Schroedinger's equation gave early quantum theory a visual language that looked like physics again: a wave evolving by a linear differential equation. This essay argues that the same success also seeded a recurring impulse to keep quantum theory "classical-looking" by treating the wave function as a physical wave. Schroedinger quickly realized that, for many-particle systems, the wave function is naturally defined on configuration space rather than ordinary physical space, blocking any straightforward reading of it as a literal classical wave. Read through Mach and Boltzmann, who shaped his intellectual outlook most deeply, his achievement appears double-edged: it provided an extraordinarily powerful picture for calculation and discovery, while also warning against taking that picture too literally. I argue that this tension never fully disappeared. It still reappears in modern physics whenever the wave function, or in quantum field theory the field itself, is treated as ontology rather than as part of a representation tied to measurement and observational context, a point sharpened by Bell-type no-go theorems. The centenary moral is: use pictures boldly, but demote them ontologically.
Schroedinger's equation gave early quantum theory a visual language that looked like physics again: a wave evolving by a linear differential equation. This essay argues that the same success also seeded a recurring impulse to keep quantum theory "classical-looking" by treating the wave function as a physical wave. Schroedinger quickly realized that, for many-particle systems, the wave function is naturally defined on configuration space rather than ordinary physical space, blocking any straightforward reading of it as a literal classical wave. Read through Mach and Boltzmann, who shaped his intellectual outlook most deeply, his achievement appears double-edged: it provided an extraordinarily powerful picture for calculation and discovery, while also warning against taking that picture too literally. I argue that this tension never fully disappeared. It still reappears in modern physics whenever the wave function, or in quantum field theory the field itself, is treated as ontology rather than as part of a representation tied to measurement and observational context, a point sharpened by Bell-type no-go theorems. The centenary moral is: use pictures boldly, but demote them ontologically.
One of the major concerns of Schr\"odinger, Lorentz, Einstein, and many others about the wave function is that it is defined on the 3N-dimensional configuration space, rather than on the three-dimensional (3D) physical space. This gives the impression that quantum mechanics cannot have a 3D space or space-time ontology, even in the absence of quantum measurements. In particular, this seems to affect interpretations which take the wave function as a physical entity, in particular, the many-worlds and the spontaneous collapse interpretations, and some versions of the pilot wave theory. Here, a representation of the many-particle states is given, as multilayered fields defined on the three-dimensional physical space. This representation is equivalent to the usual representation on the configuration space, but it makes it explicit that it is possible to interpret the wave functions as defined on the physical space. As long as only unitary evolution is involved, the interactions are local. I intended this representation to capture and formalize the nonexplicit and informal intuition of many working quantum physicists, who, by considering the wave function sometimes to be defined on the configuration space and sometimes on the physical space, may seem to researchers in the foundations of quantum theory as adopting an inconsistent view about its ontology. This representation does not aim to solve the measurement problem, and it allows for Schr\"odinger cats just like the usual one. But, it may help various interpretations to solve these problems, through inclusion of the wave function as (part of) their primitive ontology. In appendices, it is shown how the multilayered field representation can be extended to quantum field theory.
Till 1925 the idea of what the quantum theory would be was unknown. During 1925 three different but equivalent versions of quantum theory were proposed – Schrödinger-proposed wave mechanics; Heisenberg-developed matrix mechanics and Dirac-introduced operator theory. Considering the de Broglie’s matter waves Erwin Schrödinger, an Austrian physicist, argued that if a particle like an electron behaves as a wave then the equation of wave motion could be successfully applied to it. He postulated a function varying in both space and time in a wave-like manner (hence called wave function and denoted it as ψ). This function is generally complex and assumed to contain information about a system. Schrödinger set up a linear and time-dependent wave-like equation, called Schrödinger wave equation, to describe the wave aspect of a particle taking account of de Broglie’s relation for wavelength. Physically, |ψ(X, t)|2, where ψ(X, t) is the solution of the Schrödinger equation, is interpreted as position probability density. That is, |ψ(X, t)|2 is the probability density of observing a particle at position X at time t. ψ does not give exact outcomes of observations but helps us to know all possible events and their probabilities . Further, the probability interpretation allows us to find the average or expected result of a set of measurements on a quantum system.
This paper provides a detailed and unified historical account of early debates over wave-function realism, the modern term for the view that the wave function of quantum theory is physically real. As this paper will show, the idea of physical waves associated with particles had its roots in work by Einstein and de Broglie, who both originally thought of these waves as propagating in three-dimensional physical space. De Broglie quickly turned this wave--particle duality into an early pilot-wave theory, on which a particle's associated ``phase wave'' piloted or guided the particle along its trajectory. Schrödinger built on de Broglie's phase-wave hypothesis to provide a comprehensive account of the nascent quantum theory. However, Schrödinger's new ``undulatory mechanics'' came at the cost of replacing de Broglie's phase waves propagating in physical space with a wave function propagating in a system's abstract configuration space. The present work will argue that this move from three-dimensional physical space to a many-dimensional configuration space was a decisive reason why the founders of quantum theory uniformly abandoned the physical reality of the wave function. This paper will further clarify that de Broglie introduced two distinct pilot-wave theories, and will then argue that it was Bohm's rediscovery of the second of these two pilot-wave theories over two decades later, as well as Bohm's vociferous defense of wave-function realism, that were responsible for resurrecting the idea of an ontological wave function. Finally, this paper will describe how the influence of Schrödinger and Bohmended up playing a central role in Everett's development of the ``many worlds'' interpretation.
The meaning of the wave function has been a hot topic of debate since the early days of quantum mechanics. Recent years have witnessed a growing interest in this long-standing question. Is the wave function ontic, directly representing a state of reality, or epistemic, merely representing a state of (incomplete) knowledge, or something else? If the wave function is not ontic, then what, if any, is the underlying state of reality? If the wave function is indeed ontic, then exactly what physical state does it represent? In this book, I aim to make sense of the wave function in quantum mechanics and find the ontological content of the theory. The book can be divided into three parts. The first part addresses the question of the nature of the wave function (Chapters 1-5). After giving a comprehensive and critical review of the competing views of the wave function, I present a new argument for the ontic view in terms of protective measurements. In addition, I also analyze the origin of the wave function by deriving the free Schroedinger equation. The second part analyzes the ontological meaning of the wave function (Chapters 6, 7). I propose a new ontological interpretation of the wave function in terms of random discontinuous motion of particles, and give two main arguments supporting this interpretation. The third part investigates whether the suggested quantum ontology is complete in accounting for our definite experience and whether it needs to be revised in the relativistic domain (Chapters 8, 9).
One of the major concerns of Schrodinger, Lorentz, Einstein, and many others about the wavefunction is that it is defined on the 3N-dimensional configuration space, rather than on the 3-dimensional physical space. This gives the impression that quantum mechanics cannot have a 3D-space or spacetime ontology, even in the absence of quantum measurements. In particular, this seems to affect interpretations which take the wavefunction as a physical entity, in particular the many worlds and the spontaneous collapse interpretations, and some versions of the pilot wave theory.
Here, a representation of the many-particle states is given, as multi-layered fields defined on the 3-dimensional physical space. This representation is equivalent to the usual representation on the configuration space, but it makes it explicit that it is possible to interpret the wavefunctions as living in the physical space. As long as only unitary evolution is involved, the interactions are local. I intended this representation to capture and formalize the non-explicit and informal intuition of many working quantum physicists, who, by considering the wavefunction sometimes to be defined on the configuration space, and sometimes on the physical space, may seem to researchers in the foundations of quantum theory as adopting an inconsistent view about its ontology. This representation does not aim to solve the measurement problem, and it allows for Schrodinger cats just like the usual one. But it may help various interpretations to solve these problems, through inclusion of the wavefunction as (part of) their primitive ontology.
In an appendix, it is shown how the multi-layered field representation can be extended to quantum field theory.
Almost 100 years ago, Erwin Schrödinger’s pioneering contributions provided the foundation for quantum mechanics, yet his deeper ontological vision of a purely wave-based reality was largely sidelined by the rise of the Copenhagen interpretation and its rejection of realism. This paper revisits and extends Schrödinger's wave-based ontology, exploring its potential evolution in light of contemporary physics challenges. The Quantum Ocean Theory (QOT) theory developed here reconceptualizes the quantum ocean as a dynamic, oscillatory field from which all physical phenomena emerge. Through a single wave equation, QOT describes particles as localized standing waves and forces as traveling waves of different frequencies of the underlying medium, with physical constants like the speed of light emerging naturally from the vacuum's underlying properties. All forces emerge organically from the wave equation. Drawing from Schrödinger's philosophical commitments and scientific insights, alongside complementary ideas from Einstein, Whitehead, Bohm, and Bell, we argue that QOT provides both a unified mathematical framework and coherent ontological foundation for physics. The framework offers novel solutions to persistent challenges in modern physics, including the Hubble tension, quantum measurement problem, and the quest for quantum gravity. It makes specific, testable predictions regarding galactic synchrony, early galaxy formation, and quantum coherence phenomena. Beyond its empirical implications, QOT represents a return to the kind of realist, deterministic physics that Einstein and Schrödinger advocated, while incorporating modern insights about non-locality and quantum behavior.