Advertisement

Axiomathes

, Volume 29, Issue 6, pp 607–619 | Cite as

Is Einstein’s Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics Ψ-Epistemic?

  • Vincenzo Fano
  • Giovanni MacchiaEmail author
  • Gino Tarozzi
Original Paper
  • 58 Downloads

Abstract

Harrigan and Spekkens (Found Phys 40:125–157, 2010), introduced the influential notion of an ontological model of operational quantum theory. Ontological models can be either “epistemic” or “ontic.” According to the two scholars, Einstein would have been one of the first to propose an epistemic interpretation of quantum mechanics. Pusey et al. (Nat Phys 8:475–478, 2012) showed that an epistemic interpretation of quantum theory is impossible, so implying that Einstein had been refuted. We discuss in detail Einstein’s arguments against the standard interpretation of QM, proving that there is a misunderstanding in Harrigan and Spekkens’ attribution of an epistemic perspective to Einstein, whose point of view was actually statistical, but in a quasi-classical sense.

Keywords

Einstein Harrigan and Spekkens Incompleteness Pusey, Barrett and Rudolph Quantum state 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank Claudio Calosi, who discussed with us the topic of the paper.

References

  1. Albert D, Ney A (eds) (2013) The wave function. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  2. Bacciagaluppi G, Crull E (2018) The Einstein paradox: the debate on nonlocality and incompleteness in 1935. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  3. Ballentine LE (1998) Quantum mechanics. A modern development. World Scientific, SingaporeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brown H (2016) The reality of the quantum state. New arguments and old, lecture at XII ontology international congress, DonostiaGoogle Scholar
  5. Cushing JT, McMullin E (eds) (1989) Philosophical consequences of quantum theory: reflections on Bell’s theorem. University of Notre Dame Press, Notre DameGoogle Scholar
  6. Einstein A (1934) On the method of theoretical physics. Philos Sci 1(2):163–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Einstein A (1948) Quanten-Mechanik und Wirklichkeit. dialectica 2: 320–324. Translated in English in: Born M, Einstein A (1971) The Born-Einstein letters. Correspondence between Albert Einstein and Max and Hedwig Born from 1916 to 1955. Macmillan, London, pp 168–173Google Scholar
  8. Einstein A (1949) Autobiographical notes. In: Schilpp PA (ed) Albert Einstein. Philosopher-scientist. MJF Books, New York, pp 1–95Google Scholar
  9. Einstein A, Podolski B, Rosen N (1935) Can quantum mechanical description of physical reality be considered complete? Phys Rev 47:777–780CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fuchs CA (2010) QBism, the perimeter of quantum Bayesianism. https://arxiv.org/abs/1003.5209
  11. Fuchs CA, Schack R (2015) QBism and the Greek: why a quantum state does not represent an element of physical reality. https://arxiv.org/abs/1412.4211
  12. Harrigan N, Spekkens RW (2010) Einstein, incompleteness, and the epistemic view of quantum states. Found Phys 40:125–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Home D, Whittaker A (2007) Einstein’s struggle with quantum theory. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  14. Howard D (2015) Anche Einstein gioca a dadi. Carocci, RomaGoogle Scholar
  15. Jammer M (1974) The philosophy of quantum mechanics: the interpretation of quantum mechanics in historical perspective. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  16. Lange M (2002) An introduction to the philosophy of physics. Wiley, MaldenGoogle Scholar
  17. Lehner C (2014) Einstein’s realism and his critique of quantum mechanics. In: Janssen M, Lehner C (eds) The Cambridge companion to Einstein. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 306–353CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Mansfield S (2016) Reality of the quantum state: towards a stronger ψ-ontology theorem. Phys Rev A 94(4):042124.  https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.94.042124 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Pusey MF, Barrett J, Rudolph T (2012) On the reality of the quantum state. Nat Phys 8:475–478CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Schlosshauer M (2007) Decoherence and the quantum-classical transition. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Pure and Applied SciencesUniversity of UrbinoUrbinoItaly

Personalised recommendations