The wave function was proposed for description of quantum phenomena on the atomic level. But now it is well known that quantum phenomena are observed not only on atomic level and the wave function is used for description of macroscopic quantum phenomena, such as superconductivity. The essence of the wave function on level elementary particles was and is the subject of heated argument among founders of quantum mechanics and other physicists. This essence seems more clear in superconductor. But impossibility of probabilistic interpretation of wave function in this case results to obvious contradiction of quantum principles with some fundamental principles of physics.
The wave function was proposed for description of quantum phenomena on the atomic level. But now it is well known that quantum phenomena are observed not only on atomic level and the wave function is used for description of macroscopic quantum phenomena, such as superconductivity. The essence of the wave function on level elementary particles was and is the subject of heated argument among founders of quantum mechanics and other physicists. This essence seems more clear in superconductor. But impossibility of probabilistic interpretation of wave function in this case results to obvious contradiction of quantum principles with some fundamental principles of physics.
Quantum mechanics describes successfully numerous quantum phenomena both microscopic and macroscopic, such as superconductivity. But the controversies about quantum mechanics, in the old days and present day, reveal fundamental obscurity in quantum mechanics. In this work reader attention is drawn first of all to the fact that the orthodox description of superconductivity and some other quantum phenomena uses the realistic interpretation of the wave function proposed by Schrodinger whereas the controversies take place until the present about the positivistic interpretation proposed by Born. Causes and essence of the fundamental obscurity of the Born interpretation are considered in detail in the first part of the paper. The fundamental obscurities of the orthodox description of superconductivity and other quantum phenomena are considered in the end of the paper.
The contemporary controversy about the fundamental obscurity in quantum mechanics keeps on the old one about the aim of science, which was between the founders of the quantum theory. The orthodox quantum mechanics could be created only at the cost of renunciation of reality as the aim of natural science. The description only of phenomena, i.e. results of observation, should not be universal if no one believes that these phenomena are manifestation of a unique reality. Such belief concerning quantum mechanics is quite unacceptable because of irremediably conflict with special relativity. Nevertheless the quantum mechanics was developed and apprehended by most physicists as a universal theory of a quantum world. This fundamental discrepancy between the essence of the orthodox quantum mechanics and its history of development and studying has resulted both to an illusion about the aim of its description among most physicists and to the consideration of its fundamental obscurity as a universal problem among experts in quantum foundation. The aim of this paper is to show that quantum phenomena can not be described universally. It is indicated that rather the Schrodinger's than Born's interpretation of the wave function is valid for description of many quantum phenomena. The fundamental obscurity with which we are faced at the description, for example, macroscopic quantum phenomena differs fundamentally from the one with which the founders of the quantum theory were faced on atomic level.
Is the wave-function a physical reality traveling through our apparatus? Is it a real wave, or it is only a mathematical tool for calculating probabilities of results of measurements? Different interpretations of the quantum mechanics (QM) assume different answers to this question. It is shown in this article that the assumption that the wave-function is a real wave entails a contradiction with the predictions of the QM, when the special relativity is invoked. Therefore, this text concentrates on interpretations that conjecture that the reality that moves in our apparatuses is particles, and they move under the constraints of the wave-function. The de Broglie-Bohm interpretation, which matches this picture, assumes that the particle travels along a continuous trajectory. However, the idea of continuous trajectories was proved to lead to a contradiction with the quantum predictions. Therefore this interpretation is not considered here. S. Gao conjectured that the particle is in a permanent random and discontinuous motion (RDM). As it jumps all the time from place to place, the total set of occupied positions at a certain time is given by the absolute square of the wave-function. As motivation for his idea, Gao argued that if a charged particle were simultaneously in two or more locations at the same time, the copies of the particle would repel one another, destroying the wave-function. It is proved here that the quantum formalism renders this motivation wrong. Although refuting this motivation, the RDM interpretation is examined here. A couple of problems of this interpretation are examined and it is proved that they don’t lead to any observable contradictions with the QM predictions, except one problem which seems to have no solution. In all, it appears that none of the wide-spread interpretations of the QM is free of contradictions.
We investigate the meaning of the wave function by analyzing the mass and charge density distributions of a quantum system. According to protective measurement, a charged quantum system has effective mass and charge density distributing in space, proportional to the square of the absolute value of its wave function. In a realistic interpretation, the wave function of a quantum system can be taken as a description of either a physical field or the ergodic motion of a particle. The essential difference between a field and the ergodic motion of a particle lies in the property of simultaneity; a field exists throughout space simultaneously, whereas the ergodic motion of a particle exists throughout space in a time‐divided way. If the wave function is a physical field, then the mass and charge density will be distributed in space simultaneously for a charged quantum system, and thus there will exist gravitational and electrostatic self‐interactions of its wave function. This not only violates the superposition principle of quantum mechanics but also contradicts experimental observations. Thus the wave function cannot be a description of a physical field but be a description of the ergodic motion of a particle. For the later there is only a localized particle with mass and charge at every instant, and thus there will not exist any self‐interaction for the wave function. It is further argued that the classical ergodic models, which assume continuous motion of particles, cannot be consistent with quantum mechanics. Based on the negative result, we suggest that the wave function is a description of the quantum motion of particles, which is random and discontinuous in nature. On this interpretation, the square of the absolute value of the wave function not only gives the probability of the particle being found in certain locations, but also gives the probability of the particle being there. The suggested new interpretation of the wave function provides a natural realistic alternative to the orthodox interpretation, and it also implies that the de Broglie‐Bohm theory and many‐worlds interpretation are wrong and the dynamical collapse theories are in the right direction by admitting wavefunction collapse.
Through studying we investigate the sense of the wave function of the mass and charge the density distributions of the quantum system. According to the protective calculation, a charged quantum system has effective distribution of mass and charging density in space, proportional to the square of the absolute value of its wave function. In a practical interpretation a wave function of the quantum system can be taken as a definition of either a physical field or the ergodic motion of a particle. The main distinction among the ergodic movement of a sphere and a cell lies in the concurrent property a sphere occurs simultaneously in space, while the agosic movement of a cell is spatially separated in time. If the wave function is a physical force, then the mass and charging density are simultaneously distributed in space to the charged quantum system and thus to the gravitational and electrostatic self-interactions of its wave function. This not only contradicts the superposition principle of quantum mechanics but also contradicts the findings of the experiments. Therefore, wave function is not a definition of a physical area, but rather a transient phase of a material.Each moment has a single localized particle with mass and charge, so the wave function is not auto-introduced. Therefore, it has been argued that the classical ergodic model may not correspond to quantum mechanics for determining constant motion of the particles. Based on the negative result, we say the wave function is a random and unsatisfactory explanation of the particles' quantum motion in nature.In this view, the square of the absolute value of the wave function not only gives the particles' potential in certain locations but also the potential where the cell is. The proposed Latest wave-function description offers a natural practical other than orthodox interpretation, and also suggests that the Broglie-Bohm theory and the interpretation of many worlds are incorrect, and the theories of dynamic collapse They are heading in the right direction by accepting collapse of wave function.
The most puzzling issue in the foundations of quantum mechanics is perhaps that of the status of the wave function of a system in a quantum universe. Is the wave function objective or subjective? Does it represent the physical state of the system or merely our information about the system? If the former, does it provide a complete or partial description of the system ? We address these questions mainly from a Bohmian perspective and argue that part of the difficulty in ascertaining the status of the wave function arises from the fact that there are two different sorts of wave functions involved. The most fundamental wave function is that of the universe, which, we argue, has a law-like character. From the wave function of the universe together with its configuration one can define the wave function of a subsystem of the universe. This, although objective, has a strong informational/subjective aspect.