Abstract Given an ontological model of a quantum system, a “genuine measurement,” as opposed to a quantum measurement, means an experiment that determines the value of a beable, i.e., of a variable that, according to the model, has an actual value in nature before the experiment. We prove a theorem showing that in every ontological model, it is impossible to measure all beables. Put differently, there is no experiment that would reliably determine the ontic state. This result shows that the positivistic idea that a physical theory should only involve observable quantities is too optimistic.
Abstract Given an ontological model of a quantum system, a “genuine measurement,” as opposed to a quantum measurement, means an experiment that determines the value of a beable, i.e., of a variable that, according to the model, has an actual value in nature before the experiment. We prove a theorem showing that in every ontological model, it is impossible to measure all beables. Put differently, there is no experiment that would reliably determine the ontic state. This result shows that the positivistic idea that a physical theory should only involve observable quantities is too optimistic.
Studying the extent to which realism is compatible with quantum mechanics teaches us something about the quantum mechanical universe, regardless of the validity of such realistic assumptions. It has also recently been appreciated that these kinds of studies are fruitful for questions relating to quantum information and computation. Motivated by this, we extend the ontological model formalism for realistic theories to describe a set of theories emphasizing the role of measurement and preparation devices by introducing `hidden variables' to describe them. We illustrate both the ontological model formalism and our generalization of it through a series of example models taken from the literature. Our extension of the formalism allows us to quantitatively analyze the meaning contextuality (a constraint on successful realistic theories), finding that - taken at face-value - it can be realized as a natural interaction between the configurations of a system and measurement device. However, we also describe a property that we call deficiency, which follows from contextuality, but does not admit such a natural interpretation. Loosely speaking, deficiency breaks a symmetry between preparations and measurements in quantum mechanics. It is the property that the set of ontic states which a system prepared in quantum state psi may actually be in, is strictly smaller than the set of ontic states which would reveal the measurement outcome psi with certainty.
The problem of objectification of measurement is investigated in orthodox quantum mechanics, that is assuming the validity of the Schrodinger equation (and the other postulates) for the composite object-plus-measuring-instrument system. It is argued that by giving physical meaning to basic entities, the positivist and the realist positions must be explicitly distinguished. It is shown that the objectification problem is satisfactorily solved within quantum mechanics for the positivist, but not for the realist. For the latter, a partially satisfactory solution is obtained by assuming that the quantum mechanical description of individual systems is incomplete and, by assuming further, that the pointer observable has definite values prior to any measurement in any quantum state (a so-called beable).
In this paper, we show that Quantum Mechanics does not admit ontological models, in the sense that the quantum state of a system cannot correspond to a set of physical states representing the independent reality of the system. We show, via two thought experiments based on the Wigner's friend scenario, that if the ontic state of physical systems in the lab is the same for Wigner and for his friend, one of the following will be violated: PBR theorem, Quantum-theoretic predictions, and the "No-superdeterminism" assumption.
Epistemic models of nature prove to be problematic in many settings, particularly in those in which measurement procedures are ill-defined. By contrast, in ontological models of nature, measurement results are independent of the procedure used to obtain them. Quantum mechanics, as a model of nature, is notoriously ambiguous in this regard. If we assume that all measurement results can be expressed in terms of pointer readings, then any useful ontology would need to unambiguously specify the positions of things. But the positions of pointers are ill-defined in many relativistic and cosmological settings. One potential solution to this problem presents itself in the solutions to the Wheeler-DeWitt equation as developed by Hartle and Hawking. In this article we introduce such a model in which these solutions to the Wheeler-DeWitt equation serve as the ontology of the model. We then show that, for any model that admits these solutions as beables, the global preservation of Lorentz invariance is incompatible with global determinism. However, we also show that an Everett-like interpretation that allows for all possible mappings of the matter field to the geometry and for all possible foliations of these mappings as being equally real, might solve this problem.
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.
Quantum nonlocality has been a long-standing and fascinating problem in the foundations of quantum theory since its proof by the Bell inequality. It seems to contradict our intuitive picture of space-time and thus urges us to reconsider its foundation. With the advent of quantum information science, it has attracted renewed interest from a fundamental point of view as well as from a quantum information-theoretic one. Another fundamental question on the nature of quantum theory is how we understand what quantum states represent. (Quantum states hereafter refer to pure states.) This is also a long-standing problem since the early days of quantum theory. Roughly speaking, there are two conflicting views on this matter: one is ontology and the other is epistemology. Ontological models of quantum theory are models in which we assume some underlying reality for physical systems and require that all the predictions of quantum theory should be reproduced. The ontological models are divided into two categories, depending on which views the models are based on, ontology or epistemology. In the models based on ontology, quantum states represent the underlying reality in some sense, and different quantum states correspond to different realities. In the models based on epistemology, quantum states do not necessarily correspond to the underlying realities, and even different quantum states can be consistent with a common underlying reality. The former type of ontological models of quantum theory is called 1⁄4-ontic. The latter is called 1⁄4-epistemic. Thus, it might be rather confusing that ontological models are classified further into 1⁄4-ontic models and 1⁄4-epistemic ones. We use these terms here in accordance with the recent literature on quantum foundations. (For details of these notions in the ontological models of quantum theory, see the paper by Harrigan and Spekkens.) Quite recently, the question just mentioned has been answered by Pusey et al., and one of the above models has been refuted. It was shown that 1⁄4-epistemic models are inconsistent with the predictions of quantum theory. In other words, epistemological views on quantum states turned out to be false as long as we assume some underlying reality for physical systems. Therefore, only 1⁄4-ontic models of quantum theory are valid for describing quantum systems. This significantly advances our understanding on the nature of quantum states. It is expected that various conclusions will be drawn from this fact. In this paper, we will discuss a connection with nonlocality. The above two fundamental questions, nonlocality and the nature of quantum states, are intimately connected, and the connection was first implicitly recognised by Einstein in the early days of quantum theory. In a private correspondence with Schrodinger, Einstein constructed a fascinating argument that relates the above two. (That argument is distinctly different from the well-known EPR argument.) Recently, it was revisited and reconstructed in accordance with more rigorous notions in quantum foundations. Nonlocality is usually shown by violations of Bell inequalities. (Bell inequalities hereafter include all the subsequent developments such as the CHSH inequality.) Even if it is not clear whether the models of quantum theory are 1⁄4-ontic or 1⁄4-epistemic, we can prove nonlocality just by showing the violation of Bell inequalities. However, the above argument originated by Einstein implies that if we know the models are 1⁄4-ontic in advance (as we do now), we can prove nonlocality in a simpler way without Bell inequalities. (This argument had been known in quantum foundations before the refutation of 1⁄4-epistemic models.) Nonlocality is rigorously defined as a violation of the notion of local causality defined by Bell. Showing the violation of Bell inequalities is one way of demonstrating the violation of local causality. Since the simpler proof initiated by Einstein directly demonstrates the violation of local causality, it is a more straightforward proof of nonlocality from a conceptual point of view. In the following, we will see that this simple argument of nonlocality without Bell inequalities can be used to show multipartite nonlocality as well. Before moving onto multipartite cases, first let us define the necessary notions for presenting our result. First of all, we assume that there exists a complete specification of the properties of a physical system, which we refer to as the ontic state of that system. The ontic states represent the underlying realities and are not necessarily equal to ordinary quantum states. (In other words, the ontic states correspond to hidden variables.) Ontological models of quantum theory are models that assume ontic states and reproduce all the predictions of quantum theory. An important question is how ontic states correspond to quantum states in quantum theory. In order to frame the question accurately, we need the notion of an epistemic state, which represents the relation between them. Suppose we prepare a physical system in a quantum state 1⁄4. Although the system is uniquely specified as 1⁄4 in quantum theory, there still remains a possibility that it allows a more detailed specification in the ontic state space, in which case many different ontic states turn out to be consistent with 1⁄4. The relation between ontic states and the preparation procedure, P1⁄4, is described by a conditional probability distribution over the ontic state space, pð jP1⁄4Þ, which we refer to as an epistemic state. In general, the preparation P can be a preparation of a physical system in a mixed sate. Unless there exists a one-to-one correspondence between ontic states and quantum states, the probability distribution spreads over . (See Fig. 1.) The question of whether an ontological model is 1⁄4-ontic or 1⁄4-epistemic is concerned with the behaviour of the epistemic states for two distinct preparations of quantum states. Consider two distinct preparations of quantum states, Journal of the Physical Society of Japan 82 (2013) 055003