No epistemic model can explain anti-distinguishability of quantum mixed preparations

TL;DR

This paper demonstrates that no epistemic model can fully explain the anti-distinguishability of quantum mixed states, showing the existence of non-epistemic mixed preparations even in low dimensions and establishing bounds on their overlaps.

Contribution

It proves the fundamental incompatibility of epistemic models with quantum mixed preparations, including new results in low-dimensional systems and bounds on overlaps.

Findings

Existence of non-epistemic mixed preparations in dimension 2.

Quantum mixed preparations in dimensions 3 and 4 are fully non-epistemic.

An upper bound on the average ratio of epistemic to quantum overlap.

Abstract

We address the fundamental question of whether epistemic models can reproduce the empirical predictions of general quantum preparations. This involves comparing the common quantum overlap determined by the anti-distinguishability of a set of mixed preparations with the common epistemic overlap of the probability distribution over the ontic states describing these preparations. A set of quantum mixed preparations is deemed to be non-epistemic when the epistemic overlap must be zero while the corresponding quantum overlap remains non-zero. In its strongest manifestation, a set of mixed quantum preparations is fully non-epistemic if the epistemic overlap vanishes while the quantum overlap reaches its maximum value of one. Remarkably, we show that there exist sets of non-epistemic mixed preparations even in dimension 2, when the overlap between three mixed preparations is concerned. Moreover, we present quantum mixed preparations in dimensions 3 and 4 that are fully non-epistemic concerning the overlap between four and three preparations, respectively. We also establish a generic upper bound on the average ratio between the epistemic and quantum overlap for two mixed preparations. Consequently, the ratio for certain pairs of quantum mixed preparations is shown to be arbitrarily small in two different instances, signifying they are non-epistemic in one case and fully non-epistemic in the other. Finally, we delve into some of the remarkable implications stemming from our findings.