- #1

- 1,116

- 72

http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0205039v1.pdf

It would suggest that the quantum wavefunction is a representation of our state of knowledge of a system. Is this an accepted view?

You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

- Thread starter Jilang
- Start date

- #1

- 1,116

- 72

http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0205039v1.pdf

It would suggest that the quantum wavefunction is a representation of our state of knowledge of a system. Is this an accepted view?

- #2

atyy

Science Advisor

- 14,437

- 2,731

There are various proposals in this spirit.

One defintion of an epistemic view is given by http://arxiv.org/abs/0706.2661 (Found. Phys. 40, 125 (2010)).

Explicit constructions of epistemic interpretations are given by

http://arxiv.org/abs/1201.6554 (Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 150404)

http://arxiv.org/abs/1303.2834 (Phys. Rev. A 88, 032111 )

Limitations on epistemic interpretations are found in

http://arxiv.org/abs/1111.3328 (Nature Physics 8, 475–478 (2012))

http://arxiv.org/abs/1208.5132 (Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 120401)

Regardless of interpretation issues, one version of the epistemic view led to a very nice way to prove the quantum de Finetti representation theorem.

http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0104088 (J. Math. Phys. 43, 4537 (2002))

There are several definition of "epistemic". In addition to Harrigan and Spekkens definition referred to above, other proposals are:

http://arxiv.org/abs/1301.3274 (Rev. Mod. Phys. 85, 1693) - this is closest to the paper in the OP

http://arxiv.org/abs/1107.5849 (Phys. Rev. A 88, 052130)

It is also interesting to see an "epistemic" argument applied to Bohmian mechanics

http://arxiv.org/abs/0706.2522 (New J. Phys. 9 165 (2007))

One defintion of an epistemic view is given by http://arxiv.org/abs/0706.2661 (Found. Phys. 40, 125 (2010)).

Explicit constructions of epistemic interpretations are given by

http://arxiv.org/abs/1201.6554 (Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 150404)

http://arxiv.org/abs/1303.2834 (Phys. Rev. A 88, 032111 )

Limitations on epistemic interpretations are found in

http://arxiv.org/abs/1111.3328 (Nature Physics 8, 475–478 (2012))

http://arxiv.org/abs/1208.5132 (Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 120401)

Regardless of interpretation issues, one version of the epistemic view led to a very nice way to prove the quantum de Finetti representation theorem.

http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0104088 (J. Math. Phys. 43, 4537 (2002))

There are several definition of "epistemic". In addition to Harrigan and Spekkens definition referred to above, other proposals are:

http://arxiv.org/abs/1301.3274 (Rev. Mod. Phys. 85, 1693) - this is closest to the paper in the OP

http://arxiv.org/abs/1107.5849 (Phys. Rev. A 88, 052130)

It is also interesting to see an "epistemic" argument applied to Bohmian mechanics

http://arxiv.org/abs/0706.2522 (New J. Phys. 9 165 (2007))

Last edited:

- #3

- 1,116

- 72

Wow! That's going to keep me busy all weekend! Thanks.

Share: