arXiv:1501.07199

The physical reality of the quantum wave function

Gerd Leuchs

Published Jan 28, 2015• 2 citations

Abstract

Can it possibly be that the proper interpretation of quantum theory, which allows a quantum system to be in a superposition of mutually exclusive states, is itself a superposition of seemingly contradicting interpretations?

DOI: 10.48550/arxiv.1501.07199

Related papers

Reality and the Role of the Wave Function in Quantum Theory

Detlef Dürr, Sheldon Goldstein, Nino Zanghı̀

Springer eBooksNov 6, 201254 citations

Is a System’s Wave Function in One-to-One Correspondence with Its Elements of Reality?

Roger Colbeck, Renato Renner

Although quantum mechanics is one of our most successful physical theories, there has been a long-standing debate about the interpretation of the wave function--the central object of the theory. Two prominent views are that (i) it corresponds to an element of reality, i.e., an objective attribute that exists before measurement, and (ii) it is a subjective state of knowledge about some underlying reality. A recent result [M. F. Pusey, J. Barrett, and T. Rudolph, arXiv:1111.3328] has placed the subjective interpretation into doubt, showing that it would contradict certain physically plausible assumptions, in particular, that multiple systems can be prepared such that their elements of reality are uncorrelated. Here we show, based only on the assumption that measurement settings can be chosen freely, that a system's wave function is in one-to-one correspondence with its elements of reality. This also eliminates the possibility that it can be interpreted subjectively.

arXiv:1111.6597Physical Review LettersApr 11, 2012245 citations

Quantum mechanics and the nature of physical reality

Jim Baggott

What is the wave function? Is it real? What kind of physical interpretation should it be given? Straight answers to these questions are not available.

Journal of Chemical EducationAug 1, 19905 citations

A Continuum Universe Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics

Vijay Shankar, Narayanankutty Karuppath

The measurement problem in quantum mechanics has been a cause of much puzzlement over the years. The very idea of having two different versions of reality for the same system has been a cause for much debate. Often quantum mechanics textbooks follow the ‘shut up and calculate’ paradigm. This denies the opportunity for the common student to understand the consequence of one of the most elegant and beautiful aspects of science. The state of the art textbooks give a purely algebraic, perfunctory and monotonous approach where the real consequence of the system is not fully appreciated. A good reason for this is the considerable deviation of the quantum mechanical process from the commonsensical idea of truth, reality and reason. We tend to look at the world in a materialistic, deterministic, causal and objectivistic way. We tend not to accept a world of contradictions. A quantum measurement is essentially an amalgamation of contradictions, mystery and duality. It encompasses an implicit dependence on subjectivity and contradicts with causality as we know it. We look at the world as in the present. But a quantum mechanical measurement is a prediction of the future influenced by the observer or the measurer. This offers a philosophical and pedagogical conundrum. It poses a challenge on not just how our perception of the world might change in addition to providing a big challenge on how to make it compatible with the other successful theories of physics. The most common text book interpretation of quantum mechanics has been the Copenhagen Interpretation suggests the ‘collapse of the wave function’ as a mechanism of transition between duality. But a more bizarre yet elegant theory, extending quantum formalism to the classical domain, called the Many Worlds Interpretation has been catching up very quickly; it stands for the split of the universe when we make a quantum mechanical measurement. Consequently, reality as we is redefined as a universal wave function which is a superposition of several outcomes, which is incompatible with many of the successful concepts of physics and has several problems like the correct idea about probability or basis. We adapt the idea of the universal wave function, but instead suggest a continuum interpretation of quantum mechanics where the universal wave function represents the entire singular universe and the concept of atoms or electrons as conceptually a continuous part of it rather than a distinct separate entity. Such an interpretation could be compatible with other continuum theories like the Superfluid vacuum theory or the Higgs Field.

May 1, 20210 citations

Can We Consider Quantum Mechanics to Be a Description of Reality?

Hervé Zwirn C

Springer eBooksJan 1, 20082 citations

Local Realism Versus Volumes of Quantum Nonsense

Andrew P. Yake

Local realism must predict empirical Bell violations in a reasonable way to become a compelling causal explanation of reality. According to the paper at the link given below, it can now do that. On the other hand, theory, despite its wonderful statistical predictions, must transcend its infamous paradoxes to become a compelling causal explanation of anything. Unfortunately, paradoxes reduce to contradictions, and thus to nonsense. Take quantum superposition. Is this the simultaneous existence of mutually exclusive states or not? If it is, then we have a contradiction, and all further claims from theory fail to have meaningful interpretations. If superposition is something other than that contradiction, then what -- exactly -- is superposition? And let's take physical while we are at it. Defending theory as a causal explanation of reality requires that reality is not exclusively reality! Whoops. What -- exactly -- is so difficult about simply admitting when we have no sensible causal explanation for certain phenomena like Bell violations in EPR(B) experiments? In psychology, we know the answer to such questions. Our beliefs are evidence resistant. We thus predict that the rational threat from local realism to widespread beliefs -- its implication that reality might be mostly explained without appeal to antilocal mysticism -- will continue to be buried under reams of empirical observations stitched together by nonsense insinuations that that paradoxes are assets rather than contradictions. In any case, the paper below arguably formulates a theory of local realism that constitutes a causally valid description of reality. No nonsense required. Or, it could just be wrong. But it is waiting to be tested. Indeed, even existing data could bear on the empirical question if the theory is sound enough. See ** http://vixra.org/abs/1704.0078 ** Local Realism Explains Bell Violations (author Andrew P. Yake) - for a demonstration that all empirical evidence taken to support theory over local realism plausibly does the reverse. The article comprises 8 pages, 4 figures, 6 equations, 32 references, a graph of testable predictions, and two paragraphs that purport to expose how the Bell inequality misrepresents the local realistic predictions for the EPR experiment. Thoughtful feedback appreciated (apyake@gmail.com).

Apr 1, 20170 citations