Psi-epistemic arguments against reality of quantum states

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around psi-epistemic arguments against the reality of quantum states, specifically focusing on interpretations of quantum mechanics that consider the nature of quantum states as either ontic or epistemic. Participants explore the implications of a specific argument by Spekkens regarding the distinguishability of quantum states based on measurement outcomes.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants question the reasoning behind the argument that if two quantum states are ontic, they should be distinguishable through measurement, and seek clarification on why this expectation exists.
  • There is a concern about the credibility of the referenced paper, with some participants noting that it has not been published in a mainstream peer-reviewed journal.
  • Others confirm that the paper and its references have undergone peer review, although the reputation of the publishing source is debated.
  • One participant mentions that the publisher is categorized as a known predatory publisher, raising further questions about the validity of the arguments presented in the paper.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the validity of the arguments against psi-ontic interpretations and the credibility of the paper in question. There is no consensus on the strength of the arguments or the reliability of the source.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights limitations regarding the acceptance of sources, with some participants emphasizing the need for reputable references in academic discussions. The debate also reflects uncertainty about the implications of measurement outcomes in distinguishing quantum states.

msumm21
Messages
247
Reaction score
28
I was just reading a paper <predatory publisher reference deleted>

There is an argument (originally by Spekkens), in Section 2.1, that is supposed to be against psi-ontic interpretations. As I understand it, it's that if someone hands you a particle in state x+ or y+ you cannot tell the difference with certainty from a subsequent measurement. Although I realize this is true, the argument continues to say that, if those were 2 different ontic states then it's puzzling that you cannot necessarily tell the difference, and therefore taken as an argument against psi-ontic interpretations. This latter part is what I don't understand. Is there some reason to think that ontic states should be perfectly distinguishable from a single measurement? Why would this argument hold weight?

I have similar issues with the other arguments against psi-ontic interpretations in this section. Any clarifications would be much appreciated.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
msumm21 said:
I was just reading a paper

There is an argument (originally by Spekkens), in Section 2.1, that is supposed to be against psi-ontic interpretations. As I understand it, it's that if someone hands you a particle in state x+ or y+ you cannot tell the difference with certainty from a subsequent measurement. Although I realize this is true, the argument continues to say that, if those were 2 different ontic states then it's puzzling that you cannot necessarily tell the difference, and therefore taken as an argument against psi-ontic interpretations. This latter part is what I don't understand. Is there some reason to think that ontic states should be perfectly distinguishable from a single measurement? Why would this argument hold weight?

I have similar issues with the other arguments against psi-ontic interpretations in this section. Any clarifications would be much appreciated.
Has that paper been published yet in a mainstream peer-reviewed journal? If not, it may not be an acceptable reference for starting a thread on the PF...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Yes, looks like both this paper and the paper this specific section references were peer reviewed.
 
msumm21 said:
Yes, looks like both this paper and the paper this specific section references were peer reviewed.
Great! Please post the links to the peer-reviewed papers and we can keep this thread open for discussion. :smile:
 
From the Mentor discussion about this thread, it appears that the paper has not been published by a reputable source. Thread will remain closed until the OP can PM me a valid link for discussion. Thank you.

It was published in an open access journal which is not on the TR master journal list. It is also not on Beal's list of predatory publishers.
 

Similar threads

Undergrad Can a qubit have a finite number of ontic states in an epistemic model?
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Graduate Is there an additional assumption in the PBR theorem?
  • · Replies 120 ·
5
Replies
120
Views
10K
High School Psi-ontic view, macro objects and decoherence
  • · Replies 38 ·
2
Replies
38
Views
5K
Graduate Exact symmetry, quantum states, and symmetric dynamics
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
1K
Graduate Quantum state vector and physical state
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Graduate Can anyone give me the details of creating a cat state in Circuit QED?
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
4K
Undergrad States and observables in quantum mechanics
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
Graduate Understanding how quantum annealing solves QUBO problems
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Undergrad Ways of measuring open quantum systems
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Undergrad Role of determinate states in quantum mechanics
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K