Ontological Reality of Time in Quantum Theory

İnanç Şahin, Gazi Alumur

Published Nov 19, 2024• 0 citations

Abstract

In this paper we consider time as a property of a preparation or a quantum system and investigate whether it is an epistemic property according to Harrigan and Spekkens’ criterion [Found Phys 40, 125–157 (2010)]. To be precise, using a tabletop setup where the predictions of quantum mechanics and general relativity can be combined, we prepare a quantum state such that it is a quantum superposition of the diﬀerent durations ticked by a quantum mechanical clock moving in spacetime. Such a preparation provides a quantum system that includes time as an intrinsic property. Indeed, changing the weights in the superposition changes the time as an expectation value as well as the possible diﬀerent clock readings and histories. With a proof similar to the Pusey-Barrett-Rudolph (PBR) theorem [Nature Phys 8, 475–478 (2012)], it is shown that time in quantum theory is not an epistemic notion, but has ontological reality. In fact, the PBR theorem implies an ontic notion of time. Indeed, by proving that the quantum state is a physical property, the PBR theorem requires quantum state reduction to be a physical process. In this case, quantum probabilities are intrinsic probabilities without epistemic origin, and they generate a genuinely new sequence of events. This novelty introduced by quantum probabilities can be interpreted as time. However, although the PBR theorem implies this result, it does not prove it. First, an additional assumption is required to ensure the intrinsic character of quantum probabilities. Second, the PBR theorem is not constructed to prove that time is ontic, but to prove that ψ is ontic. All these issues are discussed in detail in the paper.

DOI: 10.20944/preprints202403.1648.v2

Related papers

On the Reality of the Time State

İnanç Şahin, Gazi Alumur

In this paper, a proof similar to the Pusey-Barrett-Rudolph (PBR) theorem is given to prove that time in quantum theory is not epistemic but has ontological reality. For this, we ﬁrst discuss how time can be encoded as an intrinsic property of a quantum system. We prepare a quantum state containing time as an intrinsic property and show by a PBR-type proof that time cannot be an epistemic notion. In fact, the PBR theorem implies an ontic notion of time. Indeed, if the quantum state is a physical property, then quantum state reduction is a physical process involving information destruction. In this case, quantum probabilities are intrinsic probabilities without epistemic origin, and they generate a genuinely new sequence of events. This novelty introduced by quantum probabilities can be interpreted as time.

Mar 27, 20241 citation

Reality of the quantum state: Towards a stronger ψ -ontology theorem

Shane Mansfield

The Pusey-Barrett-Rudolph (PBR) no-go theorem provides an argument for the reality of the quantum state by ruling out $\ensuremath{\psi}$-epistemic ontological theories, in which the quantum state is of a statistical nature. It applies under an assumption of preparation independence, the validity of which has been subject to debate. We propose two plausible and less restrictive alternatives: a weaker notion allowing for classical correlations, and an even weaker, physically motivated notion of independence, which merely prohibits the possibility of superluminal causal influences in the preparation process. The latter is a minimal requirement for enabling a reasonable treatment of subsystems in any theory. It is demonstrated by means of an explicit $\ensuremath{\psi}$-epistemic ontological model that the argument of PBR becomes invalid under the alternative notions of independence. As an intermediate step, we recover a result which is valid in the presence of classical correlations. Finally, we obtain a theorem which holds under the minimal requirement, approximating the result of PBR. For this, we consider experiments involving randomly sampled preparations and derive bounds on the degree of $\ensuremath{\psi}$ epistemicity that is consistent with the quantum-mechanical predictions. The approximation is exact in the limit as the sample space of preparations becomes infinite.

arXiv:1412.0669Physical Review AOct 24, 201622 citations

Reality of the quantum state: A new proof in terms of protective measurements

Shan Gao

The ontological model framework provides a rigorous approach to address the question of whether the quantum state is ontic or epistemic. When considering only conventional projective measurements, auxiliary assumptions are always needed to prove the reality of the quantum state in the framework. For example, the Pusey-Barrett-Rudolph theorem is based on an additional preparation independence assumption. In this paper, we give a new proof of psi-ontology in terms of protective measurements in the ontological model framework. It is argued that the proof needs not rely on auxiliary assumptions, and also applies to deterministic theories such as the de Broglie-Bohm theory. In addition, we give a simpler argument for psi-ontology beyond the framework, which is only based on protective measurements and a weaker criterion of reality. The argument may be also appealing for those people who favor an anti-realist view of quantum mechanics.

Dec 18, 20150 citations

Ontology without states: PBR as an argument for dynamics-first realism

Nick Ormrod

The Pusey--Barrett--Rudolph (PBR) theorem is commonly taken to establish that a pure quantum state represents a physical property of the system to which it is assigned, rather than merely encoding knowledge. In this work, I distinguish between state-first and dynamics-first physical theories, and argue that this reading presupposes the former. These two types of theories support different approaches to causal explanation, and one of PBR's stated assumptions depends on the state-first approach. Using a recent interpretation of quantum theory as a concrete example, I show how a dynamics-first theory can explain the PBR correlations while maintaining a broadly epistemic reading of quantum states. I conclude that the PBR theorem supports a dilemma: either the quantum state is part of reality, or reality is not fundamentally built out of states.

quant-pharXiv:2610.37948Oct 29, 20260 citations

Quantum Field-Theoretic Predictions of Ψ-Epistemic Models of Quantum Mechanics

İnanç Şahin

Ψ-epistemic models of quantum mechanics imply that the quantum state does not correspond to physical reality, but instead reflects the observer's knowledge of the underlying quantum system. The epistemic view of the quantum state has the potential to shed light on several foundational problems of quantum theory and has attracted considerable attention in the literature. On the other hand, the Pusey-Barrett-Rudolph theorem demonstrated that broad classes of ψ-epistemic models must lead to predictions that deviate from those of quantum mechanics. Although the original theorem involved entangled joint measurements on composite systems, alternative no-go theorems involving measurements on single quantum systems were developed shortly thereafter. Experimental investigations of the deviations predicted by ψ-epistemic models from quantum mechanics are still ongoing. So far, such tests have been performed within the framework of non-relativistic quantum mechanics and predominantly rely on quantum information based measurement procedures. In this work, we show that ψ-epistemic models can give rise to deviations from standard quantum field-theoretic predictions through modifications of polarized scattering cross sections and decay widths. Our results do not require a relativistic formulation of ontological models or of the Harrigan-Spekkens criterion; the essential assumption is merely that measurements implemented through relativistic processes can still be represented within the ontological framework by well-defined response functions and probabilities. The present work constitutes a proof-of-principle study demonstrating that particle physics tests of the ontological status of the quantum state are possible and that ψ-epistemic models may exhibit experimentally distinguishable signatures in particle phenomenology.

quant-pharXiv:2605.12546May 12, 20260 citations

Is the Quantum State Real? An Extended Review of ψ-Ontology Theorems

Matthew Leifer

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.

arXiv:1409.1570QuantaNov 5, 2014306 citations