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

Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics

The PBR theorem: Whose side is it on?

Yemima Ben‐Menahem

Published Dec 24, 2016• 20 citations
Publisher
DOI
10.1016/j.shpsb.2016.11.004

Related papers

On the Nonreality of the PBR Theorem

Marcoen J. T. F. Cabbolet

arXiv:2211.15469•Foundations of Physics•Jun 1, 2023•5 citations

A Discussion on the Validity of the PBR Theorem

İnanç Şahin, Gazi Alumur

Foundations of Physics•Aug 1, 2025•0 citations

Alternative Experimental Protocol for a PBR-Like Theorem

Damien Miller

•Jan 1, 2012•0 citations

Addendum to ‘On the Nonreality of the PBR Theorem’: Disproof by Generic Counterexample

Marcoen J. T. F. Cabbolet

arXiv:2402.15742•Foundations of Physics•Jul 6, 2024•2 citations

A no-go theorem for $Ψ-$anomic models under the restricted ontic indifference assumption

Aurélien Drezet

We address the question of whether a non-nomological (i.e., anomic) interpretation of the wavefunction is compatible with the quantum formalism. After clarifying the distinction between ontic, epistemic, nomic and anomic models we focus our attention on two famous no-go theorems due to Pusey, Barrett, and Rudolph (PBR) on the one side and Hardy on the other side which forbid the existence of anomic-epistemic models. Moreover, we demonstrate that the so called restricted ontic indifference introduced by Hardy induces new constraints. We show that after modifications the Hardy theorem actually rules out all anomic models of the wavefunction assuming only restricted ontic indifference and preparation independence.

arXiv:2105.06445•May 13, 2021•0 citations

PBR, nonreality and entangled measurement

Hofer-Szabó, Gábor

In a recent paper, Cabbolet argues that the PBR theorem is nonreal since in the ensemble interpretation of quantum mechanics the entangled measurement used in the derivation of the PBR theorem is nonexisting. However, Cabbolet (1) doesn't provide any argument for the nonexistence of entangled measurements beyond the incompatibility of the existence of entangled measurements and the existence of $ψ$-epistemic models which we already know from the PBR theorem; and (2) he doesn't show why it is more reasonable to abandon entangled measurements instead of $ψ$-epistemic models. Hence, the PBR theorem remains intact.

arXiv:2405.06526•May 10, 2024•0 citations
A no-go theorem for Ψ−Ψ-Ψ−anomic models under the restricted ontic indifference assumption
We address the question of whether a non-nomological (i.e., anomic) interpretation of the wavefunction is compatible with the quantum formalism. After clarifying the distinction between ontic, epistemic, nomic and anomic models we focus our attention on two famous no-go theorems due to Pusey, Barrett, and Rudolph (PBR) on the one side and Hardy on the other side which forbid the existence of anomic-epistemic models. Moreover, we demonstrate that the so called restricted ontic indifference introduced by Hardy induces new constraints. We show that after modifications the Hardy theorem actually rules out all anomic models of the wavefunction assuming only restricted ontic indifference and preparation independence.
In a recent paper, Cabbolet argues that the PBR theorem is nonreal since in the ensemble interpretation of quantum mechanics the entangled measurement used in the derivation of the PBR theorem is nonexisting. However, Cabbolet (1) doesn't provide any argument for the nonexistence of entangled measurements beyond the incompatibility of the existence of entangled measurements and the existence of ψψψ-epistemic models which we already know from the PBR theorem; and (2) he doesn't show why it is more reasonable to abandon entangled measurements instead of ψψψ-epistemic models. Hence, the PBR theorem remains intact.