Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

I Is the PBR Theorem valid?

  1. Sep 6, 2017 #1
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PBR_theorem

    "The theorem was first published as an arXiv preprint with Pusey as the principal author,[1] a subsequent version published in Nature Physics,[2] that states the theorem that either the quantum state corresponds to a physically real object and is not merely a statistical tool, or else all quantum states, including non-entangled ones, can communicate by action at a distance."

    This is very fantastic claim. Since many believe quantum state is just statistical tool. Does it mean all quantum states, including non-entangled ones, can communicate by action at a distance? This can be easily proved or disproved. Since it seemed it couldn't, then the claim at Wikipedia appears not to be correct. Hope someone can edit it to give the right context. Thank you.
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Sep 6, 2017 #2

    bhobba

    Staff: Mentor

    Its valid, but please read the entire paper - in particular note the assumptions (from the paper):
    'One is that a system has a “real physical state” – not necessarily completely described by quantum theory, but objective and independent of the observer. This assumption only needs to hold for systems that are isolated, and not entangled with other systems. Nonetheless, this assumption, or some part of it, would be denied by instrumentalist approaches to quantum theory, wherein the quantum state is merely a calculational tool for making predictions concerning macroscopic measurement outcomes.'

    That is the precise assumption many interpretations such as the ensemble reject or are silent on.

    Thanks
    Bill
     
  4. Sep 6, 2017 #3
    I've been reading https://arxiv.org/pdf/1111.3328.pdf but I can't get the reason for the isolation.

    Do you know why the assumption only needs to hold for systems that are isolated, and not entangled with other systems? What happens if the system is entangled with other systems. Why won't the PBR theorem no longer be valid?
     
  5. Sep 6, 2017 #4

    bhobba

    Staff: Mentor

    Its been a while since I have gone into that theorem - it caused a big stir when released I think 6 years ago now and I don't recall the details too well - except what I posted because people sometimes ask - how can you maintain its not real anymore.

    So I will have to wimp out and let someone with more current knowledge answer that one.

    Thanks
    Bill
     
  6. Sep 7, 2017 #5

    kith

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    The PBR theorem -under certain arguably weak assumptions- rules out that QM is a purely statistical theory about some underlying hidden variables which truly determine the physical state of a system.

    In order to assess the significance of this, you should note that although some people vaguely hold such a view no currently popular interpretation is of this type. The Copenhagen interpretation denies that there are hidden variables and in the de-Broglie-Bohm theory (dBB), the wavefunction is not merely a statistical tool but influences the hidden variables.

    The main influence of the PBR theorem on established interpretations is that it strengthens dBB against other conceivable hidden variable theories (HVTs). It proves that certain aspects of dBB are inevitable for HVTs and thus stands in the tradition of Bell's theorem (HVTs have to be non-local) and the Kochen-Specker theorem (HVTs have to be contextual).

    For me, this leaves only one question about HVTs open: dBB is sometimes crticized for the fact that the wavefunction influences the hidden variables but not the other way round. I wonder if this is also inevitable for HVTs. (Maybe it is already known; I am no expert on these matters)
     
    Last edited: Sep 7, 2017
  7. Sep 7, 2017 #5

    kith

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Also check this blog post by Matt Leifer who discusses the PBR theorem by introducing the terminology of epistemic and ontic states which is often used in quantum foundations research.
     
  8. Sep 7, 2017 #6
    Logic says the hidden variables (quantum potential or whatever) need to influence the wave function too.. what would it take to do this.. Demystifier? other Bohmians?
     
  9. Sep 7, 2017 #7

    DrChinese

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Here is something Demystifier prepared a while back, pretty nice overview of PBR:

    https://www.physicsforums.com/attachments/pbr-pdf.72453/
     
  10. Sep 8, 2017 #8

    vanhees71

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    2017 Award

    What I still not get about this proof (as summarized nicely in @Demystifier 's slides as well as in the PBR paper) is that they somehow seem to prove the ontic nature of quantum states under the assumption that there's some hidden variable ##\lambda## that determines the QT probabilities, making these "ontic". Don't they just put what they claim to prove into this assumption? In standard minimally interpreted QT there's nothing like ##\lambda##, and then isn't there again a loophole to the theorem in the sense that an epistemic interpretation of quantum state doesn't lead to a contradiction?

    In my opinion minimally interpreted QT strongly suggests an epistemic interpretation of the quantum state, but as I tried to explain earlier in this thread, this doesn't imply non-objectivity either.
     
  11. Sep 8, 2017 #9

    Demystifier

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Not exactly. They assume that there is some ##\lambda##, but a priori it is not obvious that ##\lambda## can determine ##\psi##. As I explained at page 15, the result is actually very surprising.

    You are right, this interpretation is not ruled out by the PBR theorem. What is ruled out are some Einstein-like attempts to find a hidden-variable theory in which ##\psi## is eliminated completely. Roughly speaking, the PBR theorem tells: don't even try, you cannot find such a theory.
     
  12. Sep 8, 2017 #10

    Demystifier

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Well, Bohmian hidden variables (that is, particle positions) do not inflence the wave function. And this is fully analogous to classical HJ theory where particle trajectories do not influence the S-function. So your logic is faulty.
     
  13. Sep 8, 2017 #11
    In message #5, Kith last sentence was "For me, this leaves only one question about HVTs open: dBB is sometimes crticized for the fact that the wavefunction influences the hidden variables but not the other way round. I wonder if this is also inevitable for HVTs. (Maybe it is already known; I am no expert on these matters)"

    If it was criticized.. this means some want the hidden variables to affect the wave function.. but in classical HJ theory, particle trajectories do not influence the S-function. So to avoid dBB being criticized, what should be the ontology such that the wave function can be influenced.. or if it can't be fixed within dBB.. can you please give example of another interpretation where the wave function can be influenced by a hidden variable such that the PBR theorem can apply? But then Kith mentioned "no currently popular interpretation is of this type".. so how do you cook up an interpretation which can support PBR theorem per Kith context? Many thanks.
     
  14. Sep 8, 2017 #12

    Demystifier

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Yes, some people criticize the fact that dBB trajectories do not influence the wave function. All I can do about it to accuse them for hypocrisy, for why then they don't criticize the fact that classical trajectories do not influence the HJ S-function?
     
  15. Sep 8, 2017 #13

    vanhees71

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    2017 Award

    Ok, then again a stupid question. What are dBB trajectories good for? AFAIK they are not (!) observable according to dBB.
     
  16. Sep 8, 2017 #14

    martinbn

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    But in the classical case they don't say that S-function influences the trajectories. And in dBB they say that.
     
  17. Sep 8, 2017 #15

    Demystifier

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Of course they do (even if by using different words). Take a look at an analytical mechanics book again.
     
  18. Sep 8, 2017 #16

    Demystifier

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    That's the wrong question. The correct one is: Who are dBB trajectories good for? The answer is: They are good for (some of) those who think that there is a measurement problem in standard QM. Which, of course, excludes you. :smile:

    This is analogous to atoms in 19th century, which were not observable at that time, but were still good for Boltzmann.
     
  19. Sep 8, 2017 #17

    martinbn

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    To me the wording is important. What words do they use and why don't the Bohmists use similar phrasing instead of influence? The thing is that for me the wave influences the trajectory sounds like the electric field influences the trajectory of a charged particle, which involves interaction between the particle and the field. And I have seen the pilot wave being compared to the electromagnetic field. If there is an interaction, the particle will influence the field as well, at least in principle.
     
  20. Sep 8, 2017 #18

    Demystifier

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Actually, Bohmians rarely say "influence", except as a response to someone else who used the same word. Personally, I usually say "determine", in both the HJ theory and Bohmin mechanics.
     
  21. Sep 8, 2017 #19

    martinbn

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Which is perfectly clear and unambiguous.
     
  22. Sep 8, 2017 #20

    Demystifier

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Yes, some people use this analogy. I guess it's addressed to mathematically less sophisticated readers who are familiar with electromagnetic theory but not with HJ theory. For more sophisticated readers, the HJ analogy is much better.
     
  23. Sep 8, 2017 #21

    martinbn

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Hm, now you'll make me read something about dBB. I was perfectly happy hating it and being ignorant about it. Damn you! :smile:
     
  24. Sep 11, 2017 #22
    I'm studying the events leading to Solvay 1927 and the years after it and reading this paper... https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0609184

    De Broglie has been using the Hamilton-Jacobi equation as early as 1927 in his Pilot Wave theory. Let's say we totally ignore Bohm's quantum potential concepts. Can the Pilot Wave be independent or stand on its own without Bohm's 1950s Bohmian Mechanics?? Some authors seemed to say de Broglie pilot wave is more elegant. As a Bohmian, can't (or won't) you become a pure de Broglian? Why not?

    page 267:
    "Pilot-wave theory is sometimes seen as a return to classical physics (welcomed by some, criticized by othes). But in fact, de Broglie’s velocity-based dynamics is a new form of dynamics that is simply quite distinct from classical theory; therefore, it is to be expected that the behavior of the trajectories will not conform to classical expectations. As we saw in detail in chapter 2, de Broglie did indeed originally regard his theory as a radical departure from the principles of classical dynamics. It was Bohm’s later revival of de Broglie’s theory, in an unnatural pseudo-Newtonian form, that led to the widespread and mistaken perception that de Broglie-Bohm theory constituted a return to classical physics. In more recent years, de Broglie’s original pilot-wave dynamics has again become recognized as a new form of dynamics in its own right (Durr, Goldstein and Zanghi 1992, Valentini 1992)."

    page 85:
    "In retrospect, de Broglian dynamics seems as radical as – and indeed somewhat reminiscent of – Einstein’s theory of gravity. According to Einstein, there is no gravitational force, and a freely falling body follows the straightest path in a curved spacetime. According to de Broglie, a massive body undergoing diffraction and following a curvilienear path is not acted upon by a Newtonian force: it is following the ray of a guiding wave. De Broglie’s abandonment of Newton’s first law of motion in 1923, and the adoption of the a dynamics based on velocity rather than acceleration, amounts to a far-reaching departure from classical mechanics and (arguably) from classical kinematics too – with implications for the structure of spacetime that have perhaps not been understood (Valentini 1997. Certainly, the extent to which de Broglie’s dynamics departs from classical ideas were unfortunately obscured by Bohm’s presentation of it, in 1952, in terms of acceleration and a pseudo-Newtonian quantum potential, a formulation that today seems artificial and inelegant compared with de Broglie’s (much as the rewriting of general relativity as field theory on flat spacetime seems unnatural and hardly illuminating). The fundamentally second-order nature of classical physics is today embodied in the formalism of Hamiltonian dynamics in phase space. In contrast, de Broglie’s first-order approach to the theory of motion seems more naturally cast in terms of a dynamics in configuration space."

    By the way. In Broglie's Pilot Wave, there is no Quantum potential invented by Bohm, what is the counterpart of "quantum potential" in de Broglie's Pilot wave approach?

    I'm interested in reading combination of Aether-like physics with either de Broglie's Pilot Wave or Bohmian's quantum potential to get more degrees of freedom to explain our world more completely because our current theory seems to be so tunnel vision as if (I sometimes wonder) they were designed that way to hide certain things..
     
  25. Sep 11, 2017 #23

    Demystifier

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    @fanieh the formulation without the quantum potential is much more elegant, especially when one wants to introduce spin. In the de Broglie formulation, the role of wave function is took by the wave function itself. However, the thing that de Broglie missed is the proof that this theory leads to same measurable predictions as standard QM. It was Bohm who first proved it, which is why the work of Bohm is much more important than the work of de Broglie.
     
  26. Sep 11, 2017 #24
    So can one proceed by noting de Broglie formulation have same measurable predictions as standard QM and yet bypassing Bohm's quantum potential since the one without is more elegant? Why do all current BM use idea of quantum potential?

    In the other thread. You hinted it was possible the fundamental particles (in contrast to the phonon quasiparticles) are the aether themselves (or other terms to describe it). So would it be better to use de Broglie (without quantum potential) in it or Bohm's quantum potential version or even Bohm third and final version that involves the implicate order (which seems to be similar to the AdS/CFt stuff)?
     
  27. Sep 11, 2017 #25

    Demystifier

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Yes.

    They do not. Quantum potential is perhaps often discussed in popular science literature, but in serious research it is not used so much.

    The de Broglie approach would be the best.
     
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook