| This dissertation offers a plausibility argument for the necessity of the collapse postulate in any acceptable interpretation of quantum mechanics. To this end, the no-collapse theories of Everett, van Fraassen, Bohm, and Albert are investigated, and each id found wanting. Further, the collapse theories of von Neumann, Heisenberg, and Wheeler are investigated and also found to be insufficient for reasons applying to each theory separately and reasons applying to the entire group. It is then argued that states of quantum systems, like time intervals in Einstein's theory of relativity, are relative to observers' reference frames. While time measurement in Einstein's theory hinges on whether one is in an accelerated reference frame, the Relative-State Theory supported here takes as fundamental whether one is entangled with the observed system. That is, the state of the system will be described differently (but equally correctly) by those entangled with the system and those not. The interpretation of the wave function is similar to that of the Copenhagen school save for (1) Collapses of systems are not seen as general (collapses for all), (2) Systems may have more than one state for those in different reference frames with respect to entanglement, and (3) States involving superpositions are seen as equally “real” as states with definite spacetime coordinates. |
