Psi-epistemic arguments against reality of quantum states

Join the discussion
Registration is free. Start your own thread to ask a follow-up.
Sign up Log in
5 replies · 2K views
msumm21
Messages
248
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

Discussion

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.