6

I am having trouble to understand the reasoning in the following paper,

On the reality of the quantum state. MF Pusey, J Barret and T Rudolph. Nature Phys. 8, 475–478 (2012); arXiv:1111.3328.

From a few general assumptions, it claims to have proved the quantum wave functions must represent the physical states, rather than the knowledge about the physical systems. I didn't get the reasoning from page 2 to page 3, for the simplest case. The argument goes as following.

With two copies of the same device independently, each of which can prepare its quantum states in either $|0\rangle$ or $|+\rangle$:

$$ |+\rangle = \frac{|0\rangle + |1\rangle}{\sqrt{2}} $$

for which the distributions of physical states are $\mu_0(\lambda)$ and $\mu_+(\lambda)$. Suppose that $|0\rangle$ and $|+\rangle$ represent the knowledge states, which means $\mu_0(\lambda)$ and $\mu_+(\lambda)$ can overlap for $\lambda \in \Delta$. "This means that the physical state of the two systems is compatible with any of the four possible quantum states $|0\rangle \otimes |0\rangle$, $|0\rangle \otimes |+\rangle$, $|+\rangle \otimes |0\rangle$ and $|+\rangle \otimes |+\rangle$"

Then two systems are brought together and measured by projecting onto four orthogonal states $|\xi_1\rangle$, $|\xi_2\rangle$, $|\xi_3\rangle$ and $|\xi_4\rangle$, such that

\begin{align} \langle0,0 | \xi_1\rangle & = 0 \\ \langle0,+ | \xi_2\rangle & = 0 \\ \langle+,0 | \xi_3\rangle & = 0 \\ \langle+,+ | \xi_4\rangle & = 0 \end{align}

From here, the authors stated that, for the overlap region $\lambda \in \Delta$ "it runs the risk of giving an outcome that quantum theory predicts should occur with probability 0". It is this last step reasoning that got me lost. How could one reach the conclusion of all four possible states, namely $|0\rangle \otimes |0\rangle$, $|0\rangle \otimes |+\rangle$, $|+\rangle \otimes |0\rangle$ and $|+\rangle \otimes |+\rangle$, having probability of 0, based on the above four orthogonal relations and $\lambda \in \Delta$? Please help me understand this step of the proof.

user36125
  • 346
  • 1
    After a cursory look at it, it seems to be yet another paper of the sort that makes a scientifically unnecessary and unwarranted assumption about reality and then "proves" that this assumption is not covered by quantum mechanics. Absolutely nothing relevant to science can be learned this way. Is this good philosophy? Maybe... if you think that a philosophy paper that asks "Is Man a Turnip?" and then comes to the conclusion that man is not a turnip is a relevant philosophy paper. What do you think? – CuriousOne Feb 08 '16 at 22:21
  • 1
    @CuriousOne I am not sure what you really means "this assumption is not covered by quantum mechanics". Do you think people all clearly understand and agree on what the quantum wave-function represents? The problem is, it is not clear at all. It is relevant to what the Von Neumann's assumption of "wave-function reduction" really means. Is it simply a state of knowledge change, or is it really indicating some "new" physical phenomenon we haven't really understand, which I would doubt by just common sense. – user36125 Feb 08 '16 at 23:41
  • @CuriousOne Not really - the PBR theorem does contain some new material (it made a big splash some three years ago), though the charge is probably that it only really formalized stuff that people intuitively knew, and it does not rule out any $\psi$-epistemic theory that was being seriously considered by anyone. What it shows is that if there is at all a "state of the world" $\lambda$, then the wavefunction $\psi$ must be a physical descriptor and not just "pure information"; the only real alternative left are forms of 't Hooftian superdeterminism. Not a paper to read lightly. – Emilio Pisanty Feb 08 '16 at 23:45
  • This problem is certainly relevant to the quantum measurement and all related physical processes. What differentiates the science and general philosophy is the realization of experimental verification, or falsification. I am seeking an answer that can be experimentally tested. I am wondering whether the proof in this paper can, or cannot, be experimentally implemented. But first I need to understand what authors are talking about, before I could make that judgement. This is the motivation of my question about their proof. – user36125 Feb 08 '16 at 23:45
  • There is no relevance to what people think in physics but this paper, like so many others, is about nothing else. The paper doesn't present any new physics... in order to do so one has to perform an experiment. – CuriousOne Feb 08 '16 at 23:46
  • @EmilioPisanty: Unless you can calculate something with $\psi$-epistemics that nobody else can calculate without, it's irrelevant, isn't it? So what can I calculate here that I can't calculate any other way? What's the new physics? – CuriousOne Feb 08 '16 at 23:46
  • Exactly. Neither did Bell's theorem present any new physics, requiring experiment to be confirmed, but that does not detract from the scientific interest of either. – Emilio Pisanty Feb 08 '16 at 23:47
  • @EmilioPisanty: Bell didn't propose a physical question but a philosophical one and he didn't introduce any new physical assumptions. Neither did any of the many (rather poorly) performed experiments uncover anything unusual. Don't get me wrong, but by 1935 the physics of QM was done and the best physicists working on it, like Dirac, had moved on to QFT. The latter has produced a fury of new and completely unexpected results in the past 80 years, the speculation about the structure of quantum mechanics has produced none. That's what happens when you don't work on new experimental regimes. – CuriousOne Feb 08 '16 at 23:51
  • @EmilioPisanty would you mind formalizing a little detailed answer to my question? My gut tells that, there must be more important assumption(s) than what were stated in the paper to reach such a conclusion. As to the case of Bell's theorem, in my humble opinion, it has (1) the definition of "localism" not physically justified, as well as (2) the probability rules not compatible with the quantum theory. So it's not a significantly new result in those perspectives, at least. – user36125 Feb 08 '16 at 23:55
  • @CuriousOne Yeah, if you don't see the value of Bell's theorem there's little hope of selling you PBR. I hope you'll agree that both theorems have roughly equivalent epistemologic status (with no claim on both being equally important), and we can agree to disagree on their scientific importance. – Emilio Pisanty Feb 09 '16 at 00:22
  • @EmilioPisanty: I can see the value of all of this for those who are suspecting that there is a man behind the curtain of QM (I was one of them once... roughly until I discovered the relativistic phenomenology). The problem I see is that what we really want (isn't it) is to understand how our toys work and for that, unfortunately one has to break them. Dressing them up is not sufficient to look inside. The drama and tragedy is that nature seems to have made the toys tamper-resistant to, at least, 6e19eV and the best screw driver we have falls far short of that... :-( – CuriousOne Feb 09 '16 at 00:29
  • @CuriousOne There are plenty of reasons to hope for $\psi$-epistemic models, which include the 'ontologic promiscuity' of exponential state space size (analogous to a probability distribution) and, if you take a strict Copenhagen view, the universe having vast communication and computation abilities which we are nevertheless forbidden from using. If you don't have a problem with this, and you don't see anything wonky going on in the measurement problem, then good for you! I for one tend to regard this as more fundamental than HEP... but to each their own. – Emilio Pisanty Feb 09 '16 at 00:33
  • @EmilioPisanty: I have yet to see an experimental proof that the state space grows exponentially. It does that for idealized measurements, i.e. if we neglect the final size of the measurement device, but then we all know that that's an approximation. Yes, the future is exponentially open if we perform an increasing number of measurements because we are always throwing new dice, but that's no different than in classical mechanics, is it? Quantum computing may answer that. One day a QC programmer will get a false result... because his readout circuits were too small. – CuriousOne Feb 09 '16 at 00:42
  • @CuriousOne I don't see much value in discussing this further tbh. If you want to see why people are worried about this, I would recommend Pusey, Rudolph, Spekkens, and up & down citations. If you don't, I might suggest simply accepting that there are people who think these issues have scientific merit. Or not, as you choose. – Emilio Pisanty Feb 09 '16 at 00:47
  • @EmilioPisanty: I am sorry you feel that way, since we just got to the physically really relevant question... where does the phase space come from? If you have an insight into that, I would love to hear it in a chat... that's the one thing that actually interests me. – CuriousOne Feb 09 '16 at 00:59
  • 2

1 Answers1

5

The chain of reasoning runs something like this:

  • Assume that the distributions $\mu_0(\lambda)$ and $\mu_+(\lambda)$ overlap in $\Delta\subset\Lambda$, so with probability $q$ preparing $|0⟩$ will produce a state $\lambda$ consistent with $|+⟩$ and vice versa.
  • Assume that the two systems can be prepared independently.
  • Therefore, with probability $q$ the preparation will produce states $\lambda_1$ and $\lambda_2$ consistent with both $|0⟩$ and $|+⟩$ for the two systems.
  • $|\xi_1⟩$ is orthogonal to $|0,0⟩$, so it is incompatible with any state that could be produced when preparing $|0,0⟩$, such as $(\lambda_1,\lambda_2)$. The only way that $(\lambda_1,\lambda_2)$ could be compatible with $|\xi_1⟩$ is that the system knew, when I prepared $|0,0⟩$, that I was going to measure $|\xi_1⟩$, and then subselected from the support in $\Lambda^2$ of $|0,0⟩$, and that is a superdeterministic assumption.
  • Similarly none of $|\xi_2⟩$, $|\xi_3⟩$ or $|\xi_4⟩$ can happen.
  • ... so the probability of measurement is zero? Contradiction.

Hopefully that is clear enough.

Emilio Pisanty
  • 132,859
  • 33
  • 351
  • 666
  • 1
    Is this the proof that QM I is correct, using nothing but statements from QM I? Sorry for prying, but what did we learn here? – CuriousOne Feb 08 '16 at 23:58
  • 1
    As I said: If there is an objective state of the world, and if we're allowed to prepare systems independently, then given the objective state of the world $\lambda$ we can always infer the wavefunction $\psi$, i.e. it "exists" as a property of the objective state of the world. This is as opposed to $\psi$-epistemic models where $\psi$ is exclusively a state of information in the observer's head which gets updated after measurement results are discovered. If you don't see the need for such models, then you didn't need convincing in the first place. – Emilio Pisanty Feb 09 '16 at 00:24
  • But the outcome of the future (isn't that what dynamics is about?) isn't just the state (objective or not), it's also what we decide to measure about it. Nature can't know what information we will extract from it, so "the state" necessarily has to leave that open because it is ignorant of what is between "it" and the final outcome of what we call "a measurement". I don't see a particular need to dice that ever finer, as long as we don't start seeing contradictions between what the theory predicts and what measurements return. – CuriousOne Feb 09 '16 at 00:30
  • @EmilioPisanty Thanks! It only proved that the quantum theory contradicts the way how the authors formalized the "state of the world" λ and its relation to quantum states. Why is this way of formalizing the "state of the world" λ so general that it should cover the quantum physical world? – user36125 Feb 09 '16 at 00:34
  • Apologies about the key slip... my mind is failing, but not that badly. :-) – CuriousOne Feb 09 '16 at 00:36
  • @user36125 That's sort of the most general possible way to formalize it (but if you have a better one then I believe PBR would be interested in hearing about it). Roughly it simply presumes there exists some big set $\Lambda$ with all the possible states of the world, and that "preparing $|0⟩$" creates some probability distribution over some subset $\mathrm{supp}(\mu_0)\subset\Lambda$. Thereafter you start distinguishing between $\psi$-ontic and $\psi$-epistemic models depending on their characteristics; the place to go there is Harrigan & Spekkens (ref. 10 in PBR). – Emilio Pisanty Feb 09 '16 at 00:40
  • @CuriousOne No worries - I just wanted a steady target to respond to. – Emilio Pisanty Feb 09 '16 at 00:41
  • @CuriousOne Apologies - I'm afraid I don't see the point if you're making one, or how it relates to the nature of the quantum state. – Emilio Pisanty Feb 09 '16 at 00:50
  • My point is that the quantum state is never sufficient to describe the actual dynamics of the system. Even if we stick to non-relativistic QM we need to take the state of the measurement device into account, and once we move to relativistic QM there is always a completely unknown background state of the vacuum that is not reducible. Yes, one may slice and dice around the wave function, but the side effect is that most people lose track of the fact that theory, on this level, doesn't actually describe reality. – CuriousOne Feb 09 '16 at 00:57
  • @CuriousOne I would tend to disagree - that sector of the literature is perfectly aware of the effects of the measurement process, and indeed it is as integral to the preparation procedure to the experimental results. But perhaps you do know the quantum foundations literature well enough to make such claims - I for sure am no expert. – Emilio Pisanty Feb 09 '16 at 01:01
  • I am not saying that people aren't aware but that this awareness is not sufficient to do what needs to be done if we follow standard procedure: devise experiments that decide if non-relativistic, non-QFT treatments of the problem are actually sufficient. As Einstein said... one can't solve a problem with the same thinking that created it, but I think that is exactly what is going on here. Classical QM is a closed (and inflexible) way of thinking about systems that has little in common with what an experimentalist knows from experience about how real experiments work. – CuriousOne Feb 09 '16 at 01:07
  • I found the answer about this paper in this post is very helpful: Consequences of the new theorem in QM – user36125 Feb 09 '16 at 03:57
  • I found another post is also relevant and helpful: The quantum state can be interpreted statistically, again – user36125 Feb 16 '16 at 06:22