Subscribe now

How do we even talk about a quantum system?

Whenever we learn something about nature, we eventually have to put that knowledge into words. We say:

The photon went through this path.
It was detected here.
It had this energy.
and so on..

These are all propositions. They are statements about the world that can, at least in principle, be judged to be true or false. I know this might seem obvious, but we rarely think about it. And quantum mechanics makes this simple fact surprisingly complicated.

We cannot escape ordinary language

Imagine that I perform an experiment: I send a photon into an apparatus and observe where it ends up. Later, I tell you what I did. I cannot simply hand you the quantum state and say, “Here. You figure it out.” I have to tell you something. I have to say:

I prepared the photon in this way.
I placed this detector here.
I measured this quantity.
The detector clicked.

In other words, I have to describe the experiment in a language that you and I already understand. This was one of the central points made by Niels Bohr:

Quantum mechanics may take us far beyond the concepts of classical physics, but the evidence for quantum mechanics still has to be communicated in ordinary, classical terms.

There is an important reason for this. When I say that I performed an experiment, I mean that there was some physical procedure that I carried out and that produced some observable result. I must be able to tell another person what I did and what happened. So even if the underlying quantum world is strange, the description of the experiment cannot be completely detached from the ordinary concepts we use to communicate about experiments.

This creates an interesting situation:

We need classical language to tell each other about quantum phenomena, even though quantum phenomena do not necessarily behave according to classical concepts.

This is philosophically deeper than it might seem at first glance.

The language existed before the theory

There is another subtle point here. Suppose a physicist invents a completely new theory. The theory might contain mathematics that nobody has seen before. It might introduce new objects, new equations, and new physical principles. But when the physicist tries to explain the theory to another human being, what language can they use?

They have to use a language that existed before the theory. This was emphasized by the philosopher and physicist Carl Friedrich von Weizsäcker:

Think about what this means. A new theory is supposed to tell us something new about nature. But the words we use to explain that new theory already carry meanings inherited from our previous understanding of nature. For example, we use words like particle, wave, position, velocity, measurement, etc. But these words were not invented by quantum mechanics. They come from a much older picture of the world. Sometimes a new theory forces us to reconsider what those old words actually mean. This happens in many areas of science. Before Einstein, “time” seemed like an obvious concept. Then relativity forced physicists to rethink what time means. Quantum mechanics does something similar with concepts such as position, momentum, state, and measurement.

So the mathematics may be new. But the language through which we understand the mathematics is inherited from the old world.

So what exactly is a physical system?

Suppose I want to describe an ordinary classical object—a ball, for example. I can make statements about it:

The ball is at position (x) at time(t).
It posses velocity (v), momentum (p) and energy (E), at this particular instant in space and time.

If I know enough about the ball, I can imagine putting together a complete list of such statements. In a classical picture, there is no fundamental problem with imagining that all these properties have definite values simultaneously. Whether or not I happen to know these values, the classical picture allows me to imagine that they are there.

But quantum mechanics?

Quantum mechanics tells us that this picture is not generally available.

The uncertainty principle is one expression of this fact.

But quantum foundations go deeper than simply saying that our measurements disturb the particle. Theorems such as those of Bell and Kochen–Specker show that quantum theory does not allow us to assign ordinary, definite, context-independent truth values to all conceivable physical propositions simultaneously. They imply:

There is no single classical catalogue of definite properties that can consistently be assigned to a quantum system.

We can simultaneously ask “Does the particle have position (x)?” and “Does it have momentum (p)?” In classical physics, we expect both questions to have definite answers, whether or not we know them.

Quantum mechanics refuses to give everything a definite answer. If the quantum state is prepared so that position is perfectly definite, then momentum becomes completely indefinite. If momentum is perfectly definite, position becomes completely indefinite.

The problem is not merely that our instruments are imperfect. The structure of quantum theory itself prevents all such classical propositions from being simultaneously definite. This is what lies behind the idea of quantum complementarity.

And now we have a problem

We seem to have two conflicting requirements:

1. We have to talk about quantum systems using classical propositions, but

2. Quantum systems cannot always be described as possessing definite classical properties simultaneously.

What do we do?

Maybe knowledge is the missing piece

In their 2002 paper, “Information and fundamental elements of the structure of quantum theory”, Caslav Brukner and Anton Zeilinger propose a simple answer.

Instead of asking only:

“Is this proposition true or false?”

we can ask:

“How much do we know about whether this proposition is true or false?”

This is a subtle but powerful change. I know I cannot consistently say that a quantum particle has a definite position and a definite momentum simultaneously. That does not mean I have no information about either quantity. I can still have a quantum state that tells me how likely different position (or momentum) measurements are to produce different outcomes. I can quantify this information about position and momentum.

But I should not confuse: having information about a quantity
with: the quantity possessing a definite classical value independent of context.

This distinction is at the heart of the information-theoretic viewpoint.

From truth to information

This gives us a different way of thinking about a quantum state. Instead of imagining it as simply being a hidden catalogue containing all the properties a particle “really has,” we can think of a quantum state as encoding the information available about the possible outcomes of different measurements. The quantum state does not have to answer every classical question with a definite yes or no. It tells us what can be predicted, with what probabilities, given the physical situation.

I won’t call it a weaker version of physics. It is a different kind of physical description. And it may actually be the natural one for a quantum world.

The quantum state as knowledge

This is where the word ‘information’ becomes important.

The idea is not necessarily that a quantum state is merely a person’s subjective opinion. Rather, the proposal is that the mathematical structure of quantum theory can be understood in terms of measures of information about possible propositions and their outcomes.

This gives us a way to reconcile the two apparently contradictory facts we encountered earlier. We still use propositions because we have no alternative way of communicating experimental knowledge. But we do not have to demand that every proposition simultaneously possess a definite truth value. Instead, we can assign information about its possible truth value.

A much more quantum-compatible way of talking.

This is a surprisingly economical solution

What I find particularly interesting about this idea is that it does not throw away everything that came before quantum mechanics. We do not have to invent an entirely new language or abandon propositions. Instead, we make a relatively small change.

Classical physics tends to encourage us to think:

A physical system has a collection of definite properties.
Our job is to discover what those properties are.

The quantum-information viewpoint suggests something closer to:

A physical system is described through propositions about possible observations, together with the information available about those propositions.

This view changes what we think a physical theory is actually telling us about the world.

Perhaps the strangest lesson of quantum mechanics

There is a temptation, when learning quantum mechanics, to think that the strange part is simply that particles behave weirdly—such as exhibiting interference, superposition, and entanglement—phenomena that have no classical explanation. All of this is certainly strange. But there is an even deeper strangeness.

Quantum mechanics may be telling us that our classical idea of what it means for a physical property to “exist” is itself too strong.

We are accustomed to thinking that every question about an object has an answer in terms of ‘Yes’ or ‘No’. Quantum theory forces us to be more careful. Some questions cannot be assigned simultaneous, context-independent answers in the way classical physics would lead us to expect. And yet we still have to ask questions. We still have to perform experiments and communicate the results. We therefore end up in a peculiar position:

The world described by quantum mechanics may not fit naturally into the classical language we use to describe it. But that language is the very tool through which we discover the quantum world in the first place.

Perhaps the solution is not to abandon our language. Perhaps it is to understand what our language is actually telling us. And that may be why information sits so naturally at the foundations of quantum theory.

You Can Also Read:

Welcome to Bohring. Here, we look at the universe, life, and science education through a physicist’s lens. If you’re new here, consider joining our community of curious minds:

Subscribe now

Imagine you are handed a box containing bombs. You are told the bomb is triggered by a mechanism so sensitive that if even a single photon (a particle of light) hits its sensor, it will instantly detonate. Furthermore, some of these bombs are duds. The duds look identical, but their sensors are broken—light passes right through them without triggering anything.

Your goal: Find a functional bomb without exploding it.

In a classical world, this is impossible. To verify if a sensor works, you must interact with it. If you send a photon to test it and it’s a live bomb, it explodes. If it doesn’t explode, it was a dud. You can never successfully identify a live, working bomb without destroying it.

Quantum mechanics, however, offers a loophole using a device called an Elitzur-Vaidman (EV) bomb tester. It is one of the most beautiful and unsettling thought experiments in quantum mechanics. Proposed by Avshalom Elitzur and Lev Vaidman in their 1993 paper “Quantum Mechanical Interaction-Free Measurements”, it proves that quantum mechanics allows for interaction-free measurement: the ability to verify the existence of an object without ever interacting with it.

An EV Bomb tester is an application of an arrangement known as the Mach-Zehnder interferometer, which consists of optical devices called Beam Splitters. So let’s start from there.

Beam Splitter

A beam splitter is an optical device that splits an incoming light beam into two separate paths. Quantally, when a single incident photon enters a beam splitter, it is placed into a quantum superposition of two distinct spatial paths (or modes).

The probability amplitude of the photon (how much of its wave function) taking either path depends on the angle (θ) of the beam splitter.

where ∣T⟩ denotes the transmitted path, and ∣R⟩ denotes the reflected path, with the factor i capturing the phase shift acquired upon reflection. For a symmetric beam splitter oriented at an angle of 45^∘, a photon incident from input mode ∣a⟩ is split equally between transmission and reflection, creating a 50–50 equal superposition state:

Phase shift from mirror

The phase factor is given by e^iθ. When a photon reflects off a fully reflecting mirror, it undergoes a phase shift of π/2, which corresponds to multiplying the spatial mode amplitude by the phase factor:

Thus, whenever a path component hits a mirror, its state vector gets scaled by the imaginary unit i.

Mach-Zehnder Interferometer

A balanced Mach-Zehnder Interferometer (MZI) consists of:

• Two 50–50 beam splitters (BS₁​ and BS₂​).

• Two fully reflecting mirrors (M₁ and M₂​).

• Two photon detectors (D₀​ and D₁​).

The setup forms two distinct optical paths—often labeled Path 1 (transmitted through BS₁, reflected by M₂​) and Path 2 (reflected by BS₁, reflected by M₁​). Both paths recombine at the second beam splitter BS₂​ before reaching detectors D₀​ and D₁.

In a balanced MZI, a photon input via mode |a⟩ is always detected at D₁​ due to complete destructive interference along the path to D₀​ and complete constructive interference along the path to D₁.

For mathematically inclined readers, I’ve included the derivation of this result at the end of the article. Do check it out! The rest of you, continue with me. Let’s test some bombs!

EV Bomb Tester

In this setup, we take a standard MZI configuration and place the bomb in the middle of Path 1.

Scenario 1: Testing a Dud

When a dud is placed, the photon passes right through it as if nothing is there. So the setup works as a standard MZI. D₁ clicks 100% of the time, and Detector D₀ clicks 0% of the time. So if you fire a photon and D₁ clicks, all you learn is that the interference was undisturbed.

Scenario 2: Testing a Live Bomb

Now, we place a live bomb in Path A. The bomb’s live sensor acts as a measuring apparatus. It forces the universe to make a choice. The superposition can no longer exist because the bomb constitutes an environment that extracts “which-way” information. The moment the photon hits the first beam splitter, the quantum wave function collapses into one of two real histories:

• History 1: Path 1 (50% chance)

  The photon travels down Path 1, hits the bomb’s ultra-sensitive live sensor, and BOOM! The bomb explodes. You have failed.

• History 2: Path 2 (50% Chance)

  The photon travels down Path 2, completely bypassing the live bomb. It reflects off M₁ and arrives at BS₂. But remember: because the bomb “blocked” Path 1 by being ready to measure it, there is no second wave component coming from Path 1 to interfere with it. The photon arriving at BS₂​ from Path 2 is alone. Therefore, at BS₂, it has a completely random choice:

  • It has a 50% chance of going to D₀.

  • It has a 50% chance of going to D₁.

  Because this second split happens after the photon has already taken Path 2, we multiply the probabilities (0.5 × 0.5). This gives us two distinct sub-outcomes:

  • A 25% chance that D₀ clicks.

  • A 25% chance that D₁ clicks.

Interpreting the results

Let’s look at what the clicks actually tell you after you fire a single photon into the system with an unknown bomb:

• Bomb explodes (50%): You know it was a live bomb, but it’s gone.

• D₁ clicks (25%): This result is ambiguous. D₁ clicks 100% of the time for a dud and 25% of the time for a live bomb. You cannot be sure what kind of bomb is in the chamber. You have to run the test again.

• D₀ clicks (25%): Remember, if the bomb is a dud, D₀ can never click because of destructive interference. The only way D₀ can ever fire is if there is no interference. And the only thing that makes this happen is the presence of a live bomb blocking Path 1.

When D₀ clicks, you know with 100% certainty that the bomb is functional. Yet, tracing the history of that photon, it took Path 2. It never interacted with the bomb’s sensor. You have successfully detected a live bomb through the sheer potential of an interaction that never actually took place!

We can push the efficiency further

In the basic setup, your success rate is only 25%, while your explosion rate is 50%. The ratio of good bombs found to exploded bombs is 1:2. This is highly inefficient. Fortunately, we can exploit the Quantum Zeno Effect to make the success probability arbitrarily close to 100%.

Recall that the beam splitter angle θ determines how the photon’s probability amplitude is divided between the two paths. For a very small θ, the transmitted amplitude is cosθ ≈ 1, while the reflected amplitude is sinθ ≈ 0. Thus, almost the entire wavefunction remains on the safe path (Path 2), while only a tiny component enters the bomb path (Path 1).

Now replace BS₁ and BS₂ with a sequence of N weak beam splitters, each having the same small angle

At each BS stage:

• almost all amplitude is transmitted to Path 2,

• only a tiny amplitude is reflected to Path 1, where the bomb is.

If the bomb is a dud

Nothing interrupts the photon's evolution. So the tiny rotations produced by each weak BS accumulate,

Since Nθ = π/2, the final state becomes

The photon has been completely rotated from D₀ to D₁, reproducing the same final evolution of a standard MZI. This is just like applying one large 90^∘ rotation, but in many tiny steps.

If a live bomb is present

• At BS₁, the probability that the photon enters Path 1 and detonates the bomb is only sin²θ, which is extremely small.

• If the bomb does not explode (the overwhelmingly likely outcome), the tiny amplitude in Path 1 is removed, and the photon’s state is projected back onto ∣ψ⟩ = ∣D₀⟩.

  • At BS₂, the same thing happens. Again, a tiny amplitude attempts to enter Path 1, and if no explosion occurs, the state is projected back to ∣D₀⟩.

• This process repeats at every BS stage. As a result, the gradual rotation that would have transferred the photon to Path 1 never gets a chance to build up. Instead, after all N stages,

The photon stays on the safe path. This is precisely the Quantum Zeno Effect: continually measuring a quantum system freezes it in its initial state. As the number of beam splitters N increases, the probability of detonating the bomb approaches zero, while the probability of identifying a live bomb without triggering it approaches 100%.

Philosophical counterfactual

EV bomb tester forces us to confront what physicists call counterfactual definiteness.

In classical logic, we say that something that didn’t happen cannot cause an effect in the macro-world. But here, the fact that the photon could have gone down Path 1 and exploded the bomb is precisely what alters the physical behavior of the photon on Path 2, allowing Detector D₀ to click. It tells us that in the quantum realm, unfulfilled possibilities—things that might have happened but didn’t—leave an indelible mark on the reality we ultimately observe.

Isn’t that amazingly philosophical? How do you interpret this strange behaviour of the quantum world? Let me know in the comments below.

Leave a comment

Mathematical Derivation of Interference

Let us trace a single photon entering the interferometer through one input mode ∣a⟩, while the other input mode ∣b⟩ remains empty.

Step 1: Action of the first Beam Splitter (BS₁​)

BS₁​ splits ∣a⟩ into Path T (transmitted) and Path R (reflected):

Step 2: Action of the Mirrors (M₁​ and M₂)

Both paths head toward their respective mirrors. Reflecting off a mirror introduces a factor of i to each component:

Path T component:

Path R component:

So the state just before entering the second beam splitter BS₂​ is:

Step 3: Action of the second Beam Splitter (BS₂​)

Now both arms recombine at BS₂. Each path splits again toward Detectors D₀ and D₁:

• For light coming from Path T:

  • Transmitted to D₀​:

  • Reflected to D₁​:

• For light coming from Path R:

  • Reflected to D₀​:

  • Transmitted to D₁​:

Substituting these transformations into ∣ψ₂⟩:

Expanding the terms:

Step 4: Interference & final state

Grouping the coefficients for each detector mode:

• For Detector D₀​:

  (Destructive Interference)

• For Detector D₁​:

  (Constructive Interference)

Thus, the final state simplifies to:

The probability of detecting the photon at D₀​ is ∣0∣² = 0, while at D₁​ it is ∣−1∣² = 1. The photon is always detected at D₁.

Subscribe now

The standard Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics asks us to accept a deeply counterintuitive worldview:

1. Particles do not have definite properties until they are measured. Instead, they exist in a haze of probabilities prior to measurement.

2. The act of observation magically collapses the wave function.

The De Broglie–Bohm Theory (also known as Bohmian Mechanics or the Pilot Wave Theory (PWT) offers a radical alternative. It restores the classical ideals of determinism and objective reality to the quantum world. In Bohmian mechanics, a particle is always a particle; it always has a precise position, and it moves along a definite, predictable trajectory.

In this article, I aim to provide you with an adequate conceptual, mathematical, and philosophical understanding of the Pilot Wave theory.

Reality is dual

In standard quantum mechanics, the wave function (ψ) is the complete description of the system. In PWT, the wave function is only half the story. It posits a dual ontology: the universe is made of two distinct, fundamentally real entities:

1. Particles: Actual, point-like entities that possess precise positions and velocities at all times, completely independent of whether someone is looking at them.

2. Wave Function (The Pilot Wave): A real, physical wave that propagates through space according to the standard Schrödinger equation.

The wave acts as a guide, exerting a subtle ‘quantum force’ that dictates exactly how the particles move. The particle rides the wave like a surfer on an ocean swell.

Mathematical Framework

Two fundamental equations govern Bohmian mechanics:

Schrödinger Equation

The pilot wave itself evolves exactly the same way it does in standard quantum mechanics. It is governed by the time-dependent Schrödinger equation:

Here, ψ(r, t) is a complex-valued wave function. Because it is complex, we can rewrite it in polar form, separating its amplitude R(r, t) and its phase S(r, t), where both R and S are real numbers:

Guiding Equation

Substitute this polar form back into the Schrödinger equation and separate the real and imaginary parts. The imaginary part yields a standard continuity equation for probability. The real part yields a modified version of the classical Hamilton-Jacobi equation from classical mechanics:

(We will talk about that Q term in a moment)

In classical physics, ∇S is simply the momentum p of a particle. This inspires the central postulate of Bohmian mechanics, the Guiding Equation:

This is a strictly deterministic law. If you know the exact configuration of the pilot wave (ψ) and the exact initial position of the particle (r), the guiding equation tells you exactly where the particle will be at any future moment. There is no randomness and probability built into the fundamental laws of motion.

Quantum Potential (Q)

Looking closely at the modified classical equation above, there is an extra term. V is the classical potential energy (like gravity or electromagnetism), but it is joined by a new term, Q, known as the Quantum Potential:

The quantum potential is where all the weird quantum behavior hides. It is responsible for interference, tunneling, and non-classical forces. It has two bizarre properties that separate it from classical forces:

• It depends on form, not intensity: Because the amplitude R appears in both the numerator and denominator (∇²R/R), the magnitude of the quantum potential doesn’t necessarily decrease with distance. A distant, incredibly faint ripple in the wave function can exert just as strong a force on the particle as a massive wave nearby. This explains how particles can feel the presence of distant boundaries or slits.

• It is contextual: The quantum potential is shaped by the environment as a whole, including the geometry of the experimental apparatus. It acts as an information channel, reflecting the global state of the system and translating it into a local force on the particle.

For the mathematically inclined readers, I’ve given the complete derivation of the solutions above at the end of the article.

Resolve the paradoxes

Because Bohmian mechanics keeps particles real and trajectories definite, it handles the classic paradoxes of quantum mechanics in a beautifully straightforward manner.

Double-Slit Experiment

In the Copenhagen view, a single electron goes through both slits simultaneously as a probability wave, interferes with itself, and only decides where to land when it hits the detector screen.

In the PWT view, the setup is clean:

1. The physical electron is a localized particle. It goes through only one slit.

2. The pilot wave is extended. It goes through both slits and creates an interference pattern in the space beyond them.

3. As the electron emerges from its single slit, it enters this region of interfered waves. The quantum potential (Q) forces the electron away from the destructive interference zones and guides it into the constructive interference zones.

If you repeat this experiment thousands of times with identical electrons, they will trace out the classic interference fringes on the screen, even though every single electron took a unique, single path.

Measurement Problem and Wave Function Collapse

One of the biggest embarrassments of standard quantum mechanics is the sudden, mathematically ill-defined jump of the wave function during measurement. Who counts as an observer? Why does math change when we look?

Bohmian mechanics eliminates wave function collapse. The wave function never collapses; it always evolves smoothly via the Schrödinger equation.

What looks like collapse is simply decoherence and empty wave packets. When a particle interacts with a macroscopic measurement apparatus, the total wave function splits into distinct, non-overlapping branches (e.g., “pointer points left” and “pointer points right”). The particle enters one of these branches based on its precise initial position. Because the environment is complex, the other branches of the wave function scatter out into phase space and can never re-interfere with the particle. They become “empty wave packets.” The particle continues to ride its chosen branch, making it appear as though the other possibilities have vanished.

Quantum Equilibrium: Why does it look probabilistic?

If the theory is deterministic, why does the quantum world look random to us? Why do we still use Born’s rule (P = |ψ|²)?

This is explained by Quantum Equilibrium, an idea analogous to thermodynamic equilibrium. Antony Valentini and others have shown that if a collection of particles starts in a state where their distribution doesn’t match |ψ|², the chaotic, churning action of the guiding equation rapidly drives them into a state where their spatial distribution exactly matches |ψ|².

Once a system is in this ‘quantum equilibrium’ state, it is impossible to know the exact sub-quantum positions (hidden variables) of the particles without disturbing the pilot wave. Our ignorance of the exact initial positions manifests as the statistical probabilities we observe. So according to the PWT view, the randomness isn’t a feature of nature; it’s a limitation of our vision.

Action at a distance

If De Broglie–Bohm theory restores determinism and realism, and provides a clear explanation of measurement, why isn’t it the dominant interpretation taught in physics textbooks? Because physics operates on a strict system of cosmic bookkeeping: to buy determinism, you must pay in extreme non-locality.

John Bell proved in 1964 that any theory that reproduces the predictions of quantum mechanics using objective, definite properties (hidden variables) must be non-local. Bohmian mechanics accepts this bargain completely.

For a multi-particle system, the pilot wave does not live in our familiar three-dimensional space. It lives in a high-dimensional configuration space. For N particles, the wave function is a function of 3N coordinates:

Because the guiding equation for Particle 1 depends on the position of Particle 2 through this shared wave function, a change made to Particle 2 instantly alters the quantum potential felt by Particle 1, no matter how far apart they are in physical space.

If you measure an entangled photon in Paris, the multi-particle wave function changes instantly everywhere, altering the trajectory of its entangled twin in Tokyo without any delay. This is not a signal travelling through space; it is the global wave function reorganizing its geometry across configuration space simultaneously.

Copenhagen vs. Bohmian Mechanics

To clearly see how this shifts our perspective, let’s look at how the two frameworks answer fundamental ontological questions:

• What is a particle?

  • Copenhagen: A localized manifestation of a collapsed wave function that only possesses properties upon measurement.

  • Bohmian: A permanent, real point-particle that always possesses a definite position and velocity.

• What is the wave function?

  • Copenhagen: A mathematical tool for calculating probabilities; it represents our knowledge of the system.

  • Bohmian: A real, physical field that exists in configuration space and guides physical particles.

• Is nature deterministic?

  • Copenhagen: No. Fundamental randomness is an intrinsic property of reality.

  • Bohmian: Yes. The universe is entirely clockwork; probability is merely a consequence of our ignorance of exact initial conditions.

• Is locality preserved?

  • Copenhagen: No, but it sidesteps the issue by denying objective reality to distant particles before measurement.

  • Bohmian: No. It features explicit, unmediated, and immediate action-at-a-distance.

Modern Perspectives and Criticisms

While Bohmian mechanics is elegant, it has faced serious resistance from the theoretical physics community for several distinct reasons:

• Problem of the ‘empty waves’: Because the wave function never collapses, the universe is filled with an infinite, ever-growing graveyard of ‘empty waves’, branches of the universal wave function that the actual particles did not enter. These waves continue to evolve via the Schrödinger equation forever, completely decoupled from matter, leading some critics to joke that Bohmian mechanics is just “Many-Worlds with a single track for a single particle.”

• Asymmetry: The pilot wave acts on the particle, altering its trajectory through the guiding equation. However, the particle has absolutely zero back-reaction on the wave. The wave does not care where the particle is; it evolves independently. This violates the implicit physical intuition (and Einsteinian principle) that if entity A acts on entity B, entity B should act back on entity A.

• Relativistic Reconciliation: Extending Bohmian mechanics to Quantum Field Theory (QFT) is highly problematic. The explicit non-locality of the guiding equation requires a preferred, absolute reference frame (a cosmic ‘now’) to define how action-at-a-distance synchronizes. While you can construct a Bohmian QFT that perfectly mimics standard predictions, it ruins the beautiful, frame-independent Lorentz invariance that underpins Einstein’s Special Relativity.

De Broglie–Bohm theory proves that quantum mechanics does not force us to abandon reality, certainty, or determinism. It simply forces us to choose what we are willing to sacrifice. If you can tolerate a universe governed by a non-local wave guiding particles across a high-dimensional configuration space, the pilot wave gives you back a world where things exist even when you aren’t looking.

Derivation of Guiding Equation

The Schrödinger wave equation (SWE) is:

We assume the solution of the form:

Step 1: Take the time derivative

Using the product rule,

Multiplying by iℏ, the LHS becomes:

Step 2: Laplacian

First compute the gradient:

Taking another derivative,

RHS of SWE becomes:

Step 3: Equate both sides

Since the common factor e^iS/ℏ appears everywhere, cancel it:

Step 5: Separate into real and imaginary parts

Real Part:

Dividing by R and rearranging,

which is the quantum Hamilton–Jacobi equation.

Imaginary part:

Cancelling ℏ,

or, writing ρ = R²,

​which is the continuity equation.

For further reading…

Here is Valentini’s seminal paper on the topic: Pilot-wave theory and the search for new physics

Watch Valentini’s complete lecture on YouTube:

Finally, here’s a book chapter from Travis Norsen: Ch 7, The Pilot-Wave Theory

Next Time…
We will discuss Superdeterminism.

Subscribe now

The Ensemble Interpretation (EI) (sometimes called the Statistical Interpretation) of quantum mechanics is a very minimalist, down-to-earth conceptual framework for understanding the mathematics of quantum theory.

• Copenhagen interpretation (CI) often demands that you accept bizarre physical phenomena like a single particle being in two places at once or wavefunctions collapsing instantaneously across space.

• The Statistical Interpretation, pioneered by Max Born, is the broad umbrella focusing on the probabilistic nature of quantum measurements. EI is a specific minimalist view that views quantum mechanics not as a description of a single physical system, but as a description of a large ensemble of identically prepared systems.

What is a State Vector?

In standard textbook quantum mechanics, we are taught that the state vector |ψ⟩ (or the wavefunction ψ(x)) completely describes the physical state of an individual system, such as a single electron.

EI flatly rejects this.

According to this view, championed by physicists like Leslie Ballentine, a state vector does not describe an individual, isolated physical system. Instead,

|ψ⟩ describes an ensemble—an infinite collection of independent, identically prepared physical systems.

Think of a standard six-sided die. If I tell you that the probability distribution for rolling this die is biased, such that the probability of rolling a 6 is 50%, this probability does not describe any single roll. Before you roll the die, it is not in a superposition of being a 3 and a 6 simultaneously. The probability distribution is a property of the entire setup—the geometry of the die and the throwing process—and it only reveals itself when you roll the die hundreds or thousands of times.

In EI, the wavefunction works exactly the same way. When we write down the wavefunction of an electron in a hydrogen atom, we are not describing what a single electron is doing right now. We are describing the statistical properties of a vast collection of hydrogen atoms, all prepared in the exact same state.

EI is often regarded as philosophically close to views expressed by Einstein regarding the statistical nature of quantum theory.

Superposition without paradox

If a particle is in a state of quantum superposition:

CI implies that the individual particle somehow occupies both states |A⟩ and |B⟩ at the same time until someone looks at it. EI bypasses this paradox entirely:

• Superposition state: The above equation simply means that the state vector encodes the statistical structure of measurement outcomes across an ensemble of similarly prepared systems. If you have an ensemble of N identically prepared systems (where N is very large), measurements performed in the {|A⟩,|B⟩} basis will yield the outcome |A⟩ with probability |α|² and the outcome |B⟩ with probability |β|². Consequently, approximately a fraction|α|² of the ensemble will be found in state |A⟩ and a fraction |β|² will be found in state |B⟩ when such measurements are carried out.

• Probability: The coefficients α and β do not represent a blurry, physical reality for a single particle. They represent the statistical distribution of measurement outcomes across your massive collection of similarly prepared systems.

Resolving Schrödinger’s Cat

In this framework, the infamous Schrödinger’s Cat paradox evaporates. If you set up the experiment with a radioactive atom, a vial of poison, and a cat, the wavefunction of the system is a superposition of a dead cat and a live cat.

• CI: The individual cat is literally both alive and dead until the box is opened, forcing a collapse.

• EI: The wavefunction describes an ensemble of thousands of identical boxes. In roughly half of those boxes, the cat is fully alive; in the other half, the cat is fully dead. Opening the box does not alter the physical state of the cat; it merely reveals which specific box you are looking at from the larger statistical pool.

Nature of measurement and wavefunction collapse

In standard quantum mechanics, the measurement problem is notoriously difficult. It introduces wavefunction collapse (|ψ⟩ → |A⟩), which is a non-unitary, discontinuous change in the state of the system that seems to happen faster than the speed of light.

EI handles measurement beautifully by reclassifying it as a purely mathematical update of information. When you measure a quantum system and get a specific result, the wavefunction does not physically collapse. Instead, your measurement acts as a selection process. You are simply focusing your attention on a subset of the original ensemble.

To see this clearly, imagine an ensemble of particles prepared in a state with various possible velocities. If you place a detector that only triggers for particles moving faster than a certain threshold, you are not physically altering the wavefunctions of the other particles. You are choosing to study a new sub-ensemble consisting only of the fast-moving particles.

The change in the wavefunction is identical to changing your probability calculations in classical statistics when you gain new information (conditional probability). It is a change in the physicist’s ledger, not a physical explosion or a magical transformation of the particle itself.

Uncertainty Principle reinterpreted

Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle is often taught as an intrinsic restriction on nature, or a disturbance caused by the act of measurement: if you measure a particle’s position too accurately, you kick it, blurring its momentum.

EI offers a completely clean, statistical reading of this formula:

The uncertainty relation itself places constraints on the statistical distributions obtained from an ensemble of measurements. Whether an individual particle possesses simultaneous definite values of position and momentum is a separate ontological question that the Ensemble Interpretation does not attempt to answer.

What the uncertainty principle does say is that if you prepare a large ensemble of identically prepared particles, measure the positions of one subset and the momenta of another subset, the resulting standard deviations (Δx) and (Δp) must satisfy the inequality. In this view, the uncertainty principle is fundamentally a statement about the statistical spread of measurement outcomes across an ensemble, rather than a direct statement about the properties of any single particle. It is therefore a property of the preparation procedure of the quantum state, not a limitation of our measurement tools or a statement that nature itself is physically blurry.

Some historical context

To truly grasp EI, it helps to understand why it was advocated. Albert Einstein was deeply dissatisfied with the Copenhagen interpretation’s reliance on observer-created reality and randomness. In his view, quantum mechanics was a brilliant theory, but it was incomplete.

Einstein argued that quantum mechanics is to a true theory of nature what classical thermodynamics is to statistical mechanics. Thermodynamics gives you macroscopic laws (like pressure and temperature) based on averages, but it doesn’t track individual molecules. Similarly, Einstein believed quantum mechanics provides the correct statistical averages for groups of particles, but fails to provide a complete description of the deterministic path of an individual particle.

In 1970, Leslie Ballentine modernized this view in his seminal paper “The Statistical Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics.” Ballentine showed that you can derive and utilize all the mathematical machinery of quantum mechanics (the Schrödinger equation, Born’s rule, expectation values) without ever assuming that the wavefunction applies to a single system. By abandoning that assumption, you eliminate almost all the philosophical paradoxes that plague the theory.

Why isn’t everyone an Ensemblist?

While EI is elegant and cleanly avoids metaphysical headaches, it is not without criticism. It achieves its simplicity by being deliberately agnostic about what is actually happening at the microscopic level, which leaves several questions open.

What about individual systems?

The primary criticism of EI is that it refuses to say anything about a single particle. If a scientist isolates a single electron in a Penning trap and holds it there for weeks, observing its properties, that electron exists. It has a real, physical presence. If the wavefunction only describes an ensemble of such traps, what describes that specific electron inside the trap right now? The Ensemble Interpretation simply answers that quantum mechanics is not equipped to answer that question, which many physicists find unsatisfying.

In the early days of quantum mechanics, physicists could only run experiments on bulk matter (beams of millions of atoms). Today, we routinely manipulate individual qubits in quantum computers, individual ions, and single photons.

When we observe quantum jumps in a single trapped ion, or execute an error-correcting algorithm on a specific set of superconducting qubits, treating the state vector purely as an average over an infinite conceptual ensemble can feel detached from lab reality. While the statistical predictions still hold true when the experiment is repeated, the interpretation offers little insight into the real-time dynamics of the single system currently sitting on the laboratory chip.

Bell’s Theorem and Hidden Variables

Because EI suggests that particles might have definite values (like position and momentum) that quantum mechanics simply fails to predict, it naturally leans toward a “hidden variable” philosophy. However, Bell’s Theorem proved that any local hidden variable theory is incompatible with the predictions of quantum mechanics.

Therefore, if an Ensemblist wants to believe that individual particles have definite pre-existing properties before measurement, they must accept that nature is fundamentally non-local (actions here can instantaneously affect outcomes there), or they must abandon the idea that those properties exist at all until measured—which brings them right back to the edge of the Copenhagen view they were trying to escape.

Next Time…

We will discuss the de Broglie–Bohm theory (often called pilot-wave theory).

You Can Also Read:

Subscribe now

The Copenhagen interpretation is the most widely taught and historically dominant framework for understanding quantum mechanics. It was formulated in the 1920s primarily by Niels Bohr and Werner Heisenberg at the Institute for Theoretical Physics (now the Niels Bohr Institute) in Copenhagen.

At its core, the Copenhagen interpretation addresses the following crisis:

How can a smooth, deterministic mathematical equation (the Schrödinger equation) describe a physical reality that appears fundamentally probabilistic, discrete, and dependent on the act of measurement?

Here I will attempt to give you an adequate conceptual, mathematical, and philosophical understanding of this problem.

Core Tenets

Copenhagen interpretation rejects the classical notion that a physical system possesses definitive, objective properties independent of an observer.

• In classical mechanics, an object’s state is defined by its position and momentum (x and p).

• In quantum mechanics, the state of a system is contained within its wave function, denoted as ψ.

The Copenhagen interpretation asserts a non-realist view of the wave function. It states that ψ is not a physical, material wave moving through space (it is unlike a sound wave or an electromagnetic wave) but an abstract mathematical tool (a “probability amplitude”) that contains all the statistical information we can possibly know about a system.

Now, if ψ isn’t physical, how does it connect to reality?

Max Born bridged this gap, and his rule is a core pillar of the Copenhagen view. The probability P(x, t) of finding a particle at a specific position x and time t is given by the absolute square of the wave function:

Crucially, Copenhagen insists that,

• In classical physics, if we say there is a 50% chance a coin toss results in heads, it is because we lack information (epistemic probability). The coin is definitely heads or tails; we just don’t know it yet.

• In the Copenhagen view, a quantum particle is not described as having a definite position before measurement. Instead, quantum mechanics provides only the probabilities of the various positions that may be observed. In this sense, the uncertainty is not merely in our knowledge of reality—it is part of the way reality itself is described.

Before a measurement is made, a quantum system evolves smoothly and deterministically according to the time-dependent Schrödinger equation:

However, the moment a measurement is performed by a classical observer, this smooth evolution is violently interrupted. The wave function instantly and discontinuously collapses from a linear superposition of multiple possible outcomes into a single, definitive eigenstate corresponding to the measured value.

If an electron is in a superposition of being in spin up |↑⟩ and spin down |↓⟩, the act of looking at it forces nature to make a random choice. Once the choice is made, the wave function is altered: it becomes a sharp spike at the detected configuration, and all other probabilities vanish. This transition is completely random and probabilistic.

Bohr’s Complementarity

The philosophical weight of Copenhagen rests heavily on how we resolve the apparent contradictions of the quantum world, namely, why things sometimes act like waves and other times like particles.

Bohr introduced the Principle of Complementarity to resolve the wave-particle duality paradox. He argued that ‘wave’ and ‘particle’ are classical concepts that we use to describe our experiences, but they are mutually exclusive descriptions of the same underlying quantum reality.

• An experiment designed to look for wave-like behavior (like the double-slit experiment) will reveal wave properties (like interference).

• An experiment designed to look for particle-like behavior (like the photoelectric effect) will reveal particle properties (like a localized hit on a detector).

According to Bohr, you cannot observe both simultaneously because the experimental apparatus itself is inextricably linked to the quantum system. The properties we measure are not properties of the isolated particle; they are properties of the interaction between the particle and the measuring device.

Heisenberg’s Uncertainty

Now consider Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle, often written as:

A common misconception is that this is a limitation of our instruments—that bumping a particle with light to measure its position (x) inevitably disturbs its momentum (p).

The Copenhagen interpretation explicitly rejects this disturbance explanation as the fundamental cause. It states that the uncertainty is a fundamental property of nature. A quantum particle does not possess a well-defined position and a well-defined momentum simultaneously. If you prepare a state where the position is highly localized (small Δx), the concept of momentum becomes inherently fuzzy and undefined for that state (large Δp), regardless of how perfect your laboratory equipment is.

Bohr’s Correspondence Principle

If classical physics is wrong at the atomic level, why does it work so perfectly for baseballs, planets, and steam engines?

To solve this, Bohr formulated the Correspondence Principle. It states that:

Quantum mechanics must reproduce the predictions of classical physics when the system becomes large.

Specifically, as the quantum numbers (n) become very large, or when you look at a macroscopic system containing trillions of particles, the quantum fluctuations average out, and the strange, probabilistic equations smoothly transition back into deterministic, classical laws.

The principle proves that Copenhagen doesn’t create two separate, warring universes. Instead, it shows that classical reality is simply the grand, large-scale limit of an underlying quantum reality. It gave physicists the confidence that they were just widening the scope of physics without breaking it.

Heisenberg Cut

One of the most debated aspects of the Copenhagen interpretation is where quantum mechanics stops and classical physics begins. This boundary is known as the Heisenberg Cut. The Correspondence Principle provides the logical justification for this cut.

Copenhagen requires the existence of a macroscopic world. To make a measurement, you need a classical apparatus (a pointer, a digital screen, a clicking Geiger counter) that obeys classical physics and records permanent, irreversible data.

• System is governed by quantum mechanics (superposition, wave functions, etc.).

• Apparatus/Observer is treated as classical.

When the quantum system interacts with the classical apparatus, the measurement is complete, and the wave function collapses.

Now, where exactly do you place this cut?

Copenhagen is intentionally pragmatic about this. You can place the cut wherever it is convenient, as long as the measuring device is large enough to be treated classically. It doesn’t mean Bohr believed macro-objects are exempt from quantum laws; rather, he believed that to practice physics at all, we must assume a stable, shared classical reality from which we report our data.

Thought Experiments and Counterarguments

Because the Copenhagen interpretation defies classical intuition, it sparked fierce resistance, most notably from Albert Einstein and Erwin Schrödinger.

Schrödinger’s Cat

Schrödinger actually designed his famous cat thought experiment to mock the Copenhagen interpretation, not defend it.

Imagine a cat sealed in a box with a radioactive atom, a Geiger counter, a vial of poison, and a hammer.

If the atom decays, the Geiger counter triggers the hammer, breaking the vial and killing the cat. If the atom doesn’t decay, the cat lives. According to the Schrödinger equation, after one hour, the atom is in a linear superposition of decayed and non-decayed states:

Because the cat’s fate is entangled with the atom, the Copenhagen interpretation, if applied blindly without a ‘cut’, suggests that until the box is opened, the cat is in a macroscopic superposition of being both alive and dead at the same time.

Copenhagen’s Response: Bohr and his contemporaries would argue that you don’t need a human to open the box to collapse the wave function. The Geiger counter is a macroscopic, thermodynamic device. The moment the alpha particle interacts with the gas inside the Geiger counter, an irreversible, classical recording event occurs. The Heisenberg cut is crossed inside the counter itself, long before the poison or the cat is involved. The cat is never in a superposition.

Einstein’s “Spooky Action at a Distance”

Albert Einstein famously declared:

“God does not play dice with the universe”

and spent his life looking for ‘hidden variables’—underlying, deterministic rules that quantum mechanics was simply missing. In 1935, Einstein, Boris Podolsky, and Nathan Rosen proposed the EPR paradox.

Imagine a source that emits two entangled particles (A and B) with opposite spins, moving in opposite directions. If you measure the spin of A along the z-axis and find it to be |↑⟩, the wave function collapses, and you instantly know B must have a spin |↓⟩, even if B is light-years away.

Einstein argued that because no signal can travel faster than light (locality), B must have had a |↓⟩ spin all along. Therefore, the Copenhagen view that the state was undecided until measurement must be incomplete.

Copenhagen’s Response: Bohr countered the EPR paradox by asserting that an entangled pair of particles forms a single, non-separable quantum system with no independent realities prior to measurement. While Copenhagen maintains that physical signals cannot travel faster than light, it accepts this fundamental non-separability. Therefore, measuring particle A doesn’t "send a signal" to particle B across space; rather, the act of measurement instantaneously defines the properties of the entire system as a holistic unit.

Decades later, John Bell developed his mathematical inequalities, and subsequent experiments proved Einstein wrong: local hidden variables do not exist. Nature genuinely decides the outcome at the moment of measurement.

Shut up and calculate!

The philosophical position of the Copenhagen interpretation shifts the goal of physics away from defining “what reality actually is” to “what we can reliably say about nature based on observation.”

So, what is the electron doing when we aren’t looking at it? According to the Copenhagen interpretation, this question is unscientific and meaningless. Because you cannot test or observe an unmeasured system, speculating on its objective reality is a philosophical dead end.

Physicist David Mermin later summarized this pragmatic attitude with the famous phrase: “Shut up and calculate.” Don’t worry about the underlying metaphysics; the mathematics works, the probabilities are accurate, and it successfully predicts the behavior of semiconductors, lasers, and particles.

For decades, physics did exactly that. But as we will see in the rest of this series, not everyone was content to keep quiet. The alternatives to Copenhagen would challenge our view of reality in even wilder ways.

Thank you for reading. If my reflections on life or physics resonated with you today and you’d like to support my independent writing without committing to a monthly subscription, you can drop a small tip in my digital jar. It keeps me motivated.

Buy Me A Coffee

Next Time…

We will discuss the Statistical Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics.

You Can Also Read: