关于\(\psi \) -Ontic模型的No-Go定理的评论

IF 1.2 3区物理与天体物理 Q3 PHYSICS, MULTIDISCIPLINARY

Foundations of Physics Pub Date : 2025-03-14 DOI:10.1007/s10701-025-00836-3

Laurens Walleghem, Shashaank Khanna, Rutvij Bhavsar

{"title":"关于\\(\\psi \\) -Ontic模型的No-Go定理的评论","authors":"Laurens Walleghem, Shashaank Khanna, Rutvij Bhavsar","doi":"10.1007/s10701-025-00836-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>In a recent paper [Carcassi, Oldofredi and Aidala, Found Phys 54, 14 (2024)] it is claimed that the whole Harrigan–Spekkens framework of ontological models is inconsistent with quantum theory. They show this by showing that all pure quantum states in <span>\\(\\psi \\)</span>-ontic models must be orthogonal. In this note, we identify some crucial assumptions that lack physical motivation in their argument to the extent that the main claim is incorrect.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":569,"journal":{"name":"Foundations of Physics","volume":"55 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comment on a No-Go Theorem for \\\\(\\\\psi \\\\)-Ontic Models\",\"authors\":\"Laurens Walleghem, Shashaank Khanna, Rutvij Bhavsar\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s10701-025-00836-3\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>In a recent paper [Carcassi, Oldofredi and Aidala, Found Phys 54, 14 (2024)] it is claimed that the whole Harrigan–Spekkens framework of ontological models is inconsistent with quantum theory. They show this by showing that all pure quantum states in <span>\\\\(\\\\psi \\\\)</span>-ontic models must be orthogonal. In this note, we identify some crucial assumptions that lack physical motivation in their argument to the extent that the main claim is incorrect.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":569,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Foundations of Physics\",\"volume\":\"55 2\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-03-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Foundations of Physics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"101\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10701-025-00836-3\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"物理与天体物理\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"PHYSICS, MULTIDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Foundations of Physics","FirstCategoryId":"101","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10701-025-00836-3","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"物理与天体物理","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PHYSICS, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

摘要

在最近的一篇论文[Carcassi， Oldofredi和Aidala， Found Phys 54,14(2024)]中，有人声称整个Harrigan-Spekkens本体模型框架与量子理论不一致。他们通过证明\(\psi \) -本体模型中的所有纯量子态必须是正交的来证明这一点。在本文中，我们确定了一些关键的假设，这些假设在他们的论点中缺乏物理动机，以至于主要主张是不正确的。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

查看原文本刊更多论文

Comment on a No-Go Theorem for \(\psi \)-Ontic Models

In a recent paper [Carcassi, Oldofredi and Aidala, Found Phys 54, 14 (2024)] it is claimed that the whole Harrigan–Spekkens framework of ontological models is inconsistent with quantum theory. They show this by showing that all pure quantum states in \(\psi \)-ontic models must be orthogonal. In this note, we identify some crucial assumptions that lack physical motivation in their argument to the extent that the main claim is incorrect.

求助全文

通过发布文献求助，成功后即可免费获取论文全文。去求助

来源期刊

Foundations of Physics 物理-物理：综合

CiteScore

2.70

自引率

6.70%

发文量

104

审稿时长

6-12 weeks

期刊介绍： The conceptual foundations of physics have been under constant revision from the outset, and remain so today. Discussion of foundational issues has always been a major source of progress in science, on a par with empirical knowledge and mathematics. Examples include the debates on the nature of space and time involving Newton and later Einstein; on the nature of heat and of energy; on irreversibility and probability due to Boltzmann; on the nature of matter and observation measurement during the early days of quantum theory; on the meaning of renormalisation, and many others. Today, insightful reflection on the conceptual structure utilised in our efforts to understand the physical world is of particular value, given the serious unsolved problems that are likely to demand, once again, modifications of the grammar of our scientific description of the physical world. The quantum properties of gravity, the nature of measurement in quantum mechanics, the primary source of irreversibility, the role of information in physics – all these are examples of questions about which science is still confused and whose solution may well demand more than skilled mathematics and new experiments. Foundations of Physics is a privileged forum for discussing such foundational issues, open to physicists, cosmologists, philosophers and mathematicians. It is devoted to the conceptual bases of the fundamental theories of physics and cosmology, to their logical, methodological, and philosophical premises. The journal welcomes papers on issues such as the foundations of special and general relativity, quantum theory, classical and quantum field theory, quantum gravity, unified theories, thermodynamics, statistical mechanics, cosmology, and similar.