© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

Terms Privacy Legal Notice

PBR, EPR, and All That Jazz

Matthew Leifer

Published Jan 1, 2012• 6 citations

Abstract

"In the past couple of months, the quantum foundations world has been abuzz about a new preprint entitled "The Quantum State Cannot be Interpreted Statistically" by Matt Pusey, Jon Barrett and Terry Rudolph (henceforth known as PBR). Since I wrote a blog post explaining the result, I have been inundated with more correspondence from scientists and more requests for comment from science journalists than at any other point in my career. Reaction to the result amongst quantum researchers has been mixed, with many people reacting negatively to the title, which can be misinterpreted as an attack on the Born rule. Others have managed to read past the title, but are still unsure whether to credit the result with any fundamental significance. In this article, I would like to explain why I think that the PBR result is the most significant constraint on hidden variable theories that has been proved to date. It provides a simple proof of many other known theorems, and it supercharges the EPR argument, converting it into a rigorous proof of nonlocality that has the same status as Bell's theorem. Before getting to this though, we need to understand the PBR result itself."

Related papers

The PBR theorem seen from the eyes of a Bohmian

Aurélien Drezet

The aim of this paper is to present an analysis of the new theorem by Pusey, Barrett and Rudolph (PBR) concerning ontic and epistemic hidden variables in quantum mechanics [Nature Phys. 8, 476 (2012)]. This is a kind of review and defense of my previous critical analysis done in the context of Bohmian mechanics. This is also the occasion for me to review some of the fundamental aspects of Bohmian theory rarely discussed in the literature. The paper is submitted for the issue PBR theorem and Beyond of IJQF (International Journal of Quantum Foundations).

arXiv:1409.3478•Sep 11, 2014•6 citations

Can quantum mechanics be considered as statistical? an analysis of the PBR theorem

Aurélien Drezet

The answer to this question is `yes it can!' as we will see in this manuscript. More, precisely after a discussion of M. F. Pusey, J. Barrett and T. Rudolph (PBR) result (arXiv:1111.3328) we will show that contrarily to the PBR claim the epistemic approach is in general not disproved by their `no-go' theorem.

arXiv:1203.2475•Mar 12, 2012•5 citations

Can quantum mechanics be considered as statistical?(comment)

Aurélien Drezet

This is a short manuscript which was initially submitted to Nature Physics as a comment to the PBR (Pusey, M. F., Barrett, J., Rudolph, T) paper just after its publication in 2012. The comment was not accepted. I however think that the argumentation is correct: one is free to judge!

arXiv:1209.2862•Sep 13, 2012•1 citation

Alternative experimental protocol to demonstrate the Pusey-Barrett-Rudolph theorem

D. J. Miller

Pusey, Barrett, and Rudolph (PBR) have recently proven an important new theorem in the foundations of quantum mechanics [Pusey et al., Nature Phys. 8, 475 (2012)]. Here we propose alternative experimental protocols which lead to the PBR result for a special case and a weaker PBR-like result generally. Alternative experimental protocols support the assumption of measurement independence required for the PBR theorem.

arXiv:1202.6465•Physical Review A•Jan 16, 2013•13 citations

The quantum state should be interpreted statistically

Holger Friedrich Hofmann

In a recent paper (arXiv:1111.3328), Pusey, Barrett and Rudolph claim to prove that statistical interpretations of quantum mechanics do not work. In fact, their proof assumes that all statistical interpretations must be based on hidden variable realism. Effectively, the authors demand from the start that reality must be decided by mathematics, and not by measurements. If this unjustified assumption is dropped, the quantum formalism has a natural statistical interpretation that fully explains the paradox presented by the authors. It is therefore possible to conclude that the paradox actually supports the statistical interpretation, demonstrating once more that quantum mechanics should not be explained by measurement independent realities that are never observed and therefore lie beyond the reach of empirical tests.

arXiv:1112.2446•Dec 12, 2011•5 citations

On the reality of the quantum state

B.J.J. Bruggers

This paper explores the philosophical as well as the physical arguments made by Matthew Pusey, Jonathan Barrett and Terry Rudolph in their recently published article on the reality of the quantum state in order to attain a full understanding of the statements they make in their article. This is essential because not even all respondents to the article agree on how to interpret the article. In their article Pusey, Barrett and Rudolph present a no-go theorem; they show that a particular situation is, according to quantum theory, not physically possible if one were to be psi-epistemic about it. They argue that for this particular situation, or thought-experiment, the psi-epistemic interpretation makes predictions that are inconsistent with those predictions made by quantum theory itself.

•Aug 16, 2013•0 citations

"In the past couple of months, the quantum foundations world has been abuzz about a new preprint entitled "The Quantum State Cannot be Interpreted Statistically" by Matt Pusey, Jon Barrett and Terry Rudolph (henceforth known as PBR). Since I wrote a blog post explaining the result, I have been inundated with more correspondence from scientists and more requests for comment from science journalists than at any other point in my career. Reaction to the result amongst quantum researchers has been mixed, with many people reacting negatively to the title, which can be misinterpreted as an attack on the Born rule. Others have managed to read past the title, but are still unsure whether to credit the result with any fundamental significance. In this article, I would like to explain why I think that the PBR result is the most significant constraint on hidden variable theories that has been proved to date. It provides a simple proof of many other known theorems, and it supercharges the EPR argument, converting it into a rigorous proof of nonlocality that has the same status as Bell's theorem. Before getting to this though, we need to understand the PBR result itself."

The aim of this paper is to present an analysis of the new theorem by Pusey, Barrett and Rudolph (PBR) concerning ontic and epistemic hidden variables in quantum mechanics [Nature Phys. 8, 476 (2012)]. This is a kind of review and defense of my previous critical analysis done in the context of Bohmian mechanics. This is also the occasion for me to review some of the fundamental aspects of Bohmian theory rarely discussed in the literature. The paper is submitted for the issue PBR theorem and Beyond of IJQF (International Journal of Quantum Foundations).

In a recent paper (arXiv:1111.3328), Pusey, Barrett and Rudolph claim to prove that statistical interpretations of quantum mechanics do not work. In fact, their proof assumes that all statistical interpretations must be based on hidden variable realism. Effectively, the authors demand from the start that reality must be decided by mathematics, and not by measurements. If this unjustified assumption is dropped, the quantum formalism has a natural statistical interpretation that fully explains the paradox presented by the authors. It is therefore possible to conclude that the paradox actually supports the statistical interpretation, demonstrating once more that quantum mechanics should not be explained by measurement independent realities that are never observed and therefore lie beyond the reach of empirical tests.

This paper explores the philosophical as well as the physical arguments made by Matthew Pusey, Jonathan Barrett and Terry Rudolph in their recently published article on the reality of the quantum state in order to attain a full understanding of the statements they make in their article. This is essential because not even all respondents to the article agree on how to interpret the article. In their article Pusey, Barrett and Rudolph present a no-go theorem; they show that a particular situation is, according to quantum theory, not physically possible if one were to be psi-epistemic about it. They argue that for this particular situation, or thought-experiment, the psi-epistemic interpretation makes predictions that are inconsistent with those predictions made by quantum theory itself.