An argument for -ontology in terms of protective measurements

DOI10.1016/J.SHPSB.2015.07.006MaRDI QIDQ905660zbMATH OpenOpenAlexFDO

Authors Shan Gao

Publication date 27 January 2016

Published in Studies in History and Philosophy of Science. Part B. Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics (Search for Journal in Brave)

Full work available at URL https://arxiv.org/abs/1508.07684

zbMATH Keywords

quantum statecriterion of reality\(\psi\)-ontology theoremsontological model frameworkprotective measurementpusey-barrett-rudolph theorem

Mathematics Subject Classification ID

Physics (00A79) General and philosophical questions in quantum theory (81P05) Quantum measurement theory, state operations, state preparations (81P15) Stochastic mechanics (including stochastic electrodynamics) (81P20)

Abstract: The ontological model framework provides a rigorous approach to address the question of whether the quantum state is ontic or epistemic. When considering only conventional projective measurements, auxiliary assumptions are always needed to prove the reality of the quantum state in the framework. For example, the Pusey-Barrett-Rudolph theorem is based on an additional preparation independence assumption. In this paper, we give a new proof of psi-ontology in terms of protective measurements in the ontological model framework. The proof does not rely on auxiliary assumptions, and also applies to deterministic theories such as the de Broglie-Bohm theory. In addition, we give a simpler argument for psi-ontology beyond the framework, which is only based on protective measurements and a weaker criterion of reality. The argument may be also appealing for those people who favor an anti-realist view of quantum mechanics.

Recommendations

• WHY PROTECTIVE MEASUREMENT IMPLIES THE REALITY OF THE WAVE FUNCTION: FURTHER CONSOLIDATION
• Why protective measurement does not establish the reality of the quantum state
• Are quantum states real?
• On the classification between \(\psi \)-ontic and \(\psi \)-epistemic ontological models
• On Uffink's criticism of protective measurements

Cites work

• Are quantum states real?
• Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality Be Considered Complete?
• Can the ontological models framework accommodate Bohmian mechanics?
• Einstein, incompleteness, and the epistemic view of quantum states
• On Uffink's criticism of protective measurements

Cited in

(8)

• Limitations to genuine measurements in ontological models of quantum mechanics
• On the classification between \(\psi \)-ontic and \(\psi \)-epistemic ontological models
• Is the statistical interpretation of quantum mechanics \(\psi\)-ontic or \(\psi\)-epistemic?
• Are quantum states real?
• Why protective measurement does not establish the reality of the quantum state
• Book review of: S. Gao, The meaning of the wave function. In search of the ontology of quantum mechanics
• WHY PROTECTIVE MEASUREMENT IMPLIES THE REALITY OF THE WAVE FUNCTION: FURTHER CONSOLIDATION
• On the reality of the quantum state once again: a no-go theorem for \(\psi\)-ontic models

This page was built for publication: An argument for \(\psi\)-ontology in terms of protective measurements

Report a bug (only for logged in users!)Click here to report a bug for this page (MaRDI item Q905660)