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:2212.03629

Reply to "Masanes-Galley-Müller and the State-Update Postulate"

Thomas D. Galley, Lluís Masanes, Markus P. Müller

Published Dec 7, 2022• 0 citations
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

In a recent comment on the arXiv, Blake C. Stacey criticizes our derivation of the quantum state update rule in Nat. Commun. 10, 1361 (2019). Here we argue that the criticism is unfounded. In particular, and in contrast to Stacey's claims, our proof does not assume linearity.
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2212.03629

Related papers

Masanes-Galley-Müller and the State-Update Postulate

Blake C. Stacey

Masanes, Galley and Müller claim to have derived a unique rule for quantum state update consequent upon a measurement outcome. Upon closer examination, their proof implicitly assumes its first step, namely that the state-update rule is linear.

arXiv:2211.03299•Nov 7, 2022•1 citation

Reply to “Comment on ‘Nonlocality counterfactuals, and quantum mechanics’ ”

William George Unruh

Stapp [preceding Comment, Phys. Rev. A 60, 2595 (1999)] has argued that my criticism of his nonlocality proof is wrong. I point out that counterfactual arguments are fraught with dangers, and that any such claim should use them in a conservative manner. A reanalysis of his claims continues to lead me to the conclusion that the nonlocality of quantum mechanics remains unproven.

Physical Review A•Sep 1, 1999•2 citations

Contradictions or Curiosities? On Kent's Critique of the Masanes--Galley--Müller Derivation of the Quantum Measurement Postulates

Blake C. Stacey

Adrian Kent has recently criticized Masanes, Galley and Müller's work on postulates for quantum mechanics. MGM claim to find two contradictions in Kent's criticism. I argue that neither is a true contradiction unless some other premise is added.

arXiv:2405.17733•May 28, 2024•0 citations

Response to "The measurement postulates of quantum mechanics are not redundant"

Lluís Masanes, Thomas D. Galley, Markus P. Müller

Adrian Kent has recently presented a critique [arXiv:2307.06191] of our paper [Nat. Comms. 10, 1361 (2019)] in which he claims to refute our main result: the measurement postulates of quantum mechanics can be derived from the rest of postulates, once we assume that the set of mixed states of a finite-dimensional Hilbert space is finite-dimensional. To construct his argument, Kent considers theories resulting from supplementing quantum mechanics with hypothetical "post-quantum" measurement devices. We prove that each of these theories contains pure states (i.e. states of maximal knowledge) which are not rays of the Hilbert space, in contradiction with the "pure state postulate" of quantum mechanics. We also prove that these alternatives violate the finite-dimensionality of mixed states. Each of these two facts separately invalidates the refutation. In this note we also clarify the assumptions used in [Nat. Comms. 10, 1361 (2019)] and discuss the notions of pure state, physical system, and the sensitivity of the structure of the state space under modifications of the measurements or the dynamics.

arXiv:2309.01650•Sep 4, 2023•0 citations

Reply to "Comment on 'Modifying the variational principle in the action-integral-functional derivation of time-dependent density functional theory'"

J. Schirmer

In a recent paper [Phys. Rev. A 77, 062511 (2008)], it was advocated to modify the variational principle for the action-integral functional in the Runge-Gross foundation of time-dependent density-functional theory. This was criticised in a subsequent paper [Phys. Rev. A 62, 052510 (2010)] by the present author. In a Comment [Phys. Rev. A 83, 046501 (2011)], it is argued that the criticism is unfounded. This is a response as given to the four specific points raised in the Comment, clarifying and confirming the essence of the original criticism.

arXiv:1105.2718•May 13, 2011•0 citations

Reply to "Comment on Protocol for Direct Counterfactual Quantum Communication"

Hatim Salih, Li, Zheng-Hong, M. Al-Amri +1 more

In reply to Vaidman's Comment [arXiv:1304.6689], we show that his claim that our Protocol for Direct Counterfactual Quantum Communication [PRL 110, 170502 (2013), arXiv:1206.2042] is counterfactual only for one type of information bit is wrong.

arXiv:1404.5392•Apr 22, 2014•4 citations
Adrian Kent has recently presented a critique [arXiv:2307.06191] of our paper [Nat. Comms. 10, 1361 (2019)] in which he claims to refute our main result: the measurement postulates of quantum mechanics can be derived from the rest of postulates, once we assume that the set of mixed states of a finite-dimensional Hilbert space is finite-dimensional. To construct his argument, Kent considers theories resulting from supplementing quantum mechanics with hypothetical "post-quantum" measurement devices. We prove that each of these theories contains pure states (i.e. states of maximal knowledge) which are not rays of the Hilbert space, in contradiction with the "pure state postulate" of quantum mechanics. We also prove that these alternatives violate the finite-dimensionality of mixed states. Each of these two facts separately invalidates the refutation. In this note we also clarify the assumptions used in [Nat. Comms. 10, 1361 (2019)] and discuss the notions of pure state, physical system, and the sensitivity of the structure of the state space under modifications of the measurements or the dynamics.
In a recent paper [Phys. Rev. A 77, 062511 (2008)], it was advocated to modify the variational principle for the action-integral functional in the Runge-Gross foundation of time-dependent density-functional theory. This was criticised in a subsequent paper [Phys. Rev. A 62, 052510 (2010)] by the present author. In a Comment [Phys. Rev. A 83, 046501 (2011)], it is argued that the criticism is unfounded. This is a response as given to the four specific points raised in the Comment, clarifying and confirming the essence of the original criticism.