Advertisement

Foundations of Physics

, Volume 47, Issue 2, pp 161–173 | Cite as

Quantum States as Objective Informational Bridges

  • Richard Healey
Article

Abstract

A quantum state represents neither properties of a physical system nor anyone’s knowledge of its properties. The important question is not what quantum states represent but how they are used—as informational bridges. Knowing about some physical situations (its backing conditions), an agent may assign a quantum state to form expectations about other possible physical situations (its advice conditions). Quantum states are objective: only expectations based on correct state assignments are generally reliable. If a quantum state represents anything, it is the objective probabilistic relations between its backing conditions and its advice conditions. This paper offers an account of quantum states and their function as informational bridges, in quantum teleportation and elsewhere.

Keywords

Quantum state Quantum information Quantum teleportation  Delayed-choice entanglement-swapping EPR-Bohm correlations 

References

  1. 1.
    Bell, J.S.: Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2004). Revised editionCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Brun, T., Finkelstein, J., Mermin, N.D.: How much state assignments can differ. Phys. Rev. A 65, 032315 (2002)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Egg, M.: Delayed-choice experiments and the metaphysics of entanglement. Found. Phys. 43, 1124–1135 (2013)ADSMathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gleason, A.M.: Measures on the closed subspaces of a Hilbert space. J. Math. Mech. 6, 885–893 (1957)MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Healey, R.A.: Quantum theory: a pragmatist approach. Br. J. Philos. Sci. 63, 729–771 (2012a)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Healey, R.A.: Quantum decoherence in a pragmatist view. Found. Phys. 42, 1534–1555 (2012b)ADSMathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Healey, R.A.: Locality, probability and causality. In: Bell, M. Gao, S. (eds.) Quantum Nonlocality and Reality, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2016)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Leifer, M.: Is the quantum state real? Quanta 3, 67–155 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ma, X.-S.: Experimental delayed-choice entanglement swapping. Nat. Phys. 8, 480–485 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Maudlin, T.: Quantum Non-Locality and Relativity, 3rd edn. Wiley-Blackwell, Chichester (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Mermin, N.D.: Whose knowledge? In: Bertlmann, R.A., Zeilinger, A. (eds.) Quantum [Un]Speakables. Springer, Berlin (2002)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mermin, N.D.: Quantum Computer Science. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2007)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Peres, A.: Delayed-choice for entanglement swapping. J. Mod. Opt. 47, 139–143 (2000)ADSMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Price, H.: Time’s Arrow and Archimedes’ Point. Oxford University Press, Oxford (1996)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Timpson, C.G.: Quantum Information Theory. Clarendon Press, Oxford (2013)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Weihs, G., Jennewein, T., Simon, C., Weinfurter, H., Zeilinger, A.: Violation of Bell’s inequality under strict Einstein locality conditions. Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 5039–5043 (1998)ADSMathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of ArizonaTucsonUSA

Personalised recommendations