum worlds, especially in the context of measurement. All the same, early textbooks didn’t explicitly address the idea that quantum laws should be applied to classical systems during measurements.

Later on in 1932, von Neumann provided a formal measurement model which suggested that quantum mechanics must indeed govern the properties of both the quantum system and the measurement apparatus. For many theorists, this interpretation appeared to be in direct conflict with Bohr’s theories.

In his paper, Laudisa questions whether Bohr would have actually disputed von Neumann’s interpretation after all. By examining his ideas more closely, he argues that Bohr’s views on classical concepts could have aligned more closely with von Neumann’s approach than theorists presently believe.

Based on this insight, Laudisa re-evaluated the similarities between the views of both researchers regarding the quantum measurement process. He now hopes that the insights gathered from this analysis could contribute to a more accurate history of the measurement process in quantum mechanics.

This was our first experience of publishing with EPJ Web of Conferences. We contacted the publisher in the middle of September, just one month prior to the Conference, but everything went through smoothly. We have had published MNPS Proceedings with different publishers in the past, and would like to tell that the EPJ Web of Conferences team was probably the best, very quick, helpful and interactive. Typically, we were getting responses from EPJ Web of Conferences team within less than an hour and have had help at every production stage.
We are very thankful to Solange Guenot, Web of Conferences Publishing Editor, and Isabelle Houlbert, Web of Conferences Production Editor, for their support. These ladies are top-level professionals, who made a great contribution to the success of this issue. We are fully satisfied with the publication of the Conference Proceedings and are looking forward to further cooperation. The publication was very fast, easy and of high quality. My colleagues and I strongly recommend EPJ Web of Conferences to anyone, who is interested in quick high-quality publication of conference proceedings.

On behalf of the Organizing and Program Committees and Editorial Team of MNPS-2019, Dr. Alexey B. Nadykto, Moscow State Technological University “STANKIN”, Moscow, Russia. EPJ Web of Conferences vol. 224 (2019)

ISSN: 2100-014X (Electronic Edition)

© EDP Sciences