\documentclass[12pt,titlepage]{article}

\usepackage{amsmath}
\usepackage{mathrsfs}
\usepackage{amsfonts}
\usepackage{amssymb}
\usepackage{amsthm}
\usepackage{mathtools}
\usepackage{graphicx}
\usepackage{color}
\usepackage{ucs}
\usepackage[utf8x]{inputenc}
\usepackage{xparse}
\usepackage{hyperref}

%----Macros----------
%
% Unresolved issues:
%
%  \righttoleftarrow
%  \lefttorightarrow
%
%  \color{} with HTML colorspec
%  \bgcolor
%  \array with options (without options, it's equivalent to the matrix environment)

% Of the standard HTML named colors, white, black, red, green, blue and yellow
% are predefined in the color package. Here are the rest.
\definecolor{aqua}{rgb}{0, 1.0, 1.0}
\definecolor{fuschia}{rgb}{1.0, 0, 1.0}
\definecolor{gray}{rgb}{0.502, 0.502, 0.502}
\definecolor{lime}{rgb}{0, 1.0, 0}
\definecolor{maroon}{rgb}{0.502, 0, 0}
\definecolor{navy}{rgb}{0, 0, 0.502}
\definecolor{olive}{rgb}{0.502, 0.502, 0}
\definecolor{purple}{rgb}{0.502, 0, 0.502}
\definecolor{silver}{rgb}{0.753, 0.753, 0.753}
\definecolor{teal}{rgb}{0, 0.502, 0.502}

% Because of conflicts, \space and \mathop are converted to
% \itexspace and \operatorname during preprocessing.

% itex: \space{ht}{dp}{wd}
%
% Height and baseline depth measurements are in units of tenths of an ex while
% the width is measured in tenths of an em.
\makeatletter
\newdimen\itex@wd%
\newdimen\itex@dp%
\newdimen\itex@thd%
\def\itexspace#1#2#3{\itex@wd=#3em%
\itex@wd=0.1\itex@wd%
\itex@dp=#2ex%
\itex@dp=0.1\itex@dp%
\itex@thd=#1ex%
\itex@thd=0.1\itex@thd%
\advance\itex@thd\the\itex@dp%
\makebox[\the\itex@wd]{\rule[-\the\itex@dp]{0cm}{\the\itex@thd}}}
\makeatother

% \tensor and \multiscript
\makeatletter
\newif\if@sup
\newtoks\@sups
\def\append@sup#1{\edef\act{\noexpand\@sups={\the\@sups #1}}\act}%
\def\reset@sup{\@supfalse\@sups={}}%
\def\mk@scripts#1#2{\if #2/ \if@sup ^{\the\@sups}\fi \else%
  \ifx #1_ \if@sup ^{\the\@sups}\reset@sup \fi {}_{#2}%
  \else \append@sup#2 \@suptrue \fi%
  \expandafter\mk@scripts\fi}
\def\tensor#1#2{\reset@sup#1\mk@scripts#2_/}
\def\multiscripts#1#2#3{\reset@sup{}\mk@scripts#1_/#2%
  \reset@sup\mk@scripts#3_/}
\makeatother

% \slash
\makeatletter
\newbox\slashbox \setbox\slashbox=\hbox{$/$}
\def\itex@pslash#1{\setbox\@tempboxa=\hbox{$#1$}
  \@tempdima=0.5\wd\slashbox \advance\@tempdima 0.5\wd\@tempboxa
  \copy\slashbox \kern-\@tempdima \box\@tempboxa}
\def\slash{\protect\itex@pslash}
\makeatother

% math-mode versions of \rlap, etc
% from Alexander Perlis, "A complement to \smash, \llap, and lap"
%   http://math.arizona.edu/~aprl/publications/mathclap/
\def\clap#1{\hbox to 0pt{\hss#1\hss}}
\def\mathllap{\mathpalette\mathllapinternal}
\def\mathrlap{\mathpalette\mathrlapinternal}
\def\mathclap{\mathpalette\mathclapinternal}
\def\mathllapinternal#1#2{\llap{$\mathsurround=0pt#1{#2}$}}
\def\mathrlapinternal#1#2{\rlap{$\mathsurround=0pt#1{#2}$}}
\def\mathclapinternal#1#2{\clap{$\mathsurround=0pt#1{#2}$}}

% Renames \sqrt as \oldsqrt and redefine root to result in \sqrt[#1]{#2}
\let\oldroot\root
\def\root#1#2{\oldroot #1 \of{#2}}
\renewcommand{\sqrt}[2][]{\oldroot #1 \of{#2}}

% Manually declare the txfonts symbolsC font
\DeclareSymbolFont{symbolsC}{U}{txsyc}{m}{n}
\SetSymbolFont{symbolsC}{bold}{U}{txsyc}{bx}{n}
\DeclareFontSubstitution{U}{txsyc}{m}{n}

% Manually declare the stmaryrd font
\DeclareSymbolFont{stmry}{U}{stmry}{m}{n}
\SetSymbolFont{stmry}{bold}{U}{stmry}{b}{n}

% Manually declare the MnSymbolE font
\DeclareFontFamily{OMX}{MnSymbolE}{}
\DeclareSymbolFont{mnomx}{OMX}{MnSymbolE}{m}{n}
\SetSymbolFont{mnomx}{bold}{OMX}{MnSymbolE}{b}{n}
\DeclareFontShape{OMX}{MnSymbolE}{m}{n}{
    <-6>  MnSymbolE5
   <6-7>  MnSymbolE6
   <7-8>  MnSymbolE7
   <8-9>  MnSymbolE8
   <9-10> MnSymbolE9
  <10-12> MnSymbolE10
  <12->   MnSymbolE12}{}

% Declare specific arrows from txfonts without loading the full package
\makeatletter
\def\re@DeclareMathSymbol#1#2#3#4{%
    \let#1=\undefined
    \DeclareMathSymbol{#1}{#2}{#3}{#4}}
\re@DeclareMathSymbol{\neArrow}{\mathrel}{symbolsC}{116}
\re@DeclareMathSymbol{\neArr}{\mathrel}{symbolsC}{116}
\re@DeclareMathSymbol{\seArrow}{\mathrel}{symbolsC}{117}
\re@DeclareMathSymbol{\seArr}{\mathrel}{symbolsC}{117}
\re@DeclareMathSymbol{\nwArrow}{\mathrel}{symbolsC}{118}
\re@DeclareMathSymbol{\nwArr}{\mathrel}{symbolsC}{118}
\re@DeclareMathSymbol{\swArrow}{\mathrel}{symbolsC}{119}
\re@DeclareMathSymbol{\swArr}{\mathrel}{symbolsC}{119}
\re@DeclareMathSymbol{\nequiv}{\mathrel}{symbolsC}{46}
\re@DeclareMathSymbol{\Perp}{\mathrel}{symbolsC}{121}
\re@DeclareMathSymbol{\Vbar}{\mathrel}{symbolsC}{121}
\re@DeclareMathSymbol{\sslash}{\mathrel}{stmry}{12}
\re@DeclareMathSymbol{\bigsqcap}{\mathop}{stmry}{"64}
\re@DeclareMathSymbol{\biginterleave}{\mathop}{stmry}{"6}
\re@DeclareMathSymbol{\invamp}{\mathrel}{symbolsC}{77}
\re@DeclareMathSymbol{\parr}{\mathrel}{symbolsC}{77}
\makeatother

% \llangle, \rrangle, \lmoustache and \rmoustache from MnSymbolE
\makeatletter
\def\Decl@Mn@Delim#1#2#3#4{%
  \if\relax\noexpand#1%
    \let#1\undefined
  \fi
  \DeclareMathDelimiter{#1}{#2}{#3}{#4}{#3}{#4}}
\def\Decl@Mn@Open#1#2#3{\Decl@Mn@Delim{#1}{\mathopen}{#2}{#3}}
\def\Decl@Mn@Close#1#2#3{\Decl@Mn@Delim{#1}{\mathclose}{#2}{#3}}
\Decl@Mn@Open{\llangle}{mnomx}{'164}
\Decl@Mn@Close{\rrangle}{mnomx}{'171}
\Decl@Mn@Open{\lmoustache}{mnomx}{'245}
\Decl@Mn@Close{\rmoustache}{mnomx}{'244}
\makeatother

% Widecheck
\makeatletter
\DeclareRobustCommand\widecheck[1]{{\mathpalette\@widecheck{#1}}}
\def\@widecheck#1#2{%
    \setbox\z@\hbox{\m@th$#1#2$}%
    \setbox\tw@\hbox{\m@th$#1%
       \widehat{%
          \vrule\@width\z@\@height\ht\z@
          \vrule\@height\z@\@width\wd\z@}$}%
    \dp\tw@-\ht\z@
    \@tempdima\ht\z@ \advance\@tempdima2\ht\tw@ \divide\@tempdima\thr@@
    \setbox\tw@\hbox{%
       \raise\@tempdima\hbox{\scalebox{1}[-1]{\lower\@tempdima\box
\tw@}}}%
    {\ooalign{\box\tw@ \cr \box\z@}}}
\makeatother

% \mathraisebox{voffset}[height][depth]{something}
\makeatletter
\NewDocumentCommand\mathraisebox{moom}{%
\IfNoValueTF{#2}{\def\@temp##1##2{\raisebox{#1}{$\m@th##1##2$}}}{%
\IfNoValueTF{#3}{\def\@temp##1##2{\raisebox{#1}[#2]{$\m@th##1##2$}}%
}{\def\@temp##1##2{\raisebox{#1}[#2][#3]{$\m@th##1##2$}}}}%
\mathpalette\@temp{#4}}
\makeatletter

% udots (taken from yhmath)
\makeatletter
\def\udots{\mathinner{\mkern2mu\raise\p@\hbox{.}
\mkern2mu\raise4\p@\hbox{.}\mkern1mu
\raise7\p@\vbox{\kern7\p@\hbox{.}}\mkern1mu}}
\makeatother

%% Fix array
\newcommand{\itexarray}[1]{\begin{matrix}#1\end{matrix}}
%% \itexnum is a noop
\newcommand{\itexnum}[1]{#1}

%% Renaming existing commands
\newcommand{\underoverset}[3]{\underset{#1}{\overset{#2}{#3}}}
\newcommand{\widevec}{\overrightarrow}
\newcommand{\darr}{\downarrow}
\newcommand{\nearr}{\nearrow}
\newcommand{\nwarr}{\nwarrow}
\newcommand{\searr}{\searrow}
\newcommand{\swarr}{\swarrow}
\newcommand{\curvearrowbotright}{\curvearrowright}
\newcommand{\uparr}{\uparrow}
\newcommand{\downuparrow}{\updownarrow}
\newcommand{\duparr}{\updownarrow}
\newcommand{\updarr}{\updownarrow}
\newcommand{\gt}{>}
\newcommand{\lt}{<}
\newcommand{\map}{\mapsto}
\newcommand{\embedsin}{\hookrightarrow}
\newcommand{\Alpha}{A}
\newcommand{\Beta}{B}
\newcommand{\Zeta}{Z}
\newcommand{\Eta}{H}
\newcommand{\Iota}{I}
\newcommand{\Kappa}{K}
\newcommand{\Mu}{M}
\newcommand{\Nu}{N}
\newcommand{\Rho}{P}
\newcommand{\Tau}{T}
\newcommand{\Upsi}{\Upsilon}
\newcommand{\omicron}{o}
\newcommand{\lang}{\langle}
\newcommand{\rang}{\rangle}
\newcommand{\Union}{\bigcup}
\newcommand{\Intersection}{\bigcap}
\newcommand{\Oplus}{\bigoplus}
\newcommand{\Otimes}{\bigotimes}
\newcommand{\Wedge}{\bigwedge}
\newcommand{\Vee}{\bigvee}
\newcommand{\coproduct}{\coprod}
\newcommand{\product}{\prod}
\newcommand{\closure}{\overline}
\newcommand{\integral}{\int}
\newcommand{\doubleintegral}{\iint}
\newcommand{\tripleintegral}{\iiint}
\newcommand{\quadrupleintegral}{\iiiint}
\newcommand{\conint}{\oint}
\newcommand{\contourintegral}{\oint}
\newcommand{\infinity}{\infty}
\newcommand{\bottom}{\bot}
\newcommand{\minusb}{\boxminus}
\newcommand{\plusb}{\boxplus}
\newcommand{\timesb}{\boxtimes}
\newcommand{\intersection}{\cap}
\newcommand{\union}{\cup}
\newcommand{\Del}{\nabla}
\newcommand{\odash}{\circleddash}
\newcommand{\negspace}{\!}
\newcommand{\widebar}{\overline}
\newcommand{\textsize}{\normalsize}
\renewcommand{\scriptsize}{\scriptstyle}
\newcommand{\scriptscriptsize}{\scriptscriptstyle}
\newcommand{\mathfr}{\mathfrak}
\newcommand{\statusline}[2]{#2}
\newcommand{\tooltip}[2]{#2}
\newcommand{\toggle}[2]{#2}

% Theorem Environments
\theoremstyle{plain}
\newtheorem{theorem}{Theorem}
\newtheorem{lemma}{Lemma}
\newtheorem{prop}{Proposition}
\newtheorem{cor}{Corollary}
\newtheorem*{utheorem}{Theorem}
\newtheorem*{ulemma}{Lemma}
\newtheorem*{uprop}{Proposition}
\newtheorem*{ucor}{Corollary}
\theoremstyle{definition}
\newtheorem{defn}{Definition}
\newtheorem{example}{Example}
\newtheorem*{udefn}{Definition}
\newtheorem*{uexample}{Example}
\theoremstyle{remark}
\newtheorem{remark}{Remark}
\newtheorem{note}{Note}
\newtheorem*{uremark}{Remark}
\newtheorem*{unote}{Note}

%-------------------------------------------------------------------

\begin{document}

%-------------------------------------------------------------------


\section*{interpretation of quantum mechanics}

\hypertarget{context}{}\subsubsection*{{Context}}\label{context}

\hypertarget{physics}{}\paragraph*{{Physics}}\label{physics}

[[!include physicscontents]]

\hypertarget{philosophy}{}\paragraph*{{Philosophy}}\label{philosophy}

[[!include philosophy - contents]]

\begin{quote}%
when it comes to atoms, language can be used only as in poetry.


\end{quote}
([[Niels Bohr|Bohr]], \href{https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Niels_Bohr}{1920})

\hypertarget{contents}{}\section*{{Contents}}\label{contents}

\noindent\hyperlink{idea}{Idea}\dotfill \pageref*{idea} \linebreak
\noindent\hyperlink{examples}{Examples}\dotfill \pageref*{examples} \linebreak
\noindent\hyperlink{BohrStandpoint}{Bohr's standpoint}\dotfill \pageref*{BohrStandpoint} \linebreak
\noindent\hyperlink{theorems}{Theorems}\dotfill \pageref*{theorems} \linebreak
\noindent\hyperlink{related_entries}{Related entries}\dotfill \pageref*{related_entries} \linebreak
\noindent\hyperlink{references}{References}\dotfill \pageref*{references} \linebreak
\noindent\hyperlink{historical_arguments}{Historical arguments}\dotfill \pageref*{historical_arguments} \linebreak
\noindent\hyperlink{textbooks_and_reviews}{Textbooks and reviews}\dotfill \pageref*{textbooks_and_reviews} \linebreak


\hypertarget{idea}{}\subsection*{{Idea}}\label{idea}

In the words of the \hyperlink{SEP}{Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy}:

\begin{quote}%
[[quantum mechanics|Quantum mechanics]] is, at least at first glance and at least in part, a mathematical machine for predicting the behaviors of microscopic [[particles]] --- or, at least, of the [[measurement|measuring]] instruments we use to explore those behaviors --- and in that capacity, it is spectacularly successful: in terms of power and precision, head and shoulders above any [[theory (physics)|theory]] we have ever had. [[mathematics|Mathematically]], the theory is well understood; we know what its parts are, how they are put together, and why, in the mechanical sense (i.e., in a sense that can be answered by describing the internal grinding of gear against gear), the whole thing performs the way it does, how the information that gets fed in at one end is converted into what comes out the other. The question of what kind of a world it describes, however, is controversial; there is very little agreement, among physicists and among philosophers, about what the world is like according to [[quantum mechanics]]. Minimally interpreted, the [[theory (physics)|theory]] describes a set of facts about the way the microscopic world impinges on the macroscopic one, how it affects our [[measurement|measuring instruments]], described in everyday language or the language of [[classical mechanics]]. Disagreement centers on the question of what a microscopic world, which affects our apparatuses in the prescribed manner, is, or even could be, like intrinsically; or how those apparatuses could themselves be built out of microscopic parts of the sort the theory describes.

That is what an interpretation of the theory would provide: a proper account of what the world is like according to quantum mechanics, intrinsically and from the bottom up.


\end{quote}
The need for and proper nature of such an interpretation may be subtle and is the subject of much debate. Generally it is maybe worthwhile to keep in mind that all [[physical theory]], well-confirmed as it may be, may usefully be subjected to deeper inspection. This point is well made by [[Richard Feynman]] in \emph{The character of physical law} (1967):

\begin{quote}%
For those people who insist that the only thing that is important is that the theory agrees with experiment, I would like to imagine a discussion between a Mayan astronomer and his student. The Mayans were able to calculate with great precision predictions, for example, for eclipses and for the position of the moon in the sky, the position of Venus, etc. It was all done by arithmetic. They counted a certain number, and subtracted some numbers, and so on. There was no discussion of what the moon was. There was no discussion even of the idea that it went around. They just calculated the time when there would be an eclipse, or when the moon would rise at the full, and so on. Suppose that a young man went to the astronomer and said `I have an idea. Maybe those things are going around, and there are balls of something like rocks out there, and we could calculate how they move in a completely different way from just calculating what time they appear in the sky', `Yes', says the astronomer, `and how accurately can you predict eclipses?' He says, `I haven't developed the thing very far yet', Then says the astronomer, `Well, we can calculate eclipses more accurately than you can with your model, so you must not pay any attention to your idea because obviously the mathematical scheme is better'. There is a very strong tendency, when someone comes up with an idea and says, `Let's suppose that the world is this way', for people to say to him, `What would you get for the answer to such and such a problem?' And he says `I haven't developed it far enough'. And they say, `Well, we have already developed it much further, and we can get the answers very accurately'. So it is a problem whether or not to worry about philosophies behind ideas.


\end{quote}
\hypertarget{examples}{}\subsection*{{Examples}}\label{examples}

\begin{itemize}%
\item SEP: \href{http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-copenhagen}{Copenhagen interpretation of qm}


\item SEP: \href{http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-collapse}{qm:collapse theories},

[[Bub-Clifton theorem]]


\item [[hidden variable theory]]

\begin{itemize}%
\item [[Bohmian mechanics]]

\end{itemize}

\item SEP: \href{http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-manyworlds}{many-world interpretation of qm},


\item SEP: \href{http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-modal}{modal-interpretations of qm}


\item SEP: \href{http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-everett}{Everett's relative-state formulation of qm}


\item [[Bayesian interpretation of quantum mechanics]]



\end{itemize}
\hypertarget{BohrStandpoint}{}\subsection*{{Bohr's standpoint}}\label{BohrStandpoint}

In (\hyperlink{Bohr49}{Bohr 49}) it is argued that

\begin{quote}%
\emph{however far the phenomena transcend the scope of classical physical explanation, the account of all evidence must be expressed in classical terms} . The argument is simply that by the word `experiment' we refer to a situation where we can tell others what we have done and what we have learned and that, therefore, the account of the experimental arrangement and the results of the observations must be expressed in unambiguous language with suitable application of the terminology of classical physics.


\end{quote}
A proposal for a formalization of this point of view is the concept of the \emph{[[Bohr topos]]} associated with the [[kinematics]] of a [[quantum mechanical system]]. For more arguments for this see also at \emph{[[order-theoretic structure in quantum mechanics]]}.

As (\hyperlink{Peres97}{Peres 97}) highlights:

\begin{quote}%
Bohr was very careful and never claimed that there were in nature two different types of physical systems. All he said was that we had to use two different (classical or quantum) languages in order to describe different parts of the world.


\end{quote}
and continues:

\begin{quote}%
The peculiar property of the quantum measuring process is that we have to use both descriptions for the same object: namely, the measuring apparatus obeys quantum dynamics while it interacts with the quantum system under study, and at a later stage the same apparatus is considered as a classical object, when it becomes the permanent depositary of information. This dichotomy is the root of the quantum measurement dilemma: there can be no unambiguous classical-quantum dictionary.


\end{quote}
\hypertarget{theorems}{}\subsection*{{Theorems}}\label{theorems}

\begin{itemize}%
\item [[order-theoretic structure in quantum mechanics]]

\begin{itemize}%
\item [[Kochen-Specker theorem]]


\item [[Alfsen-Shultz theorem]]


\item [[Harding-Döring-Hamhalter theorem]]



\end{itemize}

\item [[Wigner theorem]]


\item [[Bell's theorem]]


\item [[Bub-Clifton theorem]]



\end{itemize}
\hypertarget{related_entries}{}\subsection*{{Related entries}}\label{related_entries}

\begin{itemize}%
\item [[wave function collapse]], [[propositions as projections]]


\item [[quantum logic]]


\item [[probability amplitude]]


\item [[quantum probability]]


\item [[philosophy of physics]]


\item [[quantum measurement]], [[decoherence]], [[consistent histories approach to quantum mechanics]]


\item [[coordination]]


\item [[computable quantum physics]]



\end{itemize}
\hypertarget{references}{}\subsection*{{References}}\label{references}

\hypertarget{historical_arguments}{}\subsubsection*{{Historical arguments}}\label{historical_arguments}

Discussion by the founders of quantum mechanics includes the following.

In

\begin{itemize}%
\item [[Albert Einstein]], B. Podolsky, N. Rosen, \emph{Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality Be Considered Complete?}, Phys. Rev. 47, 777--780 (1935) (\href{http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PR/v47/i10/p777_1}{publisher})

\end{itemize}
it is argued that quantum mechanics cannot be a complete description of fundamental physics. In

\begin{itemize}%
\item [[Nils Bohr]], \emph{Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality be Considered Complete?} Physical Review 48, 696--702 (1935) (\href{http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PR/v48/i8/p696_1}{publisher})

\end{itemize}
the contrary is argued. In

\begin{itemize}%
\item [[Nils Bohr]], \emph{Discussion with Einstein on Epistemological Problems in Atomic Physics} in P. A. Schilpp (ed.) \emph{Albert Einstein, Philosopher-Scientist} (Evanston: Library of Living Philosophers) pp. 201--241. (1949)

\end{itemize}
is the famous assertion by Bohr that all experiments in quantum mechanics must be possible to describe in ``classical terms''.

\hypertarget{textbooks_and_reviews}{}\subsubsection*{{Textbooks and reviews}}\label{textbooks_and_reviews}

Modern textbook discussion of the issue is in

\begin{itemize}%
\item [[Robert Spekkens]], Lectures on \emph{Foundations of quantum mechanics} (\href{http://www.perimeterscholars.org/332.html}{web})

also: \emph{The Quantum Puzzle} (\href{http://www.rwspekkens.com/index.php?Show=page&PI=2}{web})



\end{itemize}
The book

\begin{itemize}%
\item [[Jeffrey Bub]], \emph{Interpreting the quantum world}, Cambridge University Press, Aug 26, 1999

\end{itemize}
has a focus on the [[Bub-Clifton theorem]]. This book is reviewed in

\begin{itemize}%
\item [[Asher Peres]], \href{http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9711003}{arXiv:quant-ph/9711003}

\end{itemize}
See also

\begin{itemize}%
\item [[Roland Omnès]], \emph{[[The Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics]]}

\end{itemize}
The approach to [[wave function collapse]] via macroscopic decoherence is reviewed in

\begin{itemize}%
\item Wojciech H. Zurek, \emph{Decoherence, einselection, and the quantum origins of the classical}, Rev. Mod. Phys. 75, 715--775 (2003) \href{http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0105127}{quant-ph/0105127} \href{http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.75.715}{doi}

\end{itemize}
Discussion specifically with an eye towards the [[quantum measurement]] problem is also in

\begin{itemize}%
\item [[David Wallace]], \emph{The Quantum Measurement Problem: State of Play} (\href{http://arxiv.org/abs/0712.0149}{arXiv:0712.0149})

\end{itemize}
One quote above is taken from the first paragraphs of

\begin{itemize}%
\item Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, \emph{\href{http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm/}{Quantum mechanics}}

\end{itemize}
[[!redirects interpretation of quantum mechanics]] [[!redirects interpretations of quantum mechanics]] [[!redirects interpretation of quantum physics]] [[!redirects interpretations of quantum physics]]



\end{document}