Matthew S. Leifer

Is the Quantum State Real? An Extended Review of ψ-ontology Theorems

Towards the end of 2011, Pusey, Barrett and Rudolph derived a theorem that aimed to show that the quantum state must be ontic (a state of reality) in a broad class of realist approaches to quantum theory. This result attracted a lot of attention and controversy. The aim of this review article is to review the background to the Pusey–Barrett–Rudolph Theorem, to provide a clear presentation of the theorem itself, and to review related work that has appeared since the publication of the Pusey–Barrett–Rudolph paper. In particular, this review: Explains what it means for the quantum state to be ontic or epistemic (a state of knowledge); Reviews arguments for and against an ontic interpretation of the quantum state as they existed prior to the Pusey–Barrett–Rudolph Theorem; Explains why proving the reality of the quantum state is a very strong constraint on realist theories in that it would imply many of the known no-go theorems, such as Bells Theorem and the need for an exponentially large ontic state space; Provides a comprehensive presentation of the Pusey–Barrett–Rudolph Theorem itself, along with subsequent improvements and criticisms of its assumptions; Reviews two other arguments for the reality of the quantum state: the first due to Hardy and the second due to Colbeck and Renner, and explains why their assumptions are less compelling than those of the Pusey–Barrett–Rudolph Theorem; Reviews subsequent work aimed at ruling out stronger notions of what it means for the quantum state to be epistemic and points out open questions in this area. The overall aim is not only to provide the background needed for the novice in this area to understand the current status, but also to discuss often overlooked subtleties that should be of interest to the experts. Quanta 2014; 3: 67–155.

Quantum dynamics as an analog of conditional probability

Quantum theory can be regarded as a noncommutative generalization of classical probability. From this point of view, one expects quantum dynamics to be analogous to classical conditional probabilities. In this paper, a variant of the well-known isomorphism between completely positive maps and bipartite density operators is derived, which makes this connection much more explicit. This isomorphism is given an operational interpretation in terms of statistical correlations between ensemble preparation procedures and outcomes of measurements. Finally, the isomorphism is applied to elucidate the connection between no-cloning and no-broadcasting theorems and the monogamy of entanglement, and a simplified proof of the no-broadcasting theorem is obtained as a by-product.

No return to classical reality

At a fundamental level, the classical picture of the world is dead, and has been dead now for almost a century. Pinning down exactly which quantum phenomena are responsible for this has proved to be a tricky and controversial question, but a lot of progress has been made in the past few decades. We now have a range of precise statements showing that whatever the ultimate laws of nature are, they cannot be classical. In this article, we review results on the fundamental phenomena of quantum theory that cannot be understood in classical terms. We proceed by first granting quite a broad notion of classicality, describe a range of quantum phenomena (such as randomness, discreteness, the indistinguishability of states, measurement-uncertainty, measurement-disturbance, complementarity, non-commutativity, interference, the no-cloning theorem and the collapse of the wave-packet) that do fall under its liberal scope, and then finally describe some aspects of quantum physics that can never admit a classical understanding – the intrinsically quantum mechanical aspects of nature. The most famous of these is Bell’s theorem, but we also review two more recent results in this area. Firstly, Hardy’s theorem shows that even a finite-dimensional quantum system must contain an infinite amount of information, and secondly, the Pusey–Barrett–Rudolph theorem shows that the wave function must be an objective property of an individual quantum system. Besides being of foundational interest, results of this sort now find surprising practical applications in areas such as quantum information science and the simulation of quantum systems.

ψ-Epistemic Models are Exponentially Bad at Explaining the Distinguishability of Quantum States

The status of the quantum state is perhaps the most controversial issue in the foundations of quantum theory. Is it an epistemic state (state of knowledge) or an ontic state (state of reality)? In realist models of quantum theory, the epistemic view asserts that nonorthogonal quantum states correspond to overlapping probability measures over the true ontic states. This naturally accounts for a large number of otherwise puzzling quantum phenomena. For example, the indistinguishability of nonorthogonal states is explained by the fact that the ontic state sometimes lies in the overlap region, in which case there is nothing in reality that could distinguish the two states. For this to work, the amount of overlap of the probability measures should be comparable to the indistinguishability of the quantum states. In this Letter, I exhibit a family of states for which the ratio of these two quantities must be ≤2de-cd in Hilbert spaces of dimension d that are divisible by 4. This implies that, for large Hilbert space dimension, the epistemic explanation of indistinguishability becomes implausible at an exponential rate as the Hilbert space dimension increases.

Nonclassicality without entanglement enables bit commitment

We investigate the existence of secure bit commitment protocols in the convex framework for probabilistic theories. The theory makes only minimal assumptions, and can be used to formalize quantum theory, classical probability theory, and a host of other possibilities. We prove that in all such theories that are locally non-classical but do not have entanglement, there exists a bit commitment protocol that is exponentially secure in the number of systems used.

Is a time symmetric interpretation of quantum theory possible without retrocausality

Huw Price has proposed an argument that suggests a time symmetric ontology for quantum theory must necessarily be retrocausal, i.e. it must involve influences that travel backwards in time. One of Prices assumptions is that the quantum state is a state of reality. However, one of the reasons for exploring retrocausality is that it offers the potential for evading the consequences of no-go theorems, including recent proofs of the reality of the quantum state. Here, we show that this assumption can be replaced by a different assumption, called λ-mediation, that plausibly holds independently of the status of the quantum state. We also reformulate the other assumptions behind the argument to place them in a more general framework and pin down the notion of time symmetry involved more precisely. We show that our assumptions imply a timelike analogue of Bells local causality criterion and, in doing so, give a new interpretation of timelike violations of Bell inequalities. Namely, they show the impossibility of a (non-retrocausal) time symmetric ontology.

Conditional Density Operators and the Subjectivity of Quantum Operations

Assuming that quantum states, including pure states, represent subjective degrees of belief rather than objective properties of systems, the question of what other elements of the quantum formalism must also be taken as subjective is addressed. In particular, we ask this of the dynamical aspects of the formalism, such as Hamiltonians and unitary operators. Whilst some operations, such as the update maps corresponding to a complete projective measurement, must be subjective, the situation is not so clear in other cases. Here, it is argued that all trace preserving completely positive maps, including unitary operators, should be regarded as subjective, in the same sense as a classical conditional probability distribution. The argument is based on a reworking of the Choi‐Jamiolkowski isomorphism in terms of “conditional” density operators and trace preserving completely positive maps, which mimics the relationship between conditional probabilities and stochastic maps in classical probability.

Pre- and post-selection paradoxes and contextuality in quantum mechanics.

Many seemingly paradoxical effects are known in the predictions for outcomes of intermediate measurements made on pre- and post-selected quantum systems. Despite appearances, these effects do not demonstrate the impossibility of a noncontextual hidden variable theory, since an explanation in terms of measurement disturbance is possible. Nonetheless, we show that for every paradoxical effect wherein all the pre- and post-selected probabilities are 0 or 1 and the pre- and post-selected states are nonorthogonal, there is an associated proof of the impossibility of a noncontextual hidden variable theory. This proof is obtained by considering all the measurements involved in the paradoxical effect--the preselection, the post-selection, and the alternative possible intermediate measurements--as alternative possible measurements at a single time.

Bell's jump process in discrete time

The jump process introduced by J. S. Bell in 1986, for defining a quantum field theory without observers, presupposes that space is discrete whereas time is continuous. In this letter, our interest is to find an analogous process in discrete time. We argue that a genuine analog does not exist, but provide examples of processes in discrete time that could be used as a replacement.

Why protective measurement does not establish the reality of the quantum state

Abstract“Protective measurement” refers to two related schemes for finding the expectation value of an observable without disturbing the state of a quantum system, given a single copy of the system that is subject to a “protecting” operation. There have been several claims that these schemes support interpreting the quantum state as an objective property of a single quantum system. Here we provide three counter-arguments, each of which we present in two versions tailored to the two different schemes. Our first argument shows that the same resources used in protective measurement can be used to reconstruct the quantum state in a different way via process tomography. Our second argument is based on exact analyses of special cases of protective measurement, and our final argument is to construct explicit “