Philosophy of Science

The Ignorance Interpretation Defended

Neal Grossman

Published Dec 1, 1974• 6 citations

Abstract

The “Ignorance Interpretation” of quantum mechanical mixtures holds, roughly, that whenever a system S belongs to an ensemble, which is represented by a mixed statistical operator U = Σpi P[ψi] (0 ≤ pi ≤ 1, Σipi = 1, P[ψi] is the projection operator for the state ψi), then S is in some pure state, although we are ignorant as to which one. It has been concluded, e.g. by van Fraassen, that “the ignorance interpretation is untenable,” and he presumably favors adopting “the position that mixtures of pure states are themselves new states ... to say that a system is in a proper mixture is to say that it is not in a pure state.” I wish to argue in this paper that there are no good grounds for rejecting the ignorance interpretation.

DOI: 10.1086/288597

Related papers

A Dilemma for the Traditional Interpretation of Quantum Mixtures

Nancy Delaney Cartwright

This paper argues that the ignorance interpretation of mixtures is physically unrealistic. The ignorance interpretation is the orthodox interpretation for mixtures, and should not be confused with the ignorance interpretation for superpositions, which has been largely abandoned. Mixtures, unlike superpositions, do not interfere. They are represented by mixed (or non-idempotent, i.e. W2 ≠ W) operators; superpositions, by pure (or idempotent) operators or by vectors. In the minimal interpretation both pure and mixed operators may be taken to describe collections. Any pure state, ψ, may be expressed as a sum of other pure states, ϕ 1, ϕ2, …, ϕn. Yet we cannot postulate that the members of the collection described by ψ are each in one of the pure states ϕ1, ϕ2, …, ϕn. This is because of the interference between the pure ϕ1, …, ϕn. On the other hand, if we have a mixture of ϕ1, …, ϕn, we can consistently postulate that the members of the collections are each in one of the pure states ϕ1, …, ϕn.

PSA Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science AssociationJan 1, 19722 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:2002.04423Feb 8, 20203 citations

Untenability of simple ensemble interpretations of quantum measurement probabilities

Daniel T. Gillespie

Some interpretations of quantum mechanics try to describe the probabilistic nature of quantum measurements in a way that allows a system in a pure state to always have precise (if not simultaneously knowable) values for all its observable variables. In what might be called a simple ensemble interpretation, the quantum mechanical state vector is assumed to define a statistical ensemble of identically prepared systems, each of which has precise values for all its observable variables, and the act of measurement is equivalenced to a straightforward sampling of that ensemble. It is shown here, in a manner that should be suitable for a first course in quantum mechanics, that a simple ensemble interpretation is not possible for some quantum systems, and hence is untenable as a general premise. The analysis is essentially a repackaging of the Bell argument against hidden variables, although hidden variables are never invoked here.

American Journal of PhysicsOct 1, 19869 citations

Density operators

Benjamin W. Schumacher, Michael D. Westmoreland

Beyond state vectors We cannot always assign a definite state vector |ψ〉 to a quantum system Q. It may be that Q is part of a composite system RQ that is in an entangled state |Ψ (RQ) 〉. Or it may be that our knowledge of the preparation of Q is insufficient to determine a particular state |ψ〉. Consider, for instance, a qubit sent from Alice to Bob during the BB84 key distribution protocol from Section 4.4. The state of this qubit could be |0〉, |1〉, |+〉 or |−〉, each with equal likelihood. In either case – whether Q is a subsystem of an entangled system, or the state of Q is determined by a probabilistic process – we cannot specify a quantum state vector |ψ〉 for Q. Nevertheless, in either case we are in a position to make statistical predictions about the outcomes of measurements on Q. In this chapter we describe the mathematical machinery for doing this. Mixtures of states Suppose the state of Q arises by a random process, so that the state |ψ α 〉 is prepared with probability p α . The possible states |ψ α 〉 need not be orthogonal (as you can see in the BB84 example above). We call this situation a mixture of the states |ψ α 〉, or a mixed state for short. One way to interpret a mixed state is to return to the idea of an ensemble of systems, which we introduced in Section 3.3.

Cambridge University Press eBooksMar 25, 20100 citations

All quantum mixtures are proper

Leonardo Castellani

It is argued that proper and improper quantum mixed states have no observable differences, and hence should not be distinguished. This has implications for subjective approaches to quantum mechanics, and invalidates one of the main motivations for relational interpretations.

arXiv:2201.04143International Journal of Quantum InformationMar 10, 20232 citations

The quantum state can be interpreted statistically

Peter G. Lewis, Terry Rudolph, David Jennings +1 more

Quantum states are the key mathematical objects in quantum theory. It is therefore surprising that physicists have been unable to agree on what a quantum state represents. There are at least two opposing schools of thought, each almost as old as quantum theory itself. One is that a pure state is a physical property of system, much like position and momentum in classical mechanics. Another is that even a pure state has only a statistical significance, akin to a probability distribution in statistical mechanics. Here we show that, given only very mild assumptions, the statistical interpretation of the quantum state is inconsistent with the predictions of quantum theory. This result holds even in the presence of small amounts of experimental noise, and is therefore amenable to experimental test using present or near-future technology. If the predictions of quantum theory are confirmed, such a test would show that distinct quantum states must correspond to physically distinct states of reality.

Feb 1, 201231 citations