Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Log inSign up
Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Blog
Job Board
Q3AS

© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

TermsPrivacyLegal Notice

arXiv:1412.0669 · Physical Review A

Reality of the quantum state: Towards a stronger ψ -ontology theorem

Shane Mansfield

Published Oct 24, 2016• 22 citations
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

The Pusey-Barrett-Rudolph (PBR) no-go theorem provides an argument for the reality of the quantum state by ruling out $\ensuremath{\psi}$-epistemic ontological theories, in which the quantum state is of a statistical nature. It applies under an assumption of preparation independence, the validity of which has been subject to debate. We propose two plausible and less restrictive alternatives: a weaker notion allowing for classical correlations, and an even weaker, physically motivated notion of independence, which merely prohibits the possibility of superluminal causal influences in the preparation process. The latter is a minimal requirement for enabling a reasonable treatment of subsystems in any theory. It is demonstrated by means of an explicit $\ensuremath{\psi}$-epistemic ontological model that the argument of PBR becomes invalid under the alternative notions of independence. As an intermediate step, we recover a result which is valid in the presence of classical correlations. Finally, we obtain a theorem which holds under the minimal requirement, approximating the result of PBR. For this, we consider experiments involving randomly sampled preparations and derive bounds on the degree of $\ensuremath{\psi}$ epistemicity that is consistent with the quantum-mechanical predictions. The approximation is exact in the limit as the sample space of preparations becomes infinite.

DOI
10.1103/physreva.94.042124

Related papers

Is the Quantum State Real? An Extended Review of ψ-Ontology Theorems

Matthew Leifer

Towards the end of 2011, Pusey, Barrett and Rudolph derived a theorem that aimed to show that the quantum state must be ontic (a state of reality) in a broad class of realist approaches to quantum theory. This result attracted a lot of attention and controversy. The aim of this review article is to review the background to the Pusey–Barrett–Rudolph Theorem, to provide a clear presentation of the theorem itself, and to review related work that has appeared since the publication of the Pusey–Barrett–Rudolph paper. In particular, this review: Explains what it means for the quantum state to be ontic or epistemic (a state of knowledge); Reviews arguments for and against an ontic interpretation of the quantum state as they existed prior to the Pusey–Barrett–Rudolph Theorem; Explains why proving the reality of the quantum state is a very strong constraint on realist theories in that it would imply many of the known no-go theorems, such as Bell's Theorem and the need for an exponentially large ontic state space; Provides a comprehensive presentation of the Pusey–Barrett–Rudolph Theorem itself, along with subsequent improvements and criticisms of its assumptions; Reviews two other arguments for the reality of the quantum state: the first due to Hardy and the second due to Colbeck and Renner, and explains why their assumptions are less compelling than those of the Pusey–Barrett–Rudolph Theorem; Reviews subsequent work aimed at ruling out stronger notions of what it means for the quantum state to be epistemic and points out open questions in this area. The overall aim is not only to provide the background needed for the novice in this area to understand the current status, but also to discuss often overlooked subtleties that should be of interest to the experts. Quanta 2014; 3: 67–155.

arXiv:1409.1570•Quanta•Nov 5, 2014•306 citations

Ontology without states: PBR as an argument for dynamics-first realism

Nick Ormrod

The Pusey--Barrett--Rudolph (PBR) theorem is commonly taken to establish that a pure quantum state represents a physical property of the system to which it is assigned, rather than merely encoding knowledge. In this work, I distinguish between state-first and dynamics-first physical theories, and argue that this reading presupposes the former. These two types of theories support different approaches to causal explanation, and one of PBR's stated assumptions depends on the state-first approach. Using a recent interpretation of quantum theory as a concrete example, I show how a dynamics-first theory can explain the PBR correlations while maintaining a broadly epistemic reading of quantum states. I conclude that the PBR theorem supports a dilemma: either the quantum state is part of reality, or reality is not fundamentally built out of states.

quant-pharXiv:2610.37948•Oct 29, 2026•0 citations

Reflections on the PBR Theorem: Reality Criteria & Preparation Independence

Shane Mansfield

This paper contains initial work on attempting to bring recent developments in the foundations of quantum mechanics concerning the nature of the wavefunction within the scope of more logical and structural methods. A first step involves dualising a criterion for the reality of the wavefunction proposed by Harrigan & Spekkens, which was central to the Pusey-Barrett-Rudolph theorem. The resulting criterion has several advantages, including the avoidance of certain technical difficulties relating to sets of measure zero. By considering the 'reality' not of the wavefunction but of the observable properties of any ontological physical theory a new characterisation of non-locality and contextuality is found. Secondly, a careful analysis of preparation independence, one of the key assumptions of the PBR theorem, leads to a precise analogy with the kind of locality prohibited by Bell's theorem. Motivated by this, we propose a weakening of the assumption to something analogous to no-signalling. This amounts to allowing global or non-local correlations in the joint ontic state, which nevertheless do not allow for superluminal signalling. This is, at least, consistent with the Bell and Kochen-Specker theorems. We find a counter-example to the PBR argument, which violates preparation independence, but does satisfy this physically motivated assumption. The question of whether the PBR result can be strengthened to hold under the relaxed assumption is therefore posed.

arXiv:1412.8549•Electronic Proceedings in Theoretical Computer Science•Dec 27, 2014•2 citations

From Joint to Single-System Psi-Onticity Without Preparation Independence

Shan Gao

The Pusey-Barrett-Rudolph (PBR) theorem establishes $ψ$-onticity for individual quantum systems, but its standard formulation relies on the Preparation Independence Postulate (PIP). This has led to a prevalent view that rejecting PIP leaves open the possibility of $ψ$-epistemic models for individual systems. In this work, we show that this understanding is incomplete: once the PBR theorem establishes $ψ$-onticity for composite systems prepared in product states, the $ψ$-onticity of the individual subsystems follows directly from the tensor-product structure of quantum mechanics, without invoking PIP or any further auxiliary assumptions. This result removes a key auxiliary assumption from the PBR theorem, closes a persistent loophole for preserving $ψ$-epistemic models, and strengthens the conceptual foundations of $ψ$-ontology.

quant-pharXiv:2601.17662•Foundations of Physics•Jan 27, 2026•1 citation

Reality of the quantum state: A new proof in terms of protective measurements

Shan Gao

The ontological model framework provides a rigorous approach to address the question of whether the quantum state is ontic or epistemic. When considering only conventional projective measurements, auxiliary assumptions are always needed to prove the reality of the quantum state in the framework. For example, the Pusey-Barrett-Rudolph theorem is based on an additional preparation independence assumption. In this paper, we give a new proof of psi-ontology in terms of protective measurements in the ontological model framework. It is argued that the proof needs not rely on auxiliary assumptions, and also applies to deterministic theories such as the de Broglie-Bohm theory. In addition, we give a simpler argument for psi-ontology beyond the framework, which is only based on protective measurements and a weaker criterion of reality. The argument may be also appealing for those people who favor an anti-realist view of quantum mechanics.

•Dec 18, 2015•0 citations

Ontological Reality of Time in Quantum Theory

İnanç Şahin, Gazi Alumur

In this paper we consider time as a property of a preparation or a quantum system and investigate whether it is an epistemic property according to Harrigan and Spekkens’ criterion [Found Phys 40, 125–157 (2010)]. To be precise, using a tabletop setup where the predictions of quantum mechanics and general relativity can be combined, we prepare a quantum state such that it is a quantum superposition of the different durations ticked by a quantum mechanical clock moving in spacetime. Such a preparation provides a quantum system that includes time as an intrinsic property. Indeed, changing the weights in the superposition changes the time as an expectation value as well as the possible different clock readings and histories. With a proof similar to the Pusey-Barrett-Rudolph (PBR) theorem [Nature Phys 8, 475–478 (2012)], it is shown that time in quantum theory is not an epistemic notion, but has ontological reality. In fact, the PBR theorem implies an ontic notion of time. Indeed, by proving that the quantum state is a physical property, the PBR theorem requires quantum state reduction to be a physical process. In this case, quantum probabilities are intrinsic probabilities without epistemic origin, and they generate a genuinely new sequence of events. This novelty introduced by quantum probabilities can be interpreted as time. However, although the PBR theorem implies this result, it does not prove it. First, an additional assumption is required to ensure the intrinsic character of quantum probabilities. Second, the PBR theorem is not constructed to prove that time is ontic, but to prove that ψ is ontic. All these issues are discussed in detail in the paper.

•Nov 19, 2024•0 citations
The Pusey-Barrett-Rudolph (PBR) no-go theorem provides an argument for the reality of the quantum state by ruling out \ensuremathψ\ensuremath{\psi}\ensuremathψ-epistemic ontological theories, in which the quantum state is of a statistical nature. It applies under an assumption of preparation independence, the validity of which has been subject to debate. We propose two plausible and less restrictive alternatives: a weaker notion allowing for classical correlations, and an even weaker, physically motivated notion of independence, which merely prohibits the possibility of superluminal causal influences in the preparation process. The latter is a minimal requirement for enabling a reasonable treatment of subsystems in any theory. It is demonstrated by means of an explicit \ensuremathψ\ensuremath{\psi}\ensuremathψ-epistemic ontological model that the argument of PBR becomes invalid under the alternative notions of independence. As an intermediate step, we recover a result which is valid in the presence of classical correlations. Finally, we obtain a theorem which holds under the minimal requirement, approximating the result of PBR. For this, we consider experiments involving randomly sampled preparations and derive bounds on the degree of \ensuremathψ\ensuremath{\psi}\ensuremathψ epistemicity that is consistent with the quantum-mechanical predictions. The approximation is exact in the limit as the sample space of preparations becomes infinite.
Towards the end of 2011, Pusey, Barrett and Rudolph derived a theorem that aimed to show that the quantum state must be ontic (a state of reality) in a broad class of realist approaches to quantum theory. This result attracted a lot of attention and controversy. The aim of this review article is to review the background to the Pusey–Barrett–Rudolph Theorem, to provide a clear presentation of the theorem itself, and to review related work that has appeared since the publication of the Pusey–Barrett–Rudolph paper. In particular, this review: Explains what it means for the quantum state to be ontic or epistemic (a state of knowledge); Reviews arguments for and against an ontic interpretation of the quantum state as they existed prior to the Pusey–Barrett–Rudolph Theorem; Explains why proving the reality of the quantum state is a very strong constraint on realist theories in that it would imply many of the known no-go theorems, such as Bell's Theorem and the need for an exponentially large ontic state space; Provides a comprehensive presentation of the Pusey–Barrett–Rudolph Theorem itself, along with subsequent improvements and criticisms of its assumptions; Reviews two other arguments for the reality of the quantum state: the first due to Hardy and the second due to Colbeck and Renner, and explains why their assumptions are less compelling than those of the Pusey–Barrett–Rudolph Theorem; Reviews subsequent work aimed at ruling out stronger notions of what it means for the quantum state to be epistemic and points out open questions in this area. The overall aim is not only to provide the background needed for the novice in this area to understand the current status, but also to discuss often overlooked subtleties that should be of interest to the experts. Quanta 2014; 3: 67–155.
The Pusey--Barrett--Rudolph (PBR) theorem is commonly taken to establish that a pure quantum state represents a physical property of the system to which it is assigned, rather than merely encoding knowledge. In this work, I distinguish between state-first and dynamics-first physical theories, and argue that this reading presupposes the former. These two types of theories support different approaches to causal explanation, and one of PBR's stated assumptions depends on the state-first approach. Using a recent interpretation of quantum theory as a concrete example, I show how a dynamics-first theory can explain the PBR correlations while maintaining a broadly epistemic reading of quantum states. I conclude that the PBR theorem supports a dilemma: either the quantum state is part of reality, or reality is not fundamentally built out of states.
This paper contains initial work on attempting to bring recent developments in the foundations of quantum mechanics concerning the nature of the wavefunction within the scope of more logical and structural methods. A first step involves dualising a criterion for the reality of the wavefunction proposed by Harrigan & Spekkens, which was central to the Pusey-Barrett-Rudolph theorem. The resulting criterion has several advantages, including the avoidance of certain technical difficulties relating to sets of measure zero. By considering the 'reality' not of the wavefunction but of the observable properties of any ontological physical theory a new characterisation of non-locality and contextuality is found. Secondly, a careful analysis of preparation independence, one of the key assumptions of the PBR theorem, leads to a precise analogy with the kind of locality prohibited by Bell's theorem. Motivated by this, we propose a weakening of the assumption to something analogous to no-signalling. This amounts to allowing global or non-local correlations in the joint ontic state, which nevertheless do not allow for superluminal signalling. This is, at least, consistent with the Bell and Kochen-Specker theorems. We find a counter-example to the PBR argument, which violates preparation independence, but does satisfy this physically motivated assumption. The question of whether the PBR result can be strengthened to hold under the relaxed assumption is therefore posed.
The Pusey-Barrett-Rudolph (PBR) theorem establishes ψψψ-onticity for individual quantum systems, but its standard formulation relies on the Preparation Independence Postulate (PIP). This has led to a prevalent view that rejecting PIP leaves open the possibility of ψψψ-epistemic models for individual systems. In this work, we show that this understanding is incomplete: once the PBR theorem establishes ψψψ-onticity for composite systems prepared in product states, the ψψψ-onticity of the individual subsystems follows directly from the tensor-product structure of quantum mechanics, without invoking PIP or any further auxiliary assumptions. This result removes a key auxiliary assumption from the PBR theorem, closes a persistent loophole for preserving ψψψ-epistemic models, and strengthens the conceptual foundations of ψψψ-ontology.
The ontological model framework provides a rigorous approach to address the question of whether the quantum state is ontic or epistemic. When considering only conventional projective measurements, auxiliary assumptions are always needed to prove the reality of the quantum state in the framework. For example, the Pusey-Barrett-Rudolph theorem is based on an additional preparation independence assumption. In this paper, we give a new proof of psi-ontology in terms of protective measurements in the ontological model framework. It is argued that the proof needs not rely on auxiliary assumptions, and also applies to deterministic theories such as the de Broglie-Bohm theory. In addition, we give a simpler argument for psi-ontology beyond the framework, which is only based on protective measurements and a weaker criterion of reality. The argument may be also appealing for those people who favor an anti-realist view of quantum mechanics.
In this paper we consider time as a property of a preparation or a quantum system and investigate whether it is an epistemic property according to Harrigan and Spekkens’ criterion [Found Phys 40, 125–157 (2010)]. To be precise, using a tabletop setup where the predictions of quantum mechanics and general relativity can be combined, we prepare a quantum state such that it is a quantum superposition of the different durations ticked by a quantum mechanical clock moving in spacetime. Such a preparation provides a quantum system that includes time as an intrinsic property. Indeed, changing the weights in the superposition changes the time as an expectation value as well as the possible different clock readings and histories. With a proof similar to the Pusey-Barrett-Rudolph (PBR) theorem [Nature Phys 8, 475–478 (2012)], it is shown that time in quantum theory is not an epistemic notion, but has ontological reality. In fact, the PBR theorem implies an ontic notion of time. Indeed, by proving that the quantum state is a physical property, the PBR theorem requires quantum state reduction to be a physical process. In this case, quantum probabilities are intrinsic probabilities without epistemic origin, and they generate a genuinely new sequence of events. This novelty introduced by quantum probabilities can be interpreted as time. However, although the PBR theorem implies this result, it does not prove it. First, an additional assumption is required to ensure the intrinsic character of quantum probabilities. Second, the PBR theorem is not constructed to prove that time is ontic, but to prove that ψ is ontic. All these issues are discussed in detail in the paper.