On the reality of the quantum state · HackerPapers discussions

On the reality of the quantum state — mentioned by akvadrako

Mon, 29 Jan 2018 10:39:45 GMT

There is lots of mathematical evidence that every quantum state maps 1-to-1 on a physical state¹, or at least be uniquely determined by the physical state². The main assumption both make is that there is some physical state. So it doesn't really matter if it's a map or not - it tells you something about the territory. [1] The completeness of quantum theory for predicting measurement outcomes, https://arxiv.org/abs/1208.4123 [2] On the reality of the quantum state, https://arxiv.org/abs/1111.3328v3

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

On the reality of the quantum state — mentioned by codethief

Sat, 15 Oct 2016 10:24:11 GMT

Thanks for the link![1] I should have been more precise. What is settled science is that the collapse of the wave function happens due to different causes for different observers. Example: Take two detectors A and B and place an apparatus in the middle that emits two entangled photons in opposite directions. In the lab frame, both particles will reach the detectors at the same time, so that both detectors cause the collapse of psi simultaneously. In contrast to that, two observers moving to the left and right respectively will see one of the photons reach its respective detector before the…

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

On the reality of the quantum state — mentioned by aufreak3

Fri, 18 Apr 2014 07:21:26 GMT

Recently, there was a paper talking about this aspect of quantum theory - http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/1111.3328 ... well, it was "recently" and fresh in my mind, but it appears to be back in 2011 :)

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

On the reality of the quantum state — mentioned by jessriedel

Tue, 22 Nov 2011 01:14:53 GMT

The original paper http://arxiv.org/abs/1111.3328 was previously discussed on HN https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3260445 and Matt Leifer's blog post http://mattleifer.info/2011/11/20/can-the-quantum-state-be-i... is the best explanation out there of all this. The short answer is that the authors have ruled out an interpretation of quantum mechanics which very few experts believed in to begin with. Nevertheless, the tenability of that interpretation was previously unknown and this paper highlights exactly what is necessary for an epistemic interpretation of the wavefunction. That make…

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

On the reality of the quantum state — mentioned by ivan_ah

Fri, 18 Nov 2011 02:44:19 GMT

Very cool: http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/1111.3328 Not sure if I understand all the assumptions. Here is the gist of it. The debate is about the interpretation of quantum states |φ> (L2 norm unit vectors in a complex vector space). Is |φ> something physical or is it simply a outcome-probability-calculating method for predicting the quantum evolutions and measurement outcomes. View 1: |φ> is real. View 2: |φ> is just a model of our knowledge of what is real + rules for calculating prob outcomes. Define the λ = { the physical state of a system }, i.e., that which //really// exists in the world. The…

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

On the reality of the quantum state — mentioned by robinhouston

Fri, 18 Nov 2011 01:24:29 GMT

This article is about a new theorem that was uploaded to the preprint server earlier this week[1], and the article quotes several quantum theorists who describe this new result as important (or even ‘seismic’). On what basis do you think it’s been around for decades? 1. http://arxiv.org/abs/1111.3328

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

On the reality of the quantum state — HN submission

Thu, 17 Nov 2011 23:12:26 GMT

The quantum state cannot be interpreted statistically

1 point; 0 discussion replies on HN. Paper and source history. A submission is not an endorsement.