# Index [[Bell's theorem]] [[Copenhagen Interpretation]] [[Debroiglie-Bohm Theory]] [[EPR Paradox]] [[Hidden variables in quantum mechanics]] [[Locality in quantum mechanics]] [[Many Worlds Interpretation]] [measurement problem](measurement%20problem) [[Non-locality in quantum mechanics]] [[Orthodox view of quantum measurement]] [Postulates of Quantum Mechanics](Postulates%20of%20Quantum%20Mechanics.md) [[Realism in quantum mechanics]] ## Related Indices [Quantum gravity (index)](Quantum%20gravity%20(index).md) --- # Basic Concepts Those coming across quantum mechanics with any interest in philosophy or who may have read an introduction to quantum physics aimed at a general audience will be aware that there's some debate as to how exactly we interpret what quantum mechanics tells us as well as what mechanisms may be at play to give rise to the principles we take as [postulates.](Postulates%20of%20Quantum%20Mechanics.md) In this section I include notes on these competing interpretations as well as some more detailed discussions of the postulates. I won't argue in favor of any particular interpretations and I'll ignore any philosophical considerations. However, I'll naturally place more emphasis on whatever I find interesting or I may have previous studied. Many believe quantum mechanics (as an underlying theory that describes the fundamental nature of matter and space at small scales) isn't complete. This is motivated by competing interpretations of fundamental principles in quantum physics along with the presence of the [measurement problem.](measurement%20problem) This is in contrast to the ["shut up and calculate"](https://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=9649) viewpoint, which sidesteps the issue. One can still _do_ quantum mechanics without considering the measurement problem or any of the conflicting interpretations, hence the "Shut up and calculate" perspective. With this perspective one may therefore view many of the apparent mysteries in the foundations of quantum physics as not really mysterious but simply a description of nature as it is rather than something that must be interpreted any further. However, perhaps, a serious consideration of these interpretations may yield unexpected physical insights. ## Testability of Foundational Interpretations --- # Bibliography [Einstein A., Podolsky B., Rosen N., Can a Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality Be Considered Complete., Phys. Rev., 47, 1935](Einstein%20A.,%20Podolsky%20B.,%20Rosen%20N.,%20Can%20a%20Quantum-Mechanical%20Description%20of%20Physical%20Reality%20Be%20Considered%20Complete.,%20Phys.%20Rev.,%2047,%201935.md) Everett H., _The Theory of the Universal Wave Function_ %201973%20version.pdf) [Griffiths D. J., _Introduction to Quantum Mechanics_, Pearson Prentice Hall, 2nd edition, 2005.](Griffiths%20D.%20J.,%20Introduction%20to%20Quantum%20Mechanics,%20Pearson%20Prentice%20Hall,%202nd%20edition,%202005..md) [Peres, A., _Quantum Theory Concepts and Methods_, Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2002](Peres,%20A.,%20Quantum%20Theory%20Concepts%20and%20Methods,%20Kluwer%20Academic%20Publishers,%202002.md) #QuantumMechanics/InterpretationsOfQuantumMechanics #QuantumMechanics/FoundationsOfQuantumMechanics #Bibliography #index