We study the extent to which ψ-epistemic models for quantum measurement statistics-models where the quantum state does not have a real, ontic status-can explain the indistinguishability of nonorthogonal quantum states. This is done by comparing the overlap of any two quantum states with the overlap of the corresponding classical probability distributions over ontic states in a ψ-epistemic model. It is shown that in Hilbert spaces of dimension d≥4, the ratio between the classical and quantum overlaps in any ψ-epistemic model must be arbitrarily small for certain nonorthogonal states, suggesting that such models are arbitrarily bad at explaining the indistinguishability of quantum states. For dimensions d=3 and 4, we construct explicit states and measurements that can be used experimentally to put stringent bounds on the ratio of classical-to-quantum overlaps in ψ-epistemic models, allowing one in particular to rule out maximally ψ-epistemic models more efficiently than previously proposed.
We study the extent to which ψ-epistemic models for quantum measurement statistics-models where the quantum state does not have a real, ontic status-can explain the indistinguishability of nonorthogonal quantum states. This is done by comparing the overlap of any two quantum states with the overlap of the corresponding classical probability distributions over ontic states in a ψ-epistemic model. It is shown that in Hilbert spaces of dimension d≥4, the ratio between the classical and quantum overlaps in any ψ-epistemic model must be arbitrarily small for certain nonorthogonal states, suggesting that such models are arbitrarily bad at explaining the indistinguishability of quantum states. For dimensions d=3 and 4, we construct explicit states and measurements that can be used experimentally to put stringent bounds on the ratio of classical-to-quantum overlaps in ψ-epistemic models, allowing one in particular to rule out maximally ψ-epistemic models more efficiently than previously proposed.
The status of the quantum state is perhaps the most controversial issue in the foundations of quantum theory. Is it an epistemic state (state of knowledge) or an ontic state (state of reality)? In realist models of quantum theory, the epistemic view asserts that nonorthogonal quantum states correspond to overlapping probability measures over the true ontic states. This naturally accounts for a large number of otherwise puzzling quantum phenomena. For example, the indistinguishability of nonorthogonal states is explained by the fact that the ontic state sometimes lies in the overlap region, in which case there is nothing in reality that could distinguish the two states. For this to work, the amount of overlap of the probability measures should be comparable to the indistinguishability of the quantum states. In this Letter, I exhibit a family of states for which the ratio of these two quantities must be ≤2de-cd in Hilbert spaces of dimension d that are divisible by 4. This implies that, for large Hilbert space dimension, the epistemic explanation of indistinguishability becomes implausible at an exponential rate as the Hilbert space dimension increases.
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.
Formalizing an old desire of Einstein, “ψ-epistemic theories” try to reproduce the predictions of quantum mechanics, while viewing quantum states as ordinary probability distributions over underlying objects called “ontic states.” Regardless of one's philosophical views about such theories, the question arises of whether one can cleanly rule them out by proving no-go theorems analogous to the Bell inequality. In the 1960s, Kochen and Specker (who first studied these theories) constructed an elegant ψ-epistemic theory for Hilbert space dimension d = 2, but also showed that any deterministic ψ-epistemic theory must be “measurement contextual” in dimensions 3 and higher. Last year, the topic attracted renewed attention, when Pusey, Barrett, and Rudolph (PBR) showed that any ψ-epistemic theory must “behave badly under tensor product.” In this paper, we prove that even without the Kochen-Specker or PBR assumptions, there are no ψ-epistemic theories in dimensions d ≥ 3 that satisfy two reasonable conditions: (1) symmetry under unitary transformations and (2) “maximum nontriviality” (meaning that the probability distributions corresponding to any two nonorthogonal states overlap). This no-go theorem holds if the ontic space is either the set of quantum states or the set of unitaries. The proof of this result, in the general case, uses some measure theory and differential geometry. On the other hand, we also show the surprising result that without the symmetry restriction, one can construct maximally nontrivial ψ-epistemic theories in every finite dimension d.
A novel no-go theorem is presented which sets a bound upon the extent to which 'Ψ-epistemic' interpretations of quantum theory are able to explain the overlap between non-orthogonal quantum states in terms of an experimenter's ignorance of an underlying state of reality. The theorem applies to any Hilbert space of dimension greater than two. In the limit of large Hilbert spaces, no more than half of the overlap between quantum states can be accounted for. Unlike other recent no-go theorems no additional assumptions, such as forms of locality, invasiveness, or non-contextuality, are required.
Maximally ψ−epistemic models cannot explain gambling with two qubits
We investigate the minimal proof for ruling out maximally ψ−epistemic interpretations of quantum theory, in which the indistinguishable nature of two quantum states is fully explained by the epistemic overlap of their corresponding distributions over ontic states. To this end, we extend the standard notion of epistemic overlap by considering a penalized distinguishability game involving two states and three possible answers, named as Quantum Gambling. In this context, using only two pure states and their equal mixture, we present an experimentally robust no-go theorem for maximally ψ−epistemic models, showing that qubit states achieve the maximal difference between quantum and epistemic overlaps.
Ontological models of quantum theory seek to realize quantum theory as a statistical theory over underlying degrees of freedom, whose measurement statistics are described by classical probability theory. Harrigan and Spekkens (2010) proposed a distinction between ontological models in which pure quantum states represent states of reality (ψ-ontic) or knowledge about reality (ψ-epistemic) depending on whether their associated probability distributions overlap, subsequently formalized into measure-theoretic form by Leifer (2014). In this thesis, I examine whether this ψ-ontic/epistemic distinction truly captures the intended difference between ontic and epistemic conceptions of pure states. I consider some mathematical alternatives relating to different notions of non-overlap between probability measures and compare them. I discuss the implications of these results for quantum ontology theorems – theorems that rule out ψ-epistemic readings of pure states under certain assumptions about the ontological model – such as the Pusey-Barrett-Rudolph Theorem (2012).