The wave-function as a true ensemble

  • A
  • Thread starter bohm2
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Ensemble
In summary, the conversation discusses the failure of the ψ-ontic/epistemic distinction in identifying ensemble interpretations and proposes a more useful definition. It is then shown that all ψ-ensemble interpretations that reproduce quantum mechanics violate Statistical Independence. The conversation also explores the concept of hidden variables and how they can be used to define an observable and uniquely characterize the physical state of a system.
  • #1
bohm2
828
55
"We argue that the ψ-ontic/epistemic distinction fails to properly identify ensemble interpretations and propose a more useful definition. We then show that all ψ-ensemble interpretations which reproduce quantum mechanics violate Statistical Independence."

https://arxiv.org/abs/2109.02676
 
  • Like
Likes Demystifier
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
"Suppose you have a theory that isn’t ontic because two of the hidden variables map to the same wave-function. Well, then you can just declare the wave-function to be part of the hidden variables, so that the new hidden variables – now including the wave-function – will always map to only one wave-function. Such an easily malleable definition of ‘ontic’ is not what one wants to base theorems on."

This is an interesting point. If I have a quantum state ##\psi##, I can always define an observable $$\hat{O} = \lambda_\psi|\psi\rangle\langle\psi| + \lambda_{\not\psi}(\hat{I} - |\psi\rangle\langle\psi|)$$ We have a property ##\lambda_\psi## resolvable (in principle) by experiment, that ##\psi## predicts with certainty. All other pure states will predict ##\lambda_{\not\psi}## with certainty. Make this variable a real hidden variable and voila, your wavefunction uniquely characterises the physical state of the system.
 
  • #3
Morbert said:
"All other pure states will predict ##\lambda_{\not\psi}## with certainty.
No, they won't. Only pure states orthogonal to ##\psi## will.
 
  • Like
Likes gentzen and vanhees71
  • #4
Oops stupid mistake
 
  • Like
Likes Demystifier and gentzen

Similar threads

  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
3
Replies
84
Views
2K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
33
Views
3K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
6
Replies
199
Views
10K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
1
Views
649
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
2
Views
928
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
11
Views
2K
Back
Top