Quantum Bayesianism: Interpretation of Probability in Quantum Mechanics
Article Sidebar
-
Observer, Quantum Bayesianism, Quantum Probability
Abstract
Quantum mechanics presents challenges in understanding probability, which is often seen as a measure of uncertainty in quantum systems. Quantum Bayesianism (QBism) is an alternative interpretation that considers probability as an observer's subjective belief, not as an objective representation of the state of the system. This study aims to delve deeper into the role of probability in quantum mechanics through the perspective of QBism. This study aims to examine the differences between Quantum Bayesianism and traditional quantum probability interpretations, as well as analyze how QBism can provide a more dynamic understanding of probability in quantum experiments. The methods used include literature analysis to identify publication trends related to QBism as well as case studies of quantum experiments that show the application of subjective probability theory. Data is obtained from various scientific sources and the latest publications in the field of quantum physics. The results show that Quantum Bayesianism provides a more flexible and subjective approach to probability, which allows probabilities to be calculated based on the observer's beliefs and can change according to the information obtained. The study also confirms that more and more researchers are adopting QBism in their research, replacing the more traditional view of objective probability. The study concluded that QBism offers a more relevant and applicable view of probability in quantum mechanics. Although there are still limitations in practical application, QBism opens up new opportunities in the understanding and development of quantum technology in the future.
Full text article
References
Aguilar, M. Á. L., Khrennikov, A., & Oleschko, K. (2018). From axiomatics of quantum probability to modelling geological uncertainty and management of intelligent hydrocarbon reservoirs with the theory of open quantum systems. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 376(2118). Scopus. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2017.0225
Aguilar, M. Á. L., Khrennikov, A., Oleschko, K., & Correa, M. D. J. (2017). Quantum Bayesian perspective for intelligence reservoir characterization, monitoring and management. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 375(2106). Scopus. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2016.0398
Bagarello, F., Haven, E., & Khrennikov, A. (2017). A model of adaptive decision-making from representation of information environment by quantum fields. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 375(2106). Scopus. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2017.0162
Beauvais, F. (2016). “Memory of Water” Without Water: Modeling of Benveniste’s Experiments with a Personalist Interpretation of Probability. Axiomathes, 26(3), 329–345. Scopus. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10516-015-9279-6
Berghofer, P., & Wiltsche, H. A. (2023). Phenomenology and QBism: New Approaches to Quantum Mechanics. Dalam Phenomenology and QBism: New Approaches to Quantum Mechanics (hlm. 398). Taylor and Francis; Scopus. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003259008
Brown, H. R. (2019). The Reality of the Wavefunction: Old Arguments and New. Dalam Synthese Libr. (Vol. 406, hlm. 63–86). Springer Science and Business Media B.V.; Scopus. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-15659-6_5
Clarke, M. L. (2014). Emerging interpretations of quantum mechanics and recent progress in quantum measurement. European Journal of Physics, 35(1). Scopus. https://doi.org/10.1088/0143-0807/35/1/015021
Crease, R. P., & Sares, J. (2021). Interview with physicist Christopher Fuchs. Continental Philosophy Review, 54(4), 541–561. Scopus. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11007-020-09525-6
Earman, J. (2020). Quantum sidelights on The Material Theory of Induction. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, 82, 9–16. Scopus. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsa.2019.08.002
Fields, C. (2012). If physics is an information science, what is an observer? Information (Switzerland), 3(1), 92–123. Scopus. https://doi.org/10.3390/info3010092
Fields, C. (2013). A whole box of Pandoras: Systems, boundaries and free will in quantum theory 1. Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Artificial Intelligence, 25(3), 291–302. Scopus. https://doi.org/10.1080/0952813X.2013.782981
Friederich, S. (2011). How to spell out the epistemic conception of quantum states. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B - Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 42(3), 149–157. Scopus. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsb.2011.01.002
Fuchs, C. A. (2011). Charting the shape of quantum-state space. AIP Conf. Proc., 1363, 305–314. Scopus. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.3630202
Fuchs, C. A., & Schack, R. (2011). A Quantum-Bayesian Route to Quantum-State Space. Foundations of Physics, 41(3), 345–356. Scopus. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10701-009-9404-8
Fuchs, C. A., & Schack, R. (2015). QBism and the Greeks: Why a quantum state does not represent an element of physical reality. Physica Scripta, 90(1). Scopus. https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-8949/90/1/015104
Glick, D. (2021). QBism and the limits of scientific realism. European Journal for Philosophy of Science, 11(2). Scopus. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13194-021-00366-5
Globus, G. (2017). A quantum brain version of the quantum bayesian solution to the measurement problem. NeuroQuantology, 15(1), 4–9. Scopus. https://doi.org/10.14704/nq.2017.15.1.996
Globus, G. (2018). An existential critique of consciousness solving the existence/brain problem. Mind and Matter, 16(1), 43–52. Scopus.
Haven, E., & Khrennikov, A. (2016). Statistical and subjective interpretations of probability in quantum-like models of cognition and decision making. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 74, 82–91. Scopus. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmp.2016.02.005
Helland, I. S. (2015). The quantum formulation derived from assumptions of epistemic processes. Dalam Van der Jeugt J., Brackx F., & De Schepper H. (Ed.), J. Phys. Conf. Ser. (Vol. 597, Nomor 1). Institute of Physics Publishing; Scopus. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/597/1/012041
Helland, I. S. (2021). Epistemic processes: A basis for statistics and quantum theory: Second edition. Dalam Epistem. Process.: A Basis for Stat. And Quantum Theory: Second Ed. (hlm. 245). Springer International Publishing; Scopus. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-81923-1
Ichikawa, T. (2025). Bayesianism, Conditional Probability and Laplace Law of Succession in Quantum Mechanics. Foundations of Physics, 55(3). Scopus. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10701-025-00842-5
Khrennikov, A. (2016). Randomness: Quantum versus classical. International Journal of Quantum Information, 14(4). Scopus. https://doi.org/10.1142/S0219749916400098
Leifer, M. S., & Spekkens, R. W. (2014). A Bayesian approach to compatibility, improvement, and pooling of quantum states. Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical, 27. Scopus. https://doi.org/10.1088/1751-8113/47/27/275301
Matsuno, K. (2016). Informational perspective on QBism and the origins of life. Dalam Information And Complex. (hlm. 353–379). World Scientific Publishing Co.; Scopus. https://doi.org/10.1142/9789813109032_0015
Mercier De Lépinay, L., Ockeloen-Korppi, C. F., Woolley, M. J., & Sillanpää, M. A. (2021). Quantum mechanics–free subsystem with mechanical oscillators. Science, 372(6542), 625–629. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abf5389
Milgrom, L. R. (2019). Entelechy, Gyroscopes, and QBism: Developing a Quantum Metaphor for the Vital Force. International Journal of High Dilution Research, 18(2), 11–11. Scopus. https://doi.org/10.51910/IJHDR.V18I02.992
Milgrom, L. R. (2022). Some Remarks on QBism and Its Relevance to Metaphors for the Therapeutic Process Based on Conventional Quantum Theory. Complementary Medicine Research, 29(4), 286–296. Scopus. https://doi.org/10.1159/000523815
Milgrom, L. R. (2023). Getting in a Spin over the Therapeutic Process: QBism and a Gyroscopic Model of the Vital Force. Complementary Medicine Research, 30(3), 185–194. Scopus. https://doi.org/10.1159/000527156
Pienaar, J. (2020). Quantum causal models via quantum Bayesianism. Physical Review A, 101(1). Scopus. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.101.012104
Pinter, C. (2020). Mind and the cosmic order: How the mind creates the features & structure of all things, and why this insight transforms physics. Dalam Mind and the Cosm. Order: How the Mind Creat. The Features & Struct. Of All Things, and Why this Insight Transform. Phys. (hlm. 176). Springer International Publishing; Scopus. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-50083-2
Simet, G. F. (2019). Science as Narrative: As Paradigm Change in Explaining Quantum Physics. Dalam Reimagining Writ.: Interdisciplinary Perspectives (hlm. 41–55). Brill; Scopus. https://doi.org/10.1163/9781848883604_005
Spalvieri, A. (2024). Entropy of the Canonical Occupancy (Macro) State in the Quantum Measurement Theory. Entropy, 26(2). Scopus. https://doi.org/10.3390/e26020107
Sun, C. (2024). On relationship between experiment and theory in basic scientific research. Bulletin of Chinese Academy of Sciences, 39(12), 2016–2026. Scopus. https://doi.org/10.16418/j.issn.1000-3045.20241024005
Zwirn, H. (2016). The Measurement Problem: Decoherence and Convivial Solipsism. Foundations of Physics, 46(6), 635–667. Scopus. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10701-016-9999-5
Authors
Copyright (c) 2025 Loso Judijanto
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
