Technical paper abstract: Significant open issues remain in conventional quantum theory that may need novel ideas to resolve. The usual model of a quantum wave function is an epistemic one in which the wave function encodes probabilities of future measurement outcomes. This model often falls short of adequately explaining certain basics, like the double slit experiment. We present here a new approach to modeling the wave function as a physical object, supported by analogies to the revolutionary theory of information conceived by Claude Shannon in the 1940’s. Our theory, we term Actualation Theory (AT), where actualation is a physical analog to information, provides a foundation for development of the physical, or ontic, wave function. We also provide some extension to Shannon Theory (ST) in developing comprehensive analogies to Actualation Theory (AT) in support of the physical wave function model.This paper does not represent a declaration that the concepts are valid and should be preferred, instead it is a proposal for consideration and further development.
Technical paper abstract: Significant open issues remain in conventional quantum theory that may need novel ideas to resolve. The usual model of a quantum wave function is an epistemic one in which the wave function encodes probabilities of future measurement outcomes. This model often falls short of adequately explaining certain basics, like the double slit experiment. We present here a new approach to modeling the wave function as a physical object, supported by analogies to the revolutionary theory of information conceived by Claude Shannon in the 1940’s. Our theory, we term Actualation Theory (AT), where actualation is a physical analog to information, provides a foundation for development of the physical, or ontic, wave function. We also provide some extension to Shannon Theory (ST) in developing comprehensive analogies to Actualation Theory (AT) in support of the physical wave function model.This paper does not represent a declaration that the concepts are valid and should be preferred, instead it is a proposal for consideration and further development.
The meaning of the wave function has been a hot topic of debate since the early days of quantum mechanics. Recent years have witnessed a growing interest in this long-standing question. Is the wave function ontic, directly representing a state of reality, or epistemic, merely representing a state of (incomplete) knowledge, or something else? If the wave function is not ontic, then what, if any, is the underlying state of reality? If the wave function is indeed ontic, then exactly what physical state does it represent? In this book, I aim to make sense of the wave function in quantum mechanics and find the ontological content of the theory. The book can be divided into three parts. The first part addresses the question of the nature of the wave function (Chapters 1-5). After giving a comprehensive and critical review of the competing views of the wave function, I present a new argument for the ontic view in terms of protective measurements. In addition, I also analyze the origin of the wave function by deriving the free Schroedinger equation. The second part analyzes the ontological meaning of the wave function (Chapters 6, 7). I propose a new ontological interpretation of the wave function in terms of random discontinuous motion of particles, and give two main arguments supporting this interpretation. The third part investigates whether the suggested quantum ontology is complete in accounting for our definite experience and whether it needs to be revised in the relativistic domain (Chapters 8, 9).
In these first few chapters, our aim is to establish a firm grounding so that we can address some fundamental questions regarding information transmission over quantum channels. This area of study has become known as “quantum Shannon theory” in the broader quantum information community, in order to distinguish this topic from other areas of study in quantum information science. In this text, we will use the terms “quantum Shannon theory” and “quantum information theory” somewhat interchangeably. We will begin by briefly overviewing several fundamental aspects of the quantum theory. Our study of the quantum theory, in this chapter and future ones, will be at an abstract level, without giving preference to any particular physical system such as a spin-1/2 particle or a photon. This approach will be more beneficial for the purposes of our study, but, here and there, we will make some reference to actual physical systems to ground us in reality. You may be wondering, what is quantum Shannon theory and why do we name this area of study as such? In short, quantum Shannon theory is the study of the ultimate capability of noisy physical systems, governed by the laws of quantum mechanics, to preserve information and correlations. Quantum information theorists have chosen the name quantum Shannon theory to honor Claude Shannon, who single-handedly founded the field of classical information theory, with a groundbreaking 1948 paper (Shannon, 1948).
In these first few chapters, our aim is to establish a firm grounding so that we can address some fundamental questions regarding information transmission over quantum channels. This area of study has become known as “quantum Shannon theory” in the broader quantum information community, in order to distinguish this topic from other areas of study in quantum information science. In this text, we will use the terms “quantum Shannon theory” and “quantum information theory” somewhat interchangeably. We will begin by briefly overviewing several fundamental aspects of the quantum theory. Our study of the quantum theory, in this chapter and future ones, will be at an abstract level, without giving preference to any particular physical system such as a spin- 1/2 particle or a photon. This approach will be more beneficial for the purposes of our study, but, here and there, we will make some reference to actual physical systems to ground us in reality. You may be wondering, what is quantum Shannon theory and why do we name this area of study as such? In short, quantum Shannon theory is the study of the ultimate capability of noisy physical systems, governed by the laws of quantum mechanics, to preserve information and correlations. Quantum information theorists have chosen the name quantum Shannon theory to honor Claude Shannon, who single-handedly founded the field of classical information theory with a groundbreaking paper (Shannon, 1948). In particular, the name refers to the asymptotic theory of quantum information, which is the main topic of study in this book. Information theorists since Shannon have dubbed him the “Einstein of the information age.”1 The name quantum Shannon theory is fit to capture this area of study because we often use quantum versions of Shannon's ideas to prove some of the main theorems in quantum Shannon theory. We prefer the name “quantum Shannon theory” over such names as “quantum information science” or just “quantum information.” These other names are too broad, encompassing subjects as diverse as quantum computation, quantum algorithms, quantum complexity theory, quantum communication complexity, entanglement theory, quantum key distribution, quantum error correction, and even the experimental implementation of quantum protocols.
The wave function gives probabilities, but is it a real physical quantity, as in the ontic interpretation of quantum mechanics, or just a measure of human belief about a physical system, as in an epistemic interpretation? These questions are introduced by treating Schrödinger’s cat and Wigner’s friend. An important question is whether quantum mechanics applies to macroscopic objects, for example, cats. SQUID experiments have been performed that see quantum interference in very large objects, whereas with most macroscopic objects quantum interference disappears because of decoherence. Various views of the meaning of quantum mechanics are discussed: the Copenhagen interpretation, continuous spontaneous localization, Everett’s many-worlds interpretation, Bohm’s hidden-variable model, and quantum Bayesianism. The latter holds that the wave function represents one’s best belief about the state of a quantum system, rather than an actual physical property. This leads to discussions of recent theories and experiments explicitly designed to test wave function reality.
The ontological status of the quantum wavefunction remains one of the most debated questions in quantum theory. While epistemic interpretations regard the wavefunction as a reflection of our knowledge or beliefs, ontic interpretations treat it as a real physical object. In this paper, we argue that epistemic approaches struggle to explain the universality and precision of the uncertainty principle, a core feature of quantum mechanics. By contrast, treating the wave-function as ontic allows a consistent and natural derivation of quantum uncertainty from the mathematical structure of Hilbert space. We examine key interpretations on both sides and highlight why the epistemic view falls short in addressing constraints that appear to be intrinsic to nature.
Quantum nonlocality has been a long-standing and fascinating problem in the foundations of quantum theory since its proof by the Bell inequality. It seems to contradict our intuitive picture of space-time and thus urges us to reconsider its foundation. With the advent of quantum information science, it has attracted renewed interest from a fundamental point of view as well as from a quantum information-theoretic one. Another fundamental question on the nature of quantum theory is how we understand what quantum states represent. (Quantum states hereafter refer to pure states.) This is also a long-standing problem since the early days of quantum theory. Roughly speaking, there are two conflicting views on this matter: one is ontology and the other is epistemology. Ontological models of quantum theory are models in which we assume some underlying reality for physical systems and require that all the predictions of quantum theory should be reproduced. The ontological models are divided into two categories, depending on which views the models are based on, ontology or epistemology. In the models based on ontology, quantum states represent the underlying reality in some sense, and different quantum states correspond to different realities. In the models based on epistemology, quantum states do not necessarily correspond to the underlying realities, and even different quantum states can be consistent with a common underlying reality. The former type of ontological models of quantum theory is called 1⁄4-ontic. The latter is called 1⁄4-epistemic. Thus, it might be rather confusing that ontological models are classified further into 1⁄4-ontic models and 1⁄4-epistemic ones. We use these terms here in accordance with the recent literature on quantum foundations. (For details of these notions in the ontological models of quantum theory, see the paper by Harrigan and Spekkens.) Quite recently, the question just mentioned has been answered by Pusey et al., and one of the above models has been refuted. It was shown that 1⁄4-epistemic models are inconsistent with the predictions of quantum theory. In other words, epistemological views on quantum states turned out to be false as long as we assume some underlying reality for physical systems. Therefore, only 1⁄4-ontic models of quantum theory are valid for describing quantum systems. This significantly advances our understanding on the nature of quantum states. It is expected that various conclusions will be drawn from this fact. In this paper, we will discuss a connection with nonlocality. The above two fundamental questions, nonlocality and the nature of quantum states, are intimately connected, and the connection was first implicitly recognised by Einstein in the early days of quantum theory. In a private correspondence with Schrodinger, Einstein constructed a fascinating argument that relates the above two. (That argument is distinctly different from the well-known EPR argument.) Recently, it was revisited and reconstructed in accordance with more rigorous notions in quantum foundations. Nonlocality is usually shown by violations of Bell inequalities. (Bell inequalities hereafter include all the subsequent developments such as the CHSH inequality.) Even if it is not clear whether the models of quantum theory are 1⁄4-ontic or 1⁄4-epistemic, we can prove nonlocality just by showing the violation of Bell inequalities. However, the above argument originated by Einstein implies that if we know the models are 1⁄4-ontic in advance (as we do now), we can prove nonlocality in a simpler way without Bell inequalities. (This argument had been known in quantum foundations before the refutation of 1⁄4-epistemic models.) Nonlocality is rigorously defined as a violation of the notion of local causality defined by Bell. Showing the violation of Bell inequalities is one way of demonstrating the violation of local causality. Since the simpler proof initiated by Einstein directly demonstrates the violation of local causality, it is a more straightforward proof of nonlocality from a conceptual point of view. In the following, we will see that this simple argument of nonlocality without Bell inequalities can be used to show multipartite nonlocality as well. Before moving onto multipartite cases, first let us define the necessary notions for presenting our result. First of all, we assume that there exists a complete specification of the properties of a physical system, which we refer to as the ontic state of that system. The ontic states represent the underlying realities and are not necessarily equal to ordinary quantum states. (In other words, the ontic states correspond to hidden variables.) Ontological models of quantum theory are models that assume ontic states and reproduce all the predictions of quantum theory. An important question is how ontic states correspond to quantum states in quantum theory. In order to frame the question accurately, we need the notion of an epistemic state, which represents the relation between them. Suppose we prepare a physical system in a quantum state 1⁄4. Although the system is uniquely specified as 1⁄4 in quantum theory, there still remains a possibility that it allows a more detailed specification in the ontic state space, in which case many different ontic states turn out to be consistent with 1⁄4. The relation between ontic states and the preparation procedure, P1⁄4, is described by a conditional probability distribution over the ontic state space, pð jP1⁄4Þ, which we refer to as an epistemic state. In general, the preparation P can be a preparation of a physical system in a mixed sate. Unless there exists a one-to-one correspondence between ontic states and quantum states, the probability distribution spreads over . (See Fig. 1.) The question of whether an ontological model is 1⁄4-ontic or 1⁄4-epistemic is concerned with the behaviour of the epistemic states for two distinct preparations of quantum states. Consider two distinct preparations of quantum states, Journal of the Physical Society of Japan 82 (2013) 055003