On the reality of the quantum state

Nature Physics

Volumn 8, Issue 6, 2012, Pages 475-478

  Pusey, Matthew F ^a   Barrett, Jonathan ^b   Rudolph, Terry ^a  

^a IMPERIAL COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF LONDON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

QUANTUM COMPUTERS;

MATHEMATICAL OBJECTS; PHYSICAL STATE; PURE STATE; QUANTUM STATE;

QUANTUM OPTICS;

EID: 84861686582     PISSN: 17452473     EISSN: 17452481     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1038/nphys2309     Document Type: Article

References (23)

1. Einstein, A., Podolsky, B. & Rosen, N. Can quantum-mechanical description of physical reality be considered complete? Phys. Rev. 47, 777-780 (1935).
2. Popper, K. R. in Quantum Theory and Reality (ed. Bunge, M.) Ch. 1 (Springer, 1967).
3. Ballentine, L. E. The statistical interpretation of quantum mechanics. Rev. Mod. Phys. 42, 358-381 (1970).
4. Peierls, R. E. Surprises in Theoretical Physics 32 (Princeton Univ. Press, 1979).
5. Jaynes, E. T. in Foundations of Radiation Theory and Quantum Electrodynamics (ed. Barut, A. O.) (Plenum, 1980).
6. Zeilinger, A. Letter. Phys. Today 52, 13-15 (February, 1999).
7. Caves, C. M., Fuchs, C. A. & Schack, R. Quantum probabilities as bayesian probabilities. Phys. Rev. A 65, 022305 (2002).
8. Spekkens, R. W. Evidence for the epistemic view of quantum states: A toy theory. Phys. Rev. A 75, 032110 (2007).
9. Jaynes, E. T. in Complexity, Entropy, and the Physics of Information (ed. Zurek, W. H.) 381 (Addison-Wesley, 1990).
10. Harrigan, N. & Spekkens, R. W. Einstein, incompleteness, and the epistemic view of quantum states. Found. Phys. 40, 125-157 (2010).
11. Caves, C. M., Fuchs, C. A. & Schack, R. Conditions for compatibility of quantum-state assignments. Phys. Rev. A 66, 062111 (2002).
12. Gibbs, A. L. & Su, F. E. On choosing and bounding probability metrics. Int. Stat. Rev. 70, 419-435 (2002).
13. Bell, J. S. On the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox. Physics 1, 195-200 (1964).
14. Hall, M. J. W. Local deterministic model of singlet state correlations based on relaxing measurement independence. Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 250404 (2010).
15. Barrett, J. & Gisin, N. How much measurement independence is needed to demonstrate nonlocality? Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 100406 (2011).
16. Lewis, P. G., Jennings, D., Barrett, J. & Rudolph, T. The quantum state can be interpreted statistically. Preprint at http://arxiv.org/abs/1201. 6554 (2012).
17. Spekkens, R. W. Contextuality for preparations, transformations, and unsharp measurements. Phys. Rev. A 71, 052108 (2005).
18. Einstein, A. Letter to Schrödinger (1935). Translation from Howard, D. Einstein on locality and separability. Stud. Hist. Phil. Sci. 16, 171-201 (1985).
19. Hardy, L. Quantum ontological excess baggage. Stud. Hist. Phil. Sci. B 35, 267-276 (2004). (Pubitemid 38521715)
20. Montina, A. Exponential complexity and ontological theories of quantum mechanics. Phys. Rev. A 77, 022104 (2008).
21. Montina, A. State-space dimensionality in short-memory hidden-variable theories. Phys. Rev. A 83, 032107 (2011).
22. Regev, O. & Klartag, B. Proc. 43rd Annual ACM Symp. Theory Comput., STOC'11 31-40 (ACM, 2011).
23. Fuchs, C. A. QBism, the perimeter of quantum Bayesianism. Preprint at http://arxiv.org/abs/1003.5209 (2010).