Does The Wave Function Directly Correspond To An Objective, Observer-Independent Physical Reality, Or Does It Simply Represent An Observer’s Partial Knowledge Of It?, Does Wave Function Merely Represent Our Limited Knowledge Of A System, Or Is It An Eleme
Reality is the conjectured state of things as they actually exist, rather than as they may appear or might beimagined. [1] In a wider definition, reality includes everything that is and has been, whether or not it is observable orcomprehensible. A still broader definition includes everything that has existed, exists, or will exist. Philosophers,mathematicians, and other ancient and modern thinkers, such as Aristotle, Plato, Frege, Wittgenstein, and Russell,have made a distinction between thought corresponding to reality, coherent abstractions (thoughts of things that areimaginable but not real), and that which cannot even be rationally thought. By contrast existence is often restrictedsolely to that which has physical existence or has a direct basis in it in the way that thoughts do The full paper: http://www.iiste.org/PDFshare/APTA-PAGENO-362446-366609.pdf
Reality is the conjectured state of things as they actually exist, rather than as they may appear or might beimagined. [1] In a wider definition, reality includes everything that is and has been, whether or not it is observable orcomprehensible. A still broader definition includes everything that has existed, exists, or will exist. Philosophers,mathematicians, and other ancient and modern thinkers, such as Aristotle, Plato, Frege, Wittgenstein, and Russell,have made a distinction between thought corresponding to reality, coherent abstractions (thoughts of things that areimaginable but not real), and that which cannot even be rationally thought. By contrast existence is often restrictedsolely to that which has physical existence or has a direct basis in it in the way that thoughts do The full paper: http://www.iiste.org/PDFshare/APTA-PAGENO-362446-366609.pdf
Wave Functions: Mathematics Is RealityIf the ultimate reality of anything is mathematical, it ensues that there must be some kind of 'personal' mathematical 'object', or property, or 'signature', attached to everything and anything, i.e. to any object or person or any definable, correlated collection or assembly of things -in brief, to every conceivable thing, object, or correlated collection of things in the universe.Indeed, that mathematical object must be, in some sense, more real than the object itself, because it must describe and determine that object across the range of all its possible realities, both actualized and potential, within any applicable dimensionality.
The subjective thinker’s form, the form of his communication, is his style. His form must be just as manifold as are the opposites that he holds together. The systematic eins, zwei, drei is an abstract form that also must inevitably run into trouble whenever it is to be applied to the concrete. To the same degree as the subjective thinker is concrete, to the same degree his form must also be concretely dialectical. But just as he himself is not a poet, not an ethicist, not a dialectician, so also his form is none of theirs directly. His form must first and last be related to existence, and in this regard he must have at his disposal the poetic, the ethical, the dialectical, the religious. Subordinate character, setting, etc., which belong to the well balanced character of the esthetic production, are in themselves breadth; the subjective thinker has only one setting-existence-and has nothing to do with localities and such things. The full paper: http://www.iiste.org/PDFshare/APTA-PAGENO-203062-207552.pdf
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.
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.
The inflationary account for the emergence of the seeds of cosmic structure falls short of actually explaining the generation of primordial anisotropies and inhomogeneities. (D. Sudarsky, Int.J.Mod.Phys.D20:509-552, (2011); [arXiv: 0906.0315]). This description starts from a symmetric background, and invokes symmetric dynamics, so it cannot explain asymmetries. To generate asymmetries, Pedro Canate et al present an application of the Continuous Spontaneous Localization (CSL) model of wave function collapse (P. Pearle, Phys. Rev. A 39, 2277, (1989); G. C. Ghirardi, P. Pearle and A. Rimini, Phys. Rev. A42, 78 (1990)) in the context of inflation....... The full paper: http://www.iiste.org/PDFshare/APTA-PAGENO-294854-299109.pdf