Entropic dynamics: a hybrid-contextual model of quantum mechanics

Regular Paper
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:
  • 19 Downloads

Abstract

The Bell–Kochen–Specker (BKS) theorem and the more recent \(\psi \)-epistemic no-go theorems of Quantum Mechanics (QM) are discussed in the context of entropic dynamics. In doing so we find that the BKS theorem allows for, a perhaps overlooked, hybrid-contextual model of QM in which one set of commuting observables (position in this case) is non-contextual and all other observables are contextual. Entropic Dynamics is in a unique position as compared to other foundational theories of QM because it derives QM using standard techniques in Bayesian probability theory. In this formalism, position is the preferred basis from which inferences about other contextual operators are made. This leads to the interpretation that Entropic Dynamics is a hybrid-contextual model of QM, which we show to be consistent with the BKS theorem and QM.

Keywords

Quantum Contextuality Quantum measurement Quantum foundations Quantum information Probability theory 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank the reviewer as well as everyone in the information physics group at UAlbany, especially Ariel Caticha, Nick Carrara, Selman Ipek, and Tony Gai who have encouraged me throughout the writing of this paper. I would also like to thank Mordecai Waegell and Christian de Ronde for our discussions about quantum mechanics and Physics in general. Poster presented at “Contextuality: Conceptual Issues, Operational Signatures, and Applications” at Perimeter Institute, Waterloo, ON, Canada.

References

  1. 1.
    Aharonov, Y., Albert, D.Z., Vaidman, L.: How the result of a measurement of a component of the spin of a spin- 2 particle can turn out to be 100. Phys. Rev. Lett. 60, 1351–1354 (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Appleby, D.M.: The Bell–Kochen–Specker theorem. arXiv:quant-ph/0308114v1 (2003)
  3. 3.
    Ballentine, L.E.: Quantum Mechanics a Modern Development, 2nd edn. World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., Singapore (2014)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bell, J.: On the einstein podolsky rosen paradox. Physics 1(3), 195–200 (1964)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bell, J.: On the problem of hidden variables in quantum mechanics. Rev. Mod. Phys. 38, 447–452 (1966)CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cabello, A.: Experimentally testable state-independent quantum contextuality. Nat. Phys. 80(3), 475–478 (1998)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Carrara, N., Caticha, A.: Quantum phases in entropic dynamics. In: MaxEnt 2017, the 37th international workshop on Bayesian inference and maximum entropy methods in science and engineering (2017)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Caticha, A.: Entropic Inference and the Foundations of Physics. (monograph commissioned by the 11th Brazilian Meeting on Bayesian Statistics—EBEB-2012) (2012). http://www.albany.edu/physics/ACaticha-EIFP-book.pdf
  9. 9.
    Caticha, A.: Entropic dynamics. Entropy 17, 6110–6128 (2015)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Clifton, R., Kent, A.: Simulating quantum mechanics by non-contextual hidden variables. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A 546, 2101 (2000)CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cohen, L.: Frontiers of Nonequilibrium Statistical Physics, Series B: Physics, vol. 135, pp. 97–117. Springer, New York (1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cox, R.: Probability, frequency and reasonable expectation. Am. J. Phys. 14, 1–13 (1946)CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dressel, J., Malik, M., Miatto, F., Jordan, A., Boyd, R.: Colloquium: understanding quantum weak values: Basics and applications. Rev. Mod. Phys. 86, 307–316 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Duck, I.M., Stevenson, P.M., Sudarshan, E.C.G.: The sense in which a ‘weak measurement’ of a spin 1/2 particle’s spin component yields a value 100. Phys. Rev. D 40, 2112–2117 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Giffin, A.: Maximum entropy: The universal method for inference. Ph.D. thesis, University at Albany (SUNY) (2009)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Giffin, A., Caticha, A.: Updating probabilities with data and moments. In: AIP conference proceedings, p. 74 (2007)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ipek, S., Caticha, A.: Entropic quantization of scalar fields. In: MaxEnt 2014, the 34th international workshop on Bayesian inference and maximum entropy methods in science and engineering. AIP Publishing, Waterloo (2014)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Jaynes, E.: Information theory and statistical mechanics. Phys. Rev. 106, 620 (1957)CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Jaynes, E.: Information theory and statistical mechanics II. Phys. Rev. 108, 171 (1957)CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Jaynes, E.: Probability Theory: The Logic of Science. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2003)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Johnson, D., Caticha, A.: Entropic dynamics and the quantum measurement problem. In: Bayesian inference and maximum entropy methods in science and engineering: 31st international workshop. AIP Publishing, Waterloo, Canada (2011)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kent, A.: Noncontextual hidden variables and physical measurements. Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 3755 (1999)CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kochen, S., Specker, E.: The problem of hidden variables in quantum mechanics. J. Math. Mech. 17, 59–87 (1967)MATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Leifer, M.: Is the quantum state real? an extended review of \(\psi \)-ontology theorems. Quanta 3, 67–155 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Mermin, N.: Hidden variables and the two theorems of John Bell. Rev. Mod. Phys. 65(3), 803 (1993)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Meyer, D.A.: A simplified basis for the Bell–Kochen–Specker theorems. Phys. Rev. Lett. 83(19), 3751 (1999)CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Plastino, A., Cabello, A.: State-independent quantum contextuality for continuous variables. Phys. Rev. A 82, 022114 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Pusey, M., Barret, J., Rudolph, T.: On the reality of the quantum state. Nat. Phys. 8(3), 475–478 (2012)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    de Ronde, C.: Unscrambling the quantum omelette of epistemic and ontic contextuality (part 1): preexistent properties or measurement outcomes?. 14 (2016). arXiv:1606.03967v3
  30. 30.
    Vanslette, K., Caticha, A.: Quantum measurement and weak values in entropic dynamics. In: MaxEnt 2016, the 36th international workshop on Bayesian inference and maximum entropy methods in science and engineering. AIP Publishing, Waterloo (2016)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Waegell, M., Aravind, P.K.: Proofs of the Kochen-Specker theorem based on the n-qubit pauli group. Phys. Rev. A 88, 012102 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Chapman University 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University at Albany (SUNY)AlbanyUSA

Personalised recommendations