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

Against the Tyranny of ‘Pure States’ in Quantum Theory

Christian DE RONDE

Published Jan 1, 2022• 5 citations
Publisher

Abstract

We argue that the notion of pure sate within Standard Quantum Mechanics is presently applied within the specialized literature in relation to two mutually inconsistent definitions. While the first (operational purity) provides a basis-dependent definition which makes reference to the certain prediction of measurement outcomes, the latter (trace-invariant purity) provides a purely abstract invariant definition which lacks operational content. In this work we derive a theorem which exposes the serious inconsistencies existent within these two incompatible definitions of purity.

DOI
10.1007/s10699-020-09720-x

Related papers

The Many Inconsistencies of the Purity-Mixture Distinction in Standard Quantum Mechanics

Christian DE RONDE, César Massri

The distinction between pure states and mixed states is a kernel ingredient of what is considered to be the standard formulation of quantum mechanics and plays today a kernel role in foundational debates about the meaning of quantum probability, the separability of quantum systems, the definition and measure of entanglement, etc. In this work we attempt to expose the many inconsistencies introduced by this distinction and the serious consequences this has for many ongoing research programs within quantum physics which apply these notions uncritically.

arXiv:2208.10574•Aug 22, 2022•3 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:2002.04423•Feb 8, 2020•3 citations

On the Physical Untenability of the Standard Notion of Quantum State

Christian DE RONDE

The notion of quantum state plays a fundamental role within the Standard account of Quantum Mechanics (SQM) as established by Dirac and von Neumann during 1930s and up to the present. In this work we expose the deep inconsistencies that exist within the multiple definitions of the notion of quantum state that are provided within this axiomatic formulation. As we will argue, these different inconsistent definitions continue to be -- even today -- uncritically confused within the mainstream physical and philosophical literature leading to self-contradictory statements and wrong conclusions. We end with a discussion regarding the untenability of this concept for any rational understanding of theoretical physics.

arXiv:2505.23989•May 29, 2025•0 citations

Against Collapses, Purity and Separability Within the Definition of Quantum Entanglement

Christian DE RONDE, César Massri

In this paper we we will argue against the orthodox definition of quantum entanglement which has been implicitly grounded on several widespread (metaphysical) presuppositions which have no relation whatsoever to the formalism of QM. We will show how these presuppositions have been introduced through a naive interpretation of the quantum mathematical structure which assumes dogmatically that the theory talks about "small particles" represented by pure states (in general, superpositions) which suddenly "collapse" when a measurement takes place. In the second part of this paper we will present a non-collapse approach to QM which makes no use whatsoever of particle metaphysics, escaping the need to make reference to space-time separability or the restriction to certain predictions of definite valued binary properties. Our paper ends up concluding the essential need to redefine the notion of quantum entanglement, at least in the cases of: i) non-collapse interpretations of QM; or, ii) any other interpretation which abandons the idea that QM makes reference to "small particles".

arXiv:1808.10030•Aug 25, 2018•0 citations

Quantum Theory and the Limits of Objectivity

Richard Healey

Abstract Three recent arguments seek to show that the universal applicability of unitary quantum theory is inconsistent with the assumption that a well-conducted measurement always has a definite physical outcome. This essay restates and analyzes these arguments. The import of the first two is diminished by their dependence on assumptions about the outcomes of counterfactual measurements. But the third argument establishes its intended conclusion. Even if every well-conducted quantum measurement one ever makes will have a definite physical outcome, this argument should make them reconsider the objectivity of that outcome.

•Jan 25, 2026•0 citations

Foundations of quantum physics I. A critique of the tradition

Arnold Neumaier

This paper gives a thorough critique of the foundations of quantum physics in its mainstream interpretation (i.e., treating pure states as primitives, without reference to hidden variables, and without modifications of the quantum laws). This is achieved by cleanly separating a concise version of the (universally accepted) formal core of quantum physics from the (controversial) interpretation issues. The latter are primarily related to measurement, but also to questions of existence and of the meaning of basic concepts like 'state' and 'particle'. The requirements for good foundations of quantum physics are discussed. Main results: * Born's rule cannot be valid universally, and must be considered as a scientific law with a restricted domain of validity. * If the state of every composite quantum system contains all information that can be known about this system, it cannot be a pure state in general.

arXiv:1902.10778•Feb 27, 2019•5 citations
We argue that the notion of pure sate within Standard Quantum Mechanics is presently applied within the specialized literature in relation to two mutually inconsistent definitions. While the first (operational purity) provides a basis-dependent definition which makes reference to the certain prediction of measurement outcomes, the latter (trace-invariant purity) provides a purely abstract invariant definition which lacks operational content. In this work we derive a theorem which exposes the serious inconsistencies existent within these two incompatible definitions of purity.
The distinction between pure states and mixed states is a kernel ingredient of what is considered to be the standard formulation of quantum mechanics and plays today a kernel role in foundational debates about the meaning of quantum probability, the separability of quantum systems, the definition and measure of entanglement, etc. In this work we attempt to expose the many inconsistencies introduced by this distinction and the serious consequences this has for many ongoing research programs within quantum physics which apply these notions uncritically.
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.
The notion of quantum state plays a fundamental role within the Standard account of Quantum Mechanics (SQM) as established by Dirac and von Neumann during 1930s and up to the present. In this work we expose the deep inconsistencies that exist within the multiple definitions of the notion of quantum state that are provided within this axiomatic formulation. As we will argue, these different inconsistent definitions continue to be -- even today -- uncritically confused within the mainstream physical and philosophical literature leading to self-contradictory statements and wrong conclusions. We end with a discussion regarding the untenability of this concept for any rational understanding of theoretical physics.
In this paper we we will argue against the orthodox definition of quantum entanglement which has been implicitly grounded on several widespread (metaphysical) presuppositions which have no relation whatsoever to the formalism of QM. We will show how these presuppositions have been introduced through a naive interpretation of the quantum mathematical structure which assumes dogmatically that the theory talks about "small particles" represented by pure states (in general, superpositions) which suddenly "collapse" when a measurement takes place. In the second part of this paper we will present a non-collapse approach to QM which makes no use whatsoever of particle metaphysics, escaping the need to make reference to space-time separability or the restriction to certain predictions of definite valued binary properties. Our paper ends up concluding the essential need to redefine the notion of quantum entanglement, at least in the cases of: i) non-collapse interpretations of QM; or, ii) any other interpretation which abandons the idea that QM makes reference to "small particles".
Abstract Three recent arguments seek to show that the universal applicability of unitary quantum theory is inconsistent with the assumption that a well-conducted measurement always has a definite physical outcome. This essay restates and analyzes these arguments. The import of the first two is diminished by their dependence on assumptions about the outcomes of counterfactual measurements. But the third argument establishes its intended conclusion. Even if every well-conducted quantum measurement one ever makes will have a definite physical outcome, this argument should make them reconsider the objectivity of that outcome.
This paper gives a thorough critique of the foundations of quantum physics in its mainstream interpretation (i.e., treating pure states as primitives, without reference to hidden variables, and without modifications of the quantum laws). This is achieved by cleanly separating a concise version of the (universally accepted) formal core of quantum physics from the (controversial) interpretation issues. The latter are primarily related to measurement, but also to questions of existence and of the meaning of basic concepts like 'state' and 'particle'. The requirements for good foundations of quantum physics are discussed. Main results: * Born's rule cannot be valid universally, and must be considered as a scientific law with a restricted domain of validity. * If the state of every composite quantum system contains all information that can be known about this system, it cannot be a pure state in general.