English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

The Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, which first took shape inBohr's landmark 1928 paper on complementarity, remains an enigma. Although manyphysicists are skeptical about the necessity of Bohr's philosophicalconclusions, his pragmatic message about the importance of the wholeexperimental arrangement is widely accepted. It is, however, generally alsoagreed that the Copenhagen interpretation has no direct consequences for themathematical structure of quantum mechanics. Here I show that the applicationof Bohr's main concepts of complementarity to the subsystems of a closed systemrequires a change in the definition of the quantum state. The appropriatedefinition is as an equivalence class similar to that used by von Neumann todescribe macroscopic subsystems. He showed that such equivalence classes arenecessary in order to maximize information entropy and achieve agreement withexperimental entropy. However, the significance of these results for thequantum theory of measurement has been overlooked. Current formulations ofmeasurement theory are therefore manifestly in conflict with experiment. Thisconflict is resolved by the definition of the quantum state proposed here.

Complementarity has empirically relevant consequences for the definition of quantum states