The ontological status of the wave function in quantum mechanics has been analyzed in the context of conventional projective measurements. These analyses are usually based on some nontrivial assumptions, e.g. a preparation independence assumption is needed to prove the PBR theorem. In this paper, we give a PBR-like argument for psi-ontology in terms of protective measurements, by which one can directly measure the expectation values of observables on a single quantum system. The proof does not resort to nontrivial assumptions such as preparation independence assumption.
The ontological status of the wave function in quantum mechanics has been analyzed in the context of conventional projective measurements. These analyses are usually based on some nontrivial assumptions, e.g. a preparation independence assumption is needed to prove the PBR theorem. In this paper, we give a PBR-like argument for psi-ontology in terms of protective measurements, by which one can directly measure the expectation values of observables on a single quantum system. The proof does not resort to nontrivial assumptions such as preparation independence assumption.
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.
Based on an analysis of protective measurements, we show that the quantum state represents the physical state of a single quantum system. This result is more definite than the PBR theorem [Pusey, Barrett, and Rudolph, Nature Phys. 8, 475 (2012)]. The physical meaning of the quantum state is an important interpreta-tive problem of quantum mechanics. A long-standing question is whether a pure state relates only to an ensemble of identically prepared systems or di-rectly to the state of a single system. Recently, Pusey, Barrett and Rudolph (PBR) demonstrated that under an independence assumption, the quantum state is a representation of the physical state of a single quantum system [1]. This poses a further interesting question, namely whether ψ-ontology can be argued without resorting to nontrivial assumptions such as the in-dependence assumption (cf. Ref. [2-4]). In this Letter, we will show that protective measurements [5,6] already provide such an argument. The meaning of the quantum state is usually analyzed in the context of conventional impulsive measurements of an ensemble of identically prepared systems. However, it has been known that the quantum state of a single prepared system can be protectively measured [5-9]. During a protective measurement, the measured system is protected by an appropriate procedure (e.g. via the quantum Zeno effect) so that its quantum state neither changes nor becomes entangled with the quantum state of the measuring device appreciably. In this way, such protective measurements can measure the expectation values of observables from a single quantum system, even if the system is initially not in an eigenstate of the measured observable, and in particular, the quantum state of the system can also be measured as expectation values of certain observables. It is expected that protective measurements will be realized in the near future with the rapid development of quantum technologies.
Recently the first protective measurement has been realized in experiment [Nature Phys. 13, 1191 (2017)], which can measure the expectation value of an observable from a single quantum system. This raises an important and pressing issue of whether protective measurement implies the reality of the wave function. If the answer is yes, this will improve the influential PBR theorem [Nature Phys. 8, 475 (2012)] by removing auxiliary assumptions, and help settle the issue about the nature of the wave function. In this paper, we demonstrate that this is indeed the case. It is shown that a psi-epistemic model and quantum mechanics have different predictions about the variance of the result of a Zeno-type protective measurement with finite N.
It has been debated whether protective measurement implies the reality of the wave function. In this article, I present a new analysis of the relationship between protective measurements and the reality of the wave function. First, I briefly introduce protective measurements and the ontological models framework for them. Second, I give a simple proof of Hardy’s theorem in terms of protective measurements. Third, I analyse two suggested ψ-epistemic models of a protective measurement. It is shown that although these models can explain the appearance of expectation values of observables in a single measurement, their predictions about the variance of the result of a non-ideal protective measurement are different from those of quantum mechanics. Finally, I argue that under an auxiliary finiteness assumption about the dynamics of the ontic state, protective measurement implies the reality of the wave function in the ontological models framework.
The existing psi-ontology theorems are based on a simplified assumption of the ontological models framework, according to which when a measurement is performed the behaviour of the measuring device is determined by the ontic state of the measured system immediately before the measurement. In this paper, I give an argument for the reality of the wave function in terms of protective measurements under a more reasonable assumption, according to which the behaviour of the measuring device during a measurement is determined by the total evolution of the ontic state of the measured system during the measurement. In addition, I present a new analysis of how a protective measurement obtains the expectation value of the measured observable in the measured wave function. The analysis strengthens my argument by further clarifying the role the protection procedure plays in a protective measurement.
It has been debated whether protective measurement implies the reality of the wave function. In this paper, I present a new analysis of the relationship between protective measurement and the reality of the wave function. First, I briefly introduce protective measurements and the ontological models framework for them. Second, I give a simple proof of Hardy's theorem in terms of protective measurements. It shows that when assuming the ontic state of the protected system keeps unchanged during a protective measurement, the wave function must be real. Third, I analyze two suggested psi-epistemic models of a protective measurement, in which the ontic state of the system is affected by the measurement. It is shown that although these models can explain the appearance of expectation values of observables in a single measurement, their predictions about the variance of the result of a non-ideal protective measurement are different from those of quantum mechanics. Finally, I argue that no psi-epistemic models exist for an ideal protective measurement in the ontological models framework, and in order to account for the definite result of an ideal protective measurement, the wave function must be a property of the protected system, defined either at a precise instant or during an infinitesimal time interval around an instant. Moreover, this result can also be extended to the wave function of an unprotected system. This new proof of the reality of the wave function does not rely on auxiliary assumptions, and it may help settle the issue about the nature of the wave function.