Literature DB >> 25014796

No ψ-epistemic model can fully explain the indistinguishability of quantum states.

Jonathan Barrett1, Eric G Cavalcanti2, Raymond Lal1, Owen J E Maroney3.   

Abstract

According to a recent no-go theorem [M. Pusey, J. Barrett and T. Rudolph, Nat. Phys. 8, 475 (2012)], models in which quantum states correspond to probability distributions over the values of some underlying physical variables must have the following feature: the distributions corresponding to distinct quantum states do not overlap. In such a model, it cannot coherently be maintained that the quantum state merely encodes information about underlying physical variables. The theorem, however, considers only models in which the physical variables corresponding to independently prepared systems are independent, and this has been used to challenge the conclusions of that work. Here we consider models that are defined for a single quantum system of dimension d, such that the independence condition does not arise, and derive an upper bound on the extent to which the probability distributions can overlap. In particular, models in which the quantum overlap between pure states is equal to the classical overlap between the corresponding probability distributions cannot reproduce the quantum predictions in any dimension d ≥ 3. Thus any ontological model for quantum theory must postulate some extra principle, such as a limitation on the measurability of physical variables, to explain the indistinguishability of quantum states. Moreover, we show that as d→∞, the ratio of classical and quantum overlaps goes to zero for a class of states. The result is noise tolerant, and an experiment is motivated to distinguish the class of models ruled out from quantum theory.

Entities:  

Year:  2014        PMID: 25014796     DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.112.250403

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Phys Rev Lett        ISSN: 0031-9007            Impact factor:   9.161


  5 in total

1.  Bell's inequality violation with spins in silicon.

Authors:  Juan P Dehollain; Stephanie Simmons; Juha T Muhonen; Rachpon Kalra; Arne Laucht; Fay Hudson; Kohei M Itoh; David N Jamieson; Jeffrey C McCallum; Andrew S Dzurak; Andrea Morello
Journal:  Nat Nanotechnol       Date:  2015-11-16       Impact factor: 39.213

2.  Quantum physics: What is really real?

Authors:  Zeeya Merali
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2015-05-21       Impact factor: 49.962

3.  Is a time symmetric interpretation of quantum theory possible without retrocausality?

Authors:  Matthew S Leifer; Matthew F Pusey
Journal:  Proc Math Phys Eng Sci       Date:  2017-06-21       Impact factor: 2.704

4.  The wave function as a true ensemble.

Authors:  Jonte R Hance; Sabine Hossenfelder
Journal:  Proc Math Phys Eng Sci       Date:  2022-06-22       Impact factor: 3.213

5.  Experimental test of the no-go theorem for continuous ψ-epistemic models.

Authors:  Kai-Yu Liao; Xin-Ding Zhang; Guang-Zhou Guo; Bao-Quan Ai; Hui Yan; Shi-Liang Zhu
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2016-05-31       Impact factor: 4.379

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.