Actually there is nothing much new in there - Dieter Zeh et al. have quite competently explored this theme at length - their favored terms for what happens during a quantum measurement being "coherence" & "decoherence" - a view which faithfully reflects the math (i.e., the inclusion of both a measured object and the related measuring device(s) within a multi-variable wave function satisfying Schrödinger's equation.)

The old Copenhagen view of the 'collapse of the wave function" is simply a coarse description of the coherence/decoherence phenomenon. It boils down to the creation of a multi-variable wave function that binds up relevant items (i.e. variables) that have become coherent because of the evolving circumstances they find themselves in.

For some reason we're still scratching our heads about the foundations of quantum physics, as one of the articles puts it, but really the foundations are right there - plain to see in the mathematical formalism.

It's because we steadfastly refuse to accept what the math says that we're still puzzled. Nothing new there, we've been there before: a few people had derived e=mc² well before Einstein did, but until Einstein no one accepted the math at face value ......

I really appreciate the time you took to give your answer. And I will do my best to investigate. I only hope that all of the things you hold so dearly are proved to be so. My biggest issue is that what I believe to be just a transformative equation you have taken to be the key to the whole universe. I am not afraid to be wrong. It will make no difference to the meaning of my life. But it makes me wonder if the coolaid drinkers of this century will look quite a lot like those of the past. Best to all and Happy Thanksgiving.

Not sure if you are addressing my answer when you write 'the things you hold so dearly' ??

I do not hold any theory dearly, and I'm quite puzzled how my answer could give rise to that impression. I certainly think that there is much value in striving to understand the universe we live in. Beyond that, I'm not one for ossified dogmatisms of any kind, and ad hominem psychological interpretations should be kept well beyond the bounds of scientific discourse.

@Rick: The first link you gave is not available anymore. The second reminds me of relational interpretation of QM, which states that each observer has its own physical description, fitting well with both information theory perspective, as well as general relativity... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relational_quantum_mechanics

@Chris: Math tells us: isolated systems evolve unitarely (schrod eq.); measured systems are projected (collapsed); composite systems are described by tensor product spaces (allowing entanglement). This is all we need to make predictions of experimental outcomes.

It doesn't tell how to combine above operations in a consistent way to get classical world from quantum, or build environment which causes "decoherence" (which is nothing else but measurement by - or entanglement with - uncontrolled parts of the environment). Or it does and I am only uninformed?

Branko, not sure I understand you properly (e.g. , what does Quote unitarely mean?) - not sure what you mean when you say 'this is all we need to make predictions of experimental outcomes' ?

The outcomes of certain individual experiments are inherently unpredictable (although of course their statistics over a number of trials is predictable)

Sorry about the link being missing. It was republished here. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/25/photons-seen-not-destroyed-first_n_4337029.html?ir=Science)

I apologize, I'll try to be more precise.

I disagree that all we want from quantum mechanics is already available from mathematics behind it, and that studying foundations doesn't make sense. Let me elaborate.

The mathematics of quantum mechanics gives us algorithms:

1. how to calculate deterministic evolution (unitary operator on a Hilbert space) of an isolated system (vector or density matrix in the Hilbert space).

2. how to obtain probabilities for measurement outcomes (through scalar product) for a certain chosen observable (chosen basis)

3. how to describe composite system if we know individual systems (tensor product of Hilbert spaces)

If you assume that 1. and 3. are absolutely correct, and that there is nothing more in the universe, you get that the total evolution of the universe is unitary (deterministic), so there are no measurements, contrary to our experiments. Or put it in the standard form, the cat measures the decaying atom and lives or dies, but we see entanglement as outside observers.

The concept of coherence enables to track loss of information (coupling) to environment, but the separation between the quantum "system" and classical "environment" remains, as in the Copenhagen interpretation. Up to my knowledge, it does not provide emergence of environment from quantum ingredients.

I really appreciate all of your responses and I find all of you to be very illuminating and highly intelligent. I apologize if I have in anyway offended anyone. I find what you guys do and understand to be so interesting.