Comment on "Is a system's wave function in one-to-one correspondence with its elements of reality?" [arXiv:1111.6597]
aa r X i v : . [ qu a n t - ph ] F e b Comment on “Is a Systems Wave Function in One-to-One Correspondence with ItsElements of Reality?” ∗ GianCarlo Ghirardi † Department of Physics, University of Trieste, and the Abdus Salam ICTP, Trieste (Italy)
Raffaele Romano ‡ Department of Mathematics, Iowa State University, Ames, IA (USA)
The one-to-one correspondence between quantum statevectors and elements of reality [1] follows from the as-sumptions of validity of quantum mechanics, QM , and astrong request of freedom of choice of measurement set-tings, F R , introduced in [2]. Here we argue that in [1, 2]
F R is improperly identified with the free will assumption,producing erroneous conclusions (for a more epistemolog-ically oriented criticism see [3]). In particular, the no-gotheorem on ψ -epistemic models presented in [1] does nothave general validity.We consider two space-like separated observers per-forming local measurements on the two parties of an en-tangled state ψ . The measurement settings are given byvectors A and B , the outcomes are denoted by X and Y . Following [1, 2], we assume there is additional infor-mation on the ontic state λ (the complete specification ofthe state of the system, in principle non completely ac-cessible), obtained through a measurement with setting C and output Z (we do not exclude the case Z = λ ). Weconsider all these quantities as random variables.The F R assumption is the condition that the input A can be chosen to be uncorrelated with all the space-timerandom variables whose coordinates lie outside the futurelight-cone of its coordinates [2], and the same requirementholds also for B and C . This assumption is expressed bythe following requests on the conditional probabilities: P A | BCY Z = P A , P B | ACXZ = P B , P C | ABXY = P C , which are all needed to derive the main results of [1,2]. However, we notice that the free will condition canbe consistently expressed in a different form, by makingreference exclusively to the fact that the two observerscan independently choose which observables to measure: P A | Bλ = P A , P B | Aλ = P B , where λ is the aforementioned ontic state. This condi-tion, denoted by F R ′ in the following, produces the rele-vant factorization P ABλ = P A P B P λ . Meaningfully, F R ′ is unrelated with the physically important assumptionthat the two observers cannot communicate superlumi-nally, denoted as N S , and expressed by P X | AB = P X | A and P Y | AB = P Y | B . This is reasonable: one could havemodels in which free will and superluminal signalling co-exist. Notice that F R ⇒ N S , supporting the idea that
F R represents more than the free choice assumption.We observe that in [2] it is pointed out that the in-formation supplementing ψ must be static, that is, its behavior cannot depend on where or when it is observed .Otherwise said, the region of events corresponding to theacquisition of this information can be chosen to be space-like with respect to the events associated to A and B , sothat P CZ | ABXY = P CZ . This statement is presented as asimple remark in [2]; nonetheless, here we find convenientto consider it as a new assumption, denoted by ST . Itturns out that F R ′ ∧ N S ∧ ST ⇒ F R. (1)In fact, from ST it follows that P ABY | CZ = P ABY ; more-over we have P ABY | CZ = P A | BY CZ P BY | CZ = P A | BY CZ P BY (2)by using again ST , but also P ABY = P AB P Y | AB = P A P B P Y | B = P A P BY (3)from N S and
F R ′ . By comparing (2) and (3) we findthat P A | BY CZ = P A , and a similar argument proves that P B | AXCZ = P B . Finally, P C | AXBY = P C is a directimplication of ST .Therefore, violation of F R does not necessarily im-ply lack of free will as long as ST or N S are violated.This means that ψ -epistemic models fully consistent withquantum mechanics, with the free will assumption andwithout superluminal communication are indeed possi-ble, as long as the supplementary information on the on-tic state is not static P C | ABXY = P C . For instance, theycan be easily built by following the lines described in [4]. ∗ This research is supported by the ARO MURI grantW911NF-11-1-0268. † Electronic address: [email protected] ‡ Electronic address: [email protected][1] R. Colbeck and R. Renner, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 150402(2012)[2] R. Colbeck and R. Renner, Nature Comm. 2, 411 (2011)[3] G.C. Ghirardi and R. Romano,