In discussion of the interpretation of quantum mechanics the terms ‘ontic’ and ‘epistemic’ are often used in the sense of pertaining to what exists, and pertaining to cognition or knowledge respectively. The terms are also often associated with the formal definitions given by Harrigan and Spekkens for the wavefunction in quantum mechanics to be �ψ-ontic or �ψ-epistemic in the context of the ontological models framework. The formal definitions are contradictories, so that the wavefunction can be either ψ�-epistemic or ψ �-ontic but not both. However, we argue, nothing about the informal ideas of epistemic and ontic interpretations rules out wavefunctions representing both reality and knowledge. The implications of the Pusey–Barrett–Rudolph theorem and many other issues may be rethought in the light of our analysis.
Abstract In discussion of the interpretation of quantum mechanics the terms ‘ontic’ and ‘epistemic’ are often used in the sense of pertaining to what exists, and pertaining to cognition or knowledge respectively. The terms are also often associated with the formal definitions given by Harrigan and Spekkens for the wavefunction in quantum mechanics to be
ψ ψ -ontic or
ψ ψ -epistemic in the context of the ontological models framework. The formal definitions are contradictories, so that the wavefunction can be either
ψ ψ -epistemic or
ψ ψ -ontic but not both. However, we argue, nothing about the informal ideas of epistemic and ontic interpretations rules out wavefunctions representing both reality and knowledge. The implications of the Pusey–Barrett–Rudolph theorem and many other issues may be rethought in the light of our analysis.
The ontological status of the quantum wavefunction remains one of the most debated questions in quantum theory. While epistemic interpretations regard the wavefunction as a reflection of our knowledge or beliefs, ontic interpretations treat it as a real physical object. In this paper, we argue that epistemic approaches struggle to explain the universality and precision of the uncertainty principle, a core feature of quantum mechanics. By contrast, treating the wave-function as ontic allows a consistent and natural derivation of quantum uncertainty from the mathematical structure of Hilbert space. We examine key interpretations on both sides and highlight why the epistemic view falls short in addressing constraints that appear to be intrinsic to nature.
Abstract: Different realistic attitudes towards wavefunctions and quantum states are as old as quantum theory itself. Recently Pusey, Barret and Rudolph (PBR) on the one hand, and Auletta and Tarozzi (AT) on the other, have proposed new interesting arguments in favor of a broad realistic interpretation of quantum mechanics that can be considered the modern heir to some views held by the fathers of quantum theory. In this paper we give a new and detailed presentation of such arguments, propose a new taxonomy of different realistic positions in the foundations of quantum mechanics and assess the scope, within this new taxonomy, of these realistic arguments.
Different realistic attitudes towards wavefunctions and quantum states are as old as quantum theory itself. Recently Pusey, Barret and Rudolph (PBR) on the one hand, and Auletta and Tarozzi (AT) on the other, have proposed new interesting arguments in favor of a broad realistic interpretation of quantum mechanics that can be considered the modern heir to some views held by the fathers of quantum theory. In this paper we give a new and detailed presentation of such arguments, propose a new taxonomy of different realistic positions in the foundations of quantum mechanics and assess the scope, within this new taxonomy, of these realistic arguments.
We derive the Hilbert space formalism of quantum mechanics from epistemic principles. A key assumption is that a physical theory that relies on entities or distinctions that are unknowable in principle gives rise to wrong predictions. An epistemic formalism is developed, where concepts like individual and collective knowledge are used, and knowledge may be actual or potential. The physical state
S corresponds to the collective potential knowledge. The state
S is a subset of a state space
S={Z}, such that
S always contains several elements
Z, which correspond to unattainable states of complete potential knowledge of the world. The evolution of
S cannot be determined in terms of the individual evolution of the elements
Z, unlike the evolution of an ensemble in classical phase space. The evolution of
S is described in terms of sequential time
n∈N, which is updated according to
n→n+1 each time potential knowledge changes. In certain experimental contexts
C, there is initial knowledge at time
n that a given series of properties
P,P′,… will be observed within a given time frame, meaning that a series of values
p,p′,… of these properties will become known. At time
n, it is just known that these values belong to predefined, finite sets
{p},{p′},…. In such a context
C, it is possible to define a complex Hilbert space
HC on top of
S, in which the elements are contextual state vectors
SˉC. Born's rule to calculate the probabilities to find the values
p,p′,… is derived as the only generally applicable such rule. Also, we can associate a self-adjoint operator
Pˉ with eigenvalues
{p} to each property
P observed within
C. These operators obey
[Pˉ,Pˉ′]=0 if and only if the precise values of
P and
P′ are simultaneoulsy knowable.