English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Adrian Kent has recently presented a critique [arXiv:2307.06191] of our paper[Nat. Comms. 10, 1361 (2019)] in which he claims to refute our main result: themeasurement postulates of quantum mechanics can be derived from the rest ofpostulates, once we assume that the set of mixed states of a finite-dimensionalHilbert space is finite-dimensional. To construct his argument, Kent considerstheories resulting from supplementing quantum mechanics with hypothetical"post-quantum" measurement devices. We prove that each of these theoriescontains pure states (i.e. states of maximal knowledge) which are not rays ofthe Hilbert space, in contradiction with the "pure state postulate" of quantummechanics. We also prove that these alternatives violate thefinite-dimensionality of mixed states. Each of these two facts separatelyinvalidates the refutation. In this note we also clarify the assumptions usedin the above-cited paper and discuss the notions of pure state, physicalsystem, and the sensitivity of the structure of the state space undermodifications of the measurements or the dynamics.

Response to "The measurement postulates of quantum mechanics are not redundant"