I Psi-epistemic arguments against reality of quantum states

148
2
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:

berkeman

Mentor
55,700
5,785
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:
148
2
Yes, looks like both this paper and the paper this specific section references were peer reviewed.
 

berkeman

Mentor
55,700
5,785
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:
 

berkeman

Mentor
55,700
5,785
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.
 

Related Threads for: Psi-epistemic arguments against reality of quantum states

  • Posted
Replies
17
Views
1K
  • Posted
Replies
10
Views
814
Replies
69
Views
5K
Replies
4
Views
847
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • Posted
Replies
2
Views
532
Replies
22
Views
2K
Replies
38
Views
2K

Physics Forums Values

We Value Quality
• Topics based on mainstream science
• Proper English grammar and spelling
We Value Civility
• Positive and compassionate attitudes
• Patience while debating
We Value Productivity
• Disciplined to remain on-topic
• Recognition of own weaknesses
• Solo and co-op problem solving

Hot Threads

Top