Is The Quantum Wave Function Real?The conflict between all we know about the physics of quantum systems and what we say or believe is real about them is brought forward dramatically with the concept of the quantum wave function (QWF). Is the QWF ontic or merely epistemic? Here I review and clarify through original examples the recent work of M. F. Pusey, J. Barrett, and T. Rudolph who have formed a novel theorem to decide on the ontology or epistemology of a QWF based on a hidden variable (HV) theory dating back to the mid-20th century.
Is The Quantum Wave Function Real?The conflict between all we know about the physics of quantum systems and what we say or believe is real about them is brought forward dramatically with the concept of the quantum wave function (QWF). Is the QWF ontic or merely epistemic? Here I review and clarify through original examples the recent work of M. F. Pusey, J. Barrett, and T. Rudolph who have formed a novel theorem to decide on the ontology or epistemology of a QWF based on a hidden variable (HV) theory dating back to the mid-20th century.
Towards the end of 2011, Pusey, Barrett and Rudolph derived a theorem that aimed to show that the quantum state must be ontic (a state of reality) in a broad class of realist approaches to quantum theory. This result attracted a lot of attention and controversy. The aim of this review article is to review the background to the Pusey–Barrett–Rudolph Theorem, to provide a clear presentation of the theorem itself, and to review related work that has appeared since the publication of the Pusey–Barrett–Rudolph paper. In particular, this review: Explains what it means for the quantum state to be ontic or epistemic (a state of knowledge); Reviews arguments for and against an ontic interpretation of the quantum state as they existed prior to the Pusey–Barrett–Rudolph Theorem; Explains why proving the reality of the quantum state is a very strong constraint on realist theories in that it would imply many of the known no-go theorems, such as Bell's Theorem and the need for an exponentially large ontic state space; Provides a comprehensive presentation of the Pusey–Barrett–Rudolph Theorem itself, along with subsequent improvements and criticisms of its assumptions; Reviews two other arguments for the reality of the quantum state: the first due to Hardy and the second due to Colbeck and Renner, and explains why their assumptions are less compelling than those of the Pusey–Barrett–Rudolph Theorem; Reviews subsequent work aimed at ruling out stronger notions of what it means for the quantum state to be epistemic and points out open questions in this area. The overall aim is not only to provide the background needed for the novice in this area to understand the current status, but also to discuss often overlooked subtleties that should be of interest to the experts. Quanta 2014; 3: 67–155.
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.
We present a new psi-ontology theorem demonstrating that the quantum wave function is ontic (real) rather than epistemic (representing knowledge) in single-world unitary quantum theories (SUQTs). By leveraging a protocol of repeated reversible measurements on a single quantum system, we show that any two distinct quantum states produce different statistical distributions of (erased) measurement outcomes. This theoretical distinguishability implies that different quantum states correspond to different physical realities, supporting the ontic nature of the quantum state. Unlike previous psi-ontology theorems, such as the Pusey-Barrett-Rudolph theorem, our proof relies solely on the unitary evolution and Born rule of SUQTs, without additional assumptions like preparation independence. This strengthens its implications for quantum foundations, particularly in restricting non-psi-ontic interpretations like QBism without assuming an underlying ontic state and its dynamics. The theorem applies to any pair of distinct states in a finite-dimensional Hilbert space, with extensions to infinite-dimensional systems, offering a robust and general argument for the reality of the quantum state.
The analysis of Pusey, Barrett and Rudolph aims to show there can be no objective physical reality which underlies, and is more general than, the state vector. But there appears to be a gap in their reasoning. To show their result, they use entangled states of independent systems. However, no specific experimental arrangement to detect these entangled states has been proposed. Thus their argument as it stands does not fully show there is a detectable conflict between the predictions of quantum mechanics and the existence of an underlying reality. And it is not clear that one can devise the necessary measuring device.
The wave function gives not the density of stuff, but gives rather (on squaring its modulus) the density of probability. Probability of what, exactly? Not of the electron being there, but of the electron being found there, if its position is ‘measured’. Why this aversion to ‘being’ and insistence on ‘finding’? The founding fathers were unable to form a clear picture of things on the remote atomic scale . John S. Bell (1990) Introduction The physical meaning of the wave function is an important interpretative problem of quantum mechanics. Notwithstanding nearly ninety years of development of the theory, it is still an unsolved issue. During recent years, more and more research has been done on the ontological status and meaning of the wave function (see, e.g. Monton, 2002; Lewis, 2004; Gao, 2011a, 2011b; Pusey, Barrett and Rudolph, 2012; Ney and Albert, 2013). In particular, Pusey, Barrett and Rudolph (2012) demonstrated that under certain non-trivial assumptions such as the preparation independence assumption, the wave function of a quantum system is a representation of the physical state of the system. This poses a further question, namely whether the reality of the wave function can be argued without resorting to non-trivial assumptions. Moreover, a harder problem is to determine the ontological meaning of the wave function, which is still a hot topic of debate in the realistic alternatives to quantum mechanics such as the de Broglie–Bohm theory or Bohmian mechanics (Belot, 2012). In this chapter, we will first give a clearer argument for the reality of the wave function in terms of protective measurements, which does not depend on non-trivial assumptions and can also overcome existing objections. Next, based on an analysis of the mass and charge properties of a quantum system, we will propose a new ontological interpretation of the wave function. According to this interpretation, the wave function of an N -body system represents the state of ergodic motion of N particles.