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:2208.10574

The Many Inconsistencies of the Purity-Mixture Distinction in Standard Quantum Mechanics

Christian DE RONDE, César Massri

Published Aug 22, 2022• 3 citations
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

The distinction between pure states and mixed states is a kernel ingredient of what is considered to be the standard formulation of quantum mechanics and plays today a kernel role in foundational debates about the meaning of quantum probability, the separability of quantum systems, the definition and measure of entanglement, etc. In this work we attempt to expose the many inconsistencies introduced by this distinction and the serious consequences this has for many ongoing research programs within quantum physics which apply these notions uncritically.

DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2208.10574

Related papers

Against the Tyranny of ‘Pure States’ in Quantum Theory

Christian DE RONDE

We argue that the notion of pure sate within Standard Quantum Mechanics is presently applied within the specialized literature in relation to two mutually inconsistent definitions. While the first (operational purity) provides a basis-dependent definition which makes reference to the certain prediction of measurement outcomes, the latter (trace-invariant purity) provides a purely abstract invariant definition which lacks operational content. In this work we derive a theorem which exposes the serious inconsistencies existent within these two incompatible definitions of purity.

•Jan 1, 2022•5 citations

Beyond Purity and Mixtures in Categorical Quantum Mechanics

Christian DE RONDE, César Massri

In a recent paper [12], we discussed the serious inconsistency present within the operational and mathematical definition(s) of the notion of pure state. Continuing this analysis, in this work we attempt to address the role of 'purity' and 'mixtures' within two different categorical approaches to QM, namely, the topos approach originally presented by Chris Isham and Jeremy Butterfield [27, 28, 29] and the more recent logos categorical approach presented by the authors of this article [10, 11, 13]. While the first approach exposes the difficulties to produce a consistent understanding of pure states and mixtures, the latter approach presents a new scheme in which their reference is erased right from the start in favor of an intensive understanding of projection operators and quantum superpositions. This new account of the theory, grounded on an intensive interpretation of the Born rule, allows us not only to avoid the orthodox interpretation of projection operators --either as referring to definite valued properties or measurement outcomes-- but also to consider all matrices (of any rank) on equal footing. It is from this latter standpoint that we conclude that instead of distinguishing between pure and mixed states it would be recommendable --for a proper understanding of the theory of quanta-- to return to the original matrix formulation of quantum mechanics presented by Werner Heisenberg in 1925.

arXiv:2002.04423•Feb 8, 2020•3 citations

On the Physical Untenability of the Standard Notion of Quantum State

Christian DE RONDE

The notion of quantum state plays a fundamental role within the Standard account of Quantum Mechanics (SQM) as established by Dirac and von Neumann during 1930s and up to the present. In this work we expose the deep inconsistencies that exist within the multiple definitions of the notion of quantum state that are provided within this axiomatic formulation. As we will argue, these different inconsistent definitions continue to be -- even today -- uncritically confused within the mainstream physical and philosophical literature leading to self-contradictory statements and wrong conclusions. We end with a discussion regarding the untenability of this concept for any rational understanding of theoretical physics.

arXiv:2505.23989•May 29, 2025•0 citations

The Conceptual Foundations of Quantum Mechanics

Jeffrey Alan Barrett

Abstract The book starts with a description of classical mechanics then discusses the quantum phenomena that require us to give up our commonsense classical intuitions. We consider the physical and conceptual arguments that led to the standard von Neumann-Dirac formulation of quantum mechanics and how the standard theory explains quantum phenomena. This includes a discussion of how the theory’s two dynamical laws work with the standard interpretation of states to explain determinate measurement records, quantum statistics, interference effects, entanglement, decoherence, and quantum nonlocality. A careful understanding of how the standard theory works ultimately leads to the quantum measurement problem. We consider how the measurement problem threatens the logical consistency of the standard theory then turn to a discussion of the main proposals for resolving it. This includes collapse formulations of quantum mechanics like Wigner’s extension of the standard theory and the GRW approach and no-collapse formulations like pure wave mechanics, the various many-worlds theories, and Bohmian mechanics. In discussing alternative formulations of quantum mechanics we pay particular attention to the explanatory role played by each theory’s empirical ontology and associated metaphysical commitments and the conceptual trade-offs between theoretical options.

•Dec 26, 2019•57 citations

Naive Realism about Operators

Martin Däumer, Detlef Dürr, Sheldon Goldstein +1 more

A source of much difficulty and confusion in the interpretation of quantum mechanics is a ``naive realism about operators.'' By this we refer to various ways of taking too seriously the notion of operator-as-observable, and in particular to the all too casual talk about ``measuring operators'' that occurs when the subject is quantum mechanics. Without a specification of what should be meant by ``measuring'' a quantum observable, such an expression can have no clear meaning. A definite specification is provided by Bohmian mechanics, a theory that emerges from Schrodinger's equation for a system of particles when we merely insist that ``particles'' means particles. Bohmian mechanics clarifies the status and the role of operators as observables in quantum mechanics by providing the operational details absent from standard quantum mechanics. It thereby allows us to readily dismiss all the radical claims traditionally enveloping the transition from the classical to the quantum realm---for example, that we must abandon classical logic or classical probability. The moral is rather simple: Beware naive realism, especially about operators!

arXiv:quant-ph/9601013•Jan 15, 1996•0 citations

The Logical Difference in Quantum Mathematics Separating Pure States from Mixed States

Steve Faulkner

Abstract I give a short explanation of how mathematics representing pure states is logically distinct from mixed states. This is intended as understandable to the undergraduate.

•Mar 1, 2015•0 citations
The distinction between pure states and mixed states is a kernel ingredient of what is considered to be the standard formulation of quantum mechanics and plays today a kernel role in foundational debates about the meaning of quantum probability, the separability of quantum systems, the definition and measure of entanglement, etc. In this work we attempt to expose the many inconsistencies introduced by this distinction and the serious consequences this has for many ongoing research programs within quantum physics which apply these notions uncritically.
We argue that the notion of pure sate within Standard Quantum Mechanics is presently applied within the specialized literature in relation to two mutually inconsistent definitions. While the first (operational purity) provides a basis-dependent definition which makes reference to the certain prediction of measurement outcomes, the latter (trace-invariant purity) provides a purely abstract invariant definition which lacks operational content. In this work we derive a theorem which exposes the serious inconsistencies existent within these two incompatible definitions of purity.
In a recent paper [12], we discussed the serious inconsistency present within the operational and mathematical definition(s) of the notion of pure state. Continuing this analysis, in this work we attempt to address the role of 'purity' and 'mixtures' within two different categorical approaches to QM, namely, the topos approach originally presented by Chris Isham and Jeremy Butterfield [27, 28, 29] and the more recent logos categorical approach presented by the authors of this article [10, 11, 13]. While the first approach exposes the difficulties to produce a consistent understanding of pure states and mixtures, the latter approach presents a new scheme in which their reference is erased right from the start in favor of an intensive understanding of projection operators and quantum superpositions. This new account of the theory, grounded on an intensive interpretation of the Born rule, allows us not only to avoid the orthodox interpretation of projection operators --either as referring to definite valued properties or measurement outcomes-- but also to consider all matrices (of any rank) on equal footing. It is from this latter standpoint that we conclude that instead of distinguishing between pure and mixed states it would be recommendable --for a proper understanding of the theory of quanta-- to return to the original matrix formulation of quantum mechanics presented by Werner Heisenberg in 1925.
The notion of quantum state plays a fundamental role within the Standard account of Quantum Mechanics (SQM) as established by Dirac and von Neumann during 1930s and up to the present. In this work we expose the deep inconsistencies that exist within the multiple definitions of the notion of quantum state that are provided within this axiomatic formulation. As we will argue, these different inconsistent definitions continue to be -- even today -- uncritically confused within the mainstream physical and philosophical literature leading to self-contradictory statements and wrong conclusions. We end with a discussion regarding the untenability of this concept for any rational understanding of theoretical physics.
Abstract The book starts with a description of classical mechanics then discusses the quantum phenomena that require us to give up our commonsense classical intuitions. We consider the physical and conceptual arguments that led to the standard von Neumann-Dirac formulation of quantum mechanics and how the standard theory explains quantum phenomena. This includes a discussion of how the theory’s two dynamical laws work with the standard interpretation of states to explain determinate measurement records, quantum statistics, interference effects, entanglement, decoherence, and quantum nonlocality. A careful understanding of how the standard theory works ultimately leads to the quantum measurement problem. We consider how the measurement problem threatens the logical consistency of the standard theory then turn to a discussion of the main proposals for resolving it. This includes collapse formulations of quantum mechanics like Wigner’s extension of the standard theory and the GRW approach and no-collapse formulations like pure wave mechanics, the various many-worlds theories, and Bohmian mechanics. In discussing alternative formulations of quantum mechanics we pay particular attention to the explanatory role played by each theory’s empirical ontology and associated metaphysical commitments and the conceptual trade-offs between theoretical options.
A source of much difficulty and confusion in the interpretation of quantum mechanics is a ``naive realism about operators.'' By this we refer to various ways of taking too seriously the notion of operator-as-observable, and in particular to the all too casual talk about ``measuring operators'' that occurs when the subject is quantum mechanics. Without a specification of what should be meant by ``measuring'' a quantum observable, such an expression can have no clear meaning. A definite specification is provided by Bohmian mechanics, a theory that emerges from Schrodinger's equation for a system of particles when we merely insist that ``particles'' means particles. Bohmian mechanics clarifies the status and the role of operators as observables in quantum mechanics by providing the operational details absent from standard quantum mechanics. It thereby allows us to readily dismiss all the radical claims traditionally enveloping the transition from the classical to the quantum realm---for example, that we must abandon classical logic or classical probability. The moral is rather simple: Beware naive realism, especially about operators!