Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-xtgtn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T06:02:10.618Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

15 - Reality and meaning of the wave function

from Part II - Meanings and implications

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 January 2015

By
Shan Gao
Edited by
Shan Gao
Shan Gao
Affiliation:
Chinese Academy of Sciences
Shan Gao
Affiliation:
Chinese Academy of Sciences
Get access

Summary

The wave function gives not the density of stuff, but gives rather (on squaring its modulus) the density of probability. Probability of what, exactly? Not of the electron being there, but of the electron being found there, if its position is ‘measured’. Why this aversion to ‘being’ and insistence on ‘finding’? The founding fathers were unable to form a clear picture of things on the remote atomic scale.

John S. Bell (1990)

Introduction

The physical meaning of the wave function is an important interpretative problem of quantum mechanics. Notwithstanding nearly ninety years of development of the theory, it is still an unsolved issue. During recent years, more and more research has been done on the ontological status and meaning of the wave function (see, e.g. Monton, 2002; Lewis, 2004; Gao, 2011a, 2011b; Pusey, Barrett and Rudolph, 2012; Ney and Albert, 2013). In particular, Pusey, Barrett and Rudolph (2012) demonstrated that under certain non-trivial assumptions such as the preparation independence assumption, the wave function of a quantum system is a representation of the physical state of the system. This poses a further question, namely whether the reality of the wave function can be argued without resorting to non-trivial assumptions. Moreover, a harder problem is to determine the ontological meaning of the wave function, which is still a hot topic of debate in the realistic alternatives to quantum mechanics such as the de Broglie–Bohm theory or Bohmian mechanics (Belot, 2012).

In this chapter, we will first give a clearer argument for the reality of the wave function in terms of protective measurements, which does not depend on non-trivial assumptions and can also overcome existing objections. Next, based on an analysis of the mass and charge properties of a quantum system, we will propose a new ontological interpretation of the wave function. According to this interpretation, the wave function of an N-body system represents the state of ergodic motion of N particles.

Type
Chapter
Information
Protective Measurement and Quantum Reality
Towards a New Understanding of Quantum Mechanics
 , pp. 211 - 229
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2015

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aharonov, Y., Albert, D. Z. and Vaidmen, L. (1988). How the result of a measurement of a component of the spin of a spin-1/2 particle can turn out to be 100. Phys. Rev. Lett. 60, 1351.Google Scholar
Aharonov, Y., Anandan, J. and Vaidman, L. (1993). Meaning of the wave function. Phys. Rev. A 47, 4616.Google Scholar
Aharonov, Y. and Vaidman, L. (1990). Properties of a quantum system during the time interval between two measurements. Phys. Rev. A 41, 11.Google Scholar
Aharonov, Y. and Vaidman, L. (1993). Measurement of the Schrodinger wave of a single particle. Phys. Lett. A 178, 38.Google Scholar
Albert, D. Z. (1996), Elementary quantum metaphysics. In J., Cushing, A., Fine and S., Goldstein (eds.), Bohmian Mechanics and Quantum Theory: an Appraisal. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 277–284.
Anandan, J. (1993). Protective measurement and quantum reality. Found. Phys. Lett. 6, 503–532.Google Scholar
Bacciagaluppi, G. and Valentini, A. (2009). Quantum Theory at the Crossroads: Reconsidering the 1927 Solvay Conference. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bell, J. S. (1990). Against ‘measurement’. In A. I., Miller (ed.), Sixty-Two Years of Uncertainty: Historical Philosophical and Physics Enquiries into the Foundations ofQuantum Mechanics. Berlin: Springer, 17–33.
Belot, G. (2012). Quantum states for primitive ontologists: a case study. European Journal for Philosophy of Science 2, 67–83.Google Scholar
Colbeck, R. and Renner, R. (2012). Is a system's wave function in one-to-one correspondence with its elements of reality?Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 150402.Google Scholar
Dass, N. D. H. and Qureshi, T. (1999). Critique of protective measurements. Phys. Rev. A 59, 2590.Google Scholar
Dickson, M. (1995). An empirical reply to empiricism: protective measurement opens the door for quantum realism. Philosophy of Science 62, 122.Google Scholar
Diósi, L. (1984). Gravitation and the quantum-mechanical localization of macro-objects. Phys. Lett. A 105, 199–202.Google Scholar
Einstein, A., Podolsky, B. and Rosen, N. (1935). Can quantum-mechanical description of physical reality be considered complete?Phys. Rev. 47, 777.Google Scholar
Esfeld, M., Lazarovici, D., Hubert, M. and Dürr, D. (2013). The ontology of Bohmian mechanics. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science. First published online September 19, 2013.Google Scholar
Gao, S. (2011a). The wave function and quantum reality, In A., Khrennikov, G., Jaeger, M., Schlosshauer and G., Weihs (eds.), Proceedings of the International Conference on Advances in Quantum Theory, AIP Conference Proceedings 1327, 334–338.Google Scholar
Gao, S. (2011b). Meaning of the wave function, International Journal of Quantum Chemistry 111, 4124–4138.Google Scholar
Gao, S. (2013a). On Uffink's criticism of protective measurements. Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 44, 513–518.Google Scholar
Gao, S. (2013b). Interpreting quantum mechanics in terms of random discontinuous motion of particles. philsci-archive.pitt.edu/9589/.
Kochen, S. and Specker, E. (1967). The problem of hidden variables in quantum mechanics. Journal of Mathematics and Mechanics 17, 59–87.Google Scholar
Leifer, M. S. and Maroney, O. J. E. (2013). Maximally epistemic interpretations of the quantum state and contextuality. Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 120401.Google Scholar
Lewis, P. J. (2004). Life in configuration space. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 55, 713–729.Google Scholar
Lewis, P. G., Jennings, D., Barrett, J. and Rudolph, T. (2012). Distinct quantum states can be compatible with a single state of reality. Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 150404.Google Scholar
Maudlin, T. (2013). The nature of the quantum state. In A., Ney and D., Albert (eds.), The Wave Function, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 126–154.
Monton, B. (2002). Wave function ontology. Synthese 130, 265–277.Google Scholar
Ney, A. and Albert, D. Z. (eds.) (2013). The Wave Function: Essays on the Metaphysics of Quantum Mechanics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Patra, M. K., Pironio, S. and Massar, S. (2013). No-go theorems for ψ-epistemic models based on a continuity assumption. Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 090402.Google Scholar
Penrose, R. (1998). Quantum computation, entanglement and state reduction. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. A 356, 1927.Google Scholar
Pusey, M., Barrett, J. and Rudolph, T. (2012). On the reality of the quantum state. Nature Phys. 8, 475–178.Google Scholar
Schlosshauer, M. and Fine, A. (2012). Implications of the Pusey–Barrett–Rudolph quantum no-go theorem.Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 260404.Google Scholar
Schlosshauer, M. and Fine, A. (2013). No-go theorem for the composition of quantum systems. Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 070407.Google Scholar
Schrödinger, E. (1926). Quantizierung als Eigenwertproblem (Vierte Mitteilung). Ann. d. Phys. (4) 81, 109–139. English translation: Quantisation as a problem of proper values. Part IV, Reprint in Schrödinger, E. (1982). Collected Papers on Wave Mechanics. New York: Chelsea Publishing Company, pp. 102-123.
Solé, A. (2013). Bohmian mechanics without wave function ontology. Studies in History and Philosophy ofModern Physics 44, 365–378.Google Scholar
Unruh, W. G. (1994). Reality and measurement of the wave function. Phys.Rev. A 50, 882.Google Scholar
Wallden, P. (2013). Distinguishing initial state-vectors from each other in histories formulations and the PBR argument. Found. Phys. 43, 1502–1525.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×