The objective of this paper is to show that, instead of quantum probabilities, wave packets are physically real. First, Cartwright's recent argument for the reality of quantum probabilities is criticized. Then, the notion of ‘physically real’ is precisely defined and the difference between wave functions and quantum probabilities clarified. Being thus prepared, some strong reasons are discussed for considering the wave packet to be physically real. Finding the reasons inconclusive, I explain how the Aharonov—Bohm effect delivers the final punch. I conclude that wave packets are the quantum objects that underlie the indeterministic quantum processes and have the propensity of displaying probabilistic (or indeterministic) behavior.
The objective of this paper is to show that, instead of quantum probabilities, wave packets are physically real. First, Cartwright's recent argument for the reality of quantum probabilities is criticized. Then, the notion of ‘physically real’ is precisely defined and the difference between wave functions and quantum probabilities clarified. Being thus prepared, some strong reasons are discussed for considering the wave packet to be physically real. Finding the reasons inconclusive, I explain how the Aharonov—Bohm effect delivers the final punch. I conclude that wave packets are the quantum objects that underlie the indeterministic quantum processes and have the propensity of displaying probabilistic (or indeterministic) behavior.
A satisfactory explanation of the confounding wave-particle duality of matter is presented in terms of the reality of the wave nature of a particle. In this view, a quantum particle is an objectively real wave packet consisting of irregular disturbances of underlying quantum fields. It travels holistically as a unit and thereby acts as a particle. Only the totality of the entire wave packet at any instance embodies all the conserved quantities, for example the energy-momentum, rest mass, and charge of the particle, and as such must be acquired all at once during detection. On this basis, many of the bizarre behaviors observed in the quantum domain, such as wave function collapse, the limitation of prediction to only a probability rather than an actuality, the apparent simultaneous existence of a particle in more than one place, and the inherent uncertainty can be reasonably comprehended. The necessity of acquiring the wave function in its entirety for detection, as evinced by the appearance of collapse of the wave function, supports the paradigm of reality of the wave function described here. Quanta 2016; 5: 93–100.
The Aharonov–Bohm effect is a fundamental issue in physics. It describes the physically important electromagnetic quantities in quantum mechanics. Its experimental verification constitutes a test of the theory of quantum mechanics itself. The remarkable experiments of Tonomura et al. [“Observation of Aharonov-Bohm effect by electron holography,” Phys. Rev. Lett 48, 1443 (1982) and “Evidence for Aharonov-Bohm effect with magnetic field completely shielded from electron wave,” Phys. Rev. Lett 56, 792 (1986)] are widely considered as the only experimental evidence of the physical existence of the Aharonov–Bohm effect. Here we give the first rigorous proof that the classical ansatz of Aharonov and Bohm of 1959 [“Significance of electromagnetic potentials in the quantum theory,” Phys. Rev. 115, 485 (1959)], that was tested by Tonomura et al., is a good approximation to the exact solution to the Schrödinger equation. This also proves that the electron, that is, represented by the exact solution, is not accelerated, in agreement with the recent experiment of Caprez et al. in 2007 [“Macroscopic test of the Aharonov–Bohm effect,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 210401 (2007)], that shows that the results of the Tonomura et al. experiments can not be explained by the action of a force. Under the assumption that the incoming free electron is a Gaussian wave packet, we estimate the exact solution to the Schrödinger equation for all times. We provide a rigorous, quantitative error bound for the difference in norm between the exact solution and the Aharonov–Bohm Ansatz. Our bound is uniform in time. We also prove that on the Gaussian asymptotic state the scattering operator is given by a constant phase shift, up to a quantitative error bound that we provide. Our results show that for intermediate size electron wave packets, smaller than the ones used in the Tonomura et al. experiments, quantum mechanics predicts the results observed by Tonomura et al. with an error bound smaller than 10−99. It would be quite interesting to perform experiments with electron wave packets of intermediate size. Furthermore, we provide a physical interpretation of our error bound.
The wave function gives probabilities, but is it a real physical quantity, as in the ontic interpretation of quantum mechanics, or just a measure of human belief about a physical system, as in an epistemic interpretation? These questions are introduced by treating Schrödinger’s cat and Wigner’s friend. An important question is whether quantum mechanics applies to macroscopic objects, for example, cats. SQUID experiments have been performed that see quantum interference in very large objects, whereas with most macroscopic objects quantum interference disappears because of decoherence. Various views of the meaning of quantum mechanics are discussed: the Copenhagen interpretation, continuous spontaneous localization, Everett’s many-worlds interpretation, Bohm’s hidden-variable model, and quantum Bayesianism. The latter holds that the wave function represents one’s best belief about the state of a quantum system, rather than an actual physical property. This leads to discussions of recent theories and experiments explicitly designed to test wave function reality.
The Aharonov-Bohm effect is a fundamental topological phenomenon with a wide range of applications. It consists of a charge encircling a region with a magnetic flux in a superposition of wave packets having their relative phase affected by the flux. In this work we analyze this effect using an entropic measure known as realism, originally introduced as a quantifier of a system's degree of reality and mathematically related to notions of global and local quantum coherence. More precisely, we look for observables that lead to gauge-invariant realism associated with the charge before it completes its loop. We find that the realism of these operators has a sudden change when the line connecting the center of both wave packets crosses the solenoid. Moreover, we consider the case of a quantized magnetic-field source, pointing out similarities and differences between the two cases. Finally, we discuss some consequences of these results.
This review is devoted to a discussion of the interpretation of quantum mechanics. The heuristic role and limitations of the principle of observability and of operationalism are discussed. It is shown that the probabilistic approach to quantum mechanics is essential as a way of reconciling the conflicting concepts of particle and wave. The reason why the reduction of the wave packet is not a physical process, but a logical act is explained. The discussion of the paradoxes of quantum mechanics covers many well known examples and includes the Aharonov-Bohm effect and interference between two independent laser beams. It is suggested that the causality principle does not reduce to determinism, but has certain other manifestations too. This is illustrated by the fact that Newtonian mechanics was at one time considered as abstract and impenetrable, in contrast to the 'natural', but eventually fruitless mechanics of Descartes. It is shown that a classical foundation cannot be provided for quantum mechanics, i.e., it is impossible to introduce hidden variables into quantum mechanics. Mathematical manipulation is reduced to the essential minimum, and many examples are provided to illustrate the discussion. Outstanding contributors to physics are extensively quoted. The review is intended for readers with higher education in both the natural sciences and the humanities, who are interested in conceptual problems in modern science.
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.