The PBR theorem: Whose side is it on?

Yemima Ben-Menahem

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

11 Scopus citations

Abstract

This paper examines the implications of the PBR theorem for the debate on the reality of the quantum state. The theorem seeks to undermine epistemic interpretations of the quantum state and support realist interpretations thereof, but there remains ambiguity about the precise nature of epistemic interpretations, and thus ambiguity about the implications of the theorem. The aim of this paper is to examine a radical epistemic interpretation that is not undermined by the theorem and is, arguably, strengthened by it. It is this radical interpretation, rather than the one assumed by the PBR theorem, that many epistemic theorists subscribe to. In order to distinguish the radical epistemic interpretation from alternative interpretations of quantum states–in particular, to distinguish it from instrumentalism–a historical comparison of different approaches to the meaning of quantum probabilities is provided. The comparison highlights, in particular, Schrödinger's work on the nature of quantum probabilities as distinct from probabilities in statistical mechanics, and the implications of this distinction for an epistemic interpretation of probability in the two areas. Schrödinger's work also helps to identify the difficulties in the PBR definition of an epistemic interpretation and is shown to anticipate the radical alternative that is not undermined by the theorem.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)80-88
Number of pages9
JournalStudies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B - Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics
Volume57
DOIs
StatePublished - 1 Feb 2017

Bibliographical note

Publisher Copyright:
© 2017 Elsevier Ltd

Keywords

  • Epistemic Interpretation
  • Instrumentalism: Einstein
  • PBR Theorem
  • Probability
  • Quantum Mechanics
  • Realism
  • Schrödinger

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'The PBR theorem: Whose side is it on?'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this