arXiv:1502.06676

Can category-theoretic semantics resolve the problem of the interpretation of the quantum state vector?

Arkady Bolotin

Published Feb 24, 2015• 0 citations

Abstract

Do correctness and completeness of quantum mechanics jointly imply that quantum state vectors are necessarily in one-to-one correspondence with elements of the physical reality? In terms of category theory, such a correspondence would stand for an isomorphism, so the problem of the status of the quantum state vector could be turned into the question of whether state vectors are necessarily isomorphic to elements of the reality. As it is argued in the present paper, in order to tackle this question, one needs to complement the category-theoretic approach to quantum mechanics with the computational-complexity-theoretic considerations. Based on such considerations, it is demonstrated in the paper that the hypothesis of the isomorphism existing between state vectors and elements of the reality is expected to be unsuitable for a generic quantum system.

DOI: 10.48550/arxiv.1502.06676

Related papers

On the completeness of quantum mechanics and the interpretation of the state vector

Gian Carlo Ghirardi, Raffaele Romano

Recently, it has been argued that quantum mechanics is complete, and that quantum states vectors are necessarily in one-to-one correspondence with the elements of reality, under the assumptions that quantum theory is correct and that measurement settings can be freely chosen. In this work, we argue that the adopted form of the free choice assumption is stronger than needed. In our perspective, there are hidden assumptions underlying these results, which limit their range of validity. We support our argument by a model for the bipartite two-level system, reproducing quantum mechanics, in which the free will assumption is respected, and different quantum states can be connected to the same state of reality.

arXiv:1302.6278Journal of Physics Conference SeriesJun 10, 20137 citations

Comment on "Is a system's wave function in one-to-one correspondence with its elements of reality?" [arXiv:1111.6597]

G. C. Ghirardi, Romano, Raffaele

Recently, it has been argued [arXiv:1111.6597, arXiv:1005.5173] that different quantum states do necessarily correspond to different elements of reality, under the assumption that quantum mechanics is correct and that measurement settings can be freely chosen. Here, we prove that additional assumptions are necessary to derive this results, which then has not general validity.

arXiv:1302.1635Feb 7, 20135 citations

Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality Be Considered Complete?

Albert Einstein, Boris Podolsky, N. Rosen

In a complete theory there is an element corresponding to each element of reality. A sufficient condition for the reality of a physical quantity is the possibility of predicting it with certainty, without disturbing the system. In quantum mechanics in the case of two physical quantities described by non-commuting operators, the knowledge of one precludes the knowledge of the other. Then either (1) the description of reality given by the wave function in quantum mechanics is not complete or (2) these two quantities cannot have simultaneous reality. Consideration of the problem of making predictions concerning a system on the basis of measurements made on another system that had previously interacted with it leads to the result that if (1) is false then (2) is also false. One is thus led to conclude that the description of reality as given by a wave function is not complete.

Physical ReviewMay 15, 193516,642 citations

Does Quantum Mechanics Need Interpretation?

Louis Marchildon

Since the beginning, quantum mechanics has raised major foundational and interpretative problems. Foundational research has been an important factor in the development of quantum cryptography, quantum information theory and, perhaps one day, practical quantum computers. Many believe that, in turn, quantum information theory has bearing on foundational research. This is largely related to the so-called epistemic view of quantum states, which maintains that the state vector represents information on a system and has led to the suggestion that quantum theory needs no interpretation. I will argue that this and related approaches fail to take into consideration two different explanatory functions of quantum mechanics, namely that of accounting for classically unexplainable correlations between classical phenomena and that of explaining the microscopic structure of classical objects. If interpreting quantum mechanics means answering the question, "How can the world be for quantum mechanics to be true?", there seems to be no way around it.

arXiv:0902.3005International Conference on Quantum, Nano and Micro Technologies (ICQNM)Feb 1, 20092 citations

Is a System’s Wave Function in One-to-One Correspondence with Its Elements of Reality?

Roger Colbeck, Renato Renner

Although quantum mechanics is one of our most successful physical theories, there has been a long-standing debate about the interpretation of the wave function--the central object of the theory. Two prominent views are that (i) it corresponds to an element of reality, i.e., an objective attribute that exists before measurement, and (ii) it is a subjective state of knowledge about some underlying reality. A recent result [M. F. Pusey, J. Barrett, and T. Rudolph, arXiv:1111.3328] has placed the subjective interpretation into doubt, showing that it would contradict certain physically plausible assumptions, in particular, that multiple systems can be prepared such that their elements of reality are uncorrelated. Here we show, based only on the assumption that measurement settings can be chosen freely, that a system's wave function is in one-to-one correspondence with its elements of reality. This also eliminates the possibility that it can be interpreted subjectively.

arXiv:1111.6597Physical Review LettersApr 11, 2012245 citations

Quantum-mechanical wave functions as elements of reality

E.L. Renkema

This thesis explores the relations between the wave functions that describe the state of a system in quantum mechanics and the hypothetical »ontic« states a system can have in reality. What quantum mechanics precisely implies about the nature of reality has always been a disputed point; among the contended features of quantum mechanics as a physical theory are completeness and locality. Recent results indicate that if some assumptions are made about reality being local, then quantum-mechanical and ontic states must be in one-to-one correspondence.

Sep 9, 20130 citations