CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 152Quantum Mechanics and ApplicationsQuantum Information and CryptographyPhilosophy and History of Science

On the Quantum Measurement Problem

Open access
Brukner, Časlav·2017·The Frontiers Collection
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-38987-5_5
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/978-3-319-38987-5_5

Cites

46 of 46 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Subjectivistic interpretations such as relational quantum mechanics, QBism, or the approach in ref. 9 are examples of theories that satisfy (Q) and (S) and thus violate (C).

    “Another class of examples are subjectivistic interpretations, which regard statements about outcomes of measurements as personal to an agent, such as “relational quantum mechanics”38, “QBism”39,40, or the approach proposed in ref. 9”

    From Quantum theory cannot consistently describe the use of itself (2018) · cites this paper as [9]

  • Earlier no-go results use assumptions similar to (Q) and (S).

    “Theorem 1 may be compared to earlier no-go results, such as7–10,41–43, which also use assumptions similar to (Q) and (S) (although the latter is often implicit).”

    From Quantum theory cannot consistently describe the use of itself (2018) · cites this paper as [9]

  • Brukner considered three assumptions: freedom of choice, locality in the sense of parameter independence, and observer-independent facts.

    “In the context of this EWFS, Brukner [14, 15, 20] considered three assumptions, namely: freedom of choice , locality (in the sense of 'parameter independence' [21]) and observer-independent facts (OIF).”

    From A strong no-go theorem on the Wigner’s friend paradox (2020) · cites this paper as [15]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Brukner, Č.
Affiliations
University of Vienna (AT)
Corresponding author
Brukner, Časlav
ORCID
Brukner, Časlav
Venue
The Frontiers Collection
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Published
2016-11-16
Pages
95-117
ISSN
  • 1612-3018 (ISSN-L)
  • 2197-6619
DOI
10.1007/978-3-319-38987-5_5
OpenAlex
W1417962967
Cited by
152
References
46
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 48 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 21 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 13 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 3
FWCI
36.22
Type
book chapter
Language
en
Open access
Licence
www.springer.com/tdm (unspecified)
Locations
  • The frontiers collection (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
Austrian Science Fund
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Atomic and Molecular Physics, and Optics › Quantum Mechanics and Applications
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Quantum Information and Cryptography
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Philosophy and History of Science
Keywords
measurement problem, Copenhagen interpretation, hidden variables, quantum mechanics

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review