We try to give a physical meaning to the wave function or quantum state of a system, apart from being a very efficient tool for predicting results of measurements on that system. In other words, we ask what does it mean for a system outside the laboratories to have a wave function? We first explain why two possible, and probably common, answers to that question do not really answer it. Then, we explain how the de Broglie – Bohm theory does give a satisfactory meaning to the quantum state outside the laboratories, while avoiding the problems faced by the other answers.
We try to give a physical meaning to the wave function or quantum state of a system, apart from being a very efficient tool for predicting results of measurements on that system. In other words, we ask what does it mean for a system outside the laboratories to have a wave function? We first explain why two possible, and probably common, answers to that question do not really answer it. Then, we explain how the de Broglie – Bohm theory does give a satisfactory meaning to the quantum state outside the laboratories, while avoiding the problems faced by the other answers.
There are three possible interpretations of the wave function in the de Broglie-Bohm theory: taking the wave function as corresponding to a physical entity or a property of the Bohmian particles or a law. In this paper, we argue that the first interpretation is favored by an analysis of protective measurements. The de Broglie-Bohm theory is an alternative to standard quantum mechan-ics initially proposed by de Broglie (1928) and later developed by Bohm (1952). According to the theory, a complete description of a quantum system is provided by the configuration defined by the positions of its particles together with its wave function. The wave function follows the linear Schrödinger equation and never collapses. The motion of the particles, which are usually called Bohmian particles, follows the so-called guiding equation. Although the de Broglie-Bohm theory is mathematically equivalent to quantum mechanics, there is no clear consensus with regard to its physical interpretation. In particular, the interpre-
Quantum mechanics has been enormously successful in explaining the behavior of microsystems such as molecules, atoms, and nuclei. We have seen that quantum mechanics describes a quantum system by the wave function ψ, which is the solution of the Schro¨dinger equation. The wave function determines the probability amplitudes (whose modulus squared gives the probability) for all possible outcomes of a measurement corresponding to an observable on the system. In general, the wave function does not uniquely predict the result of a measurement; it only provides a probability distribution for all possible results of the measurement on a quantum system. Only if the system happens to be in an eigenstate corresponding to the observable being measured, is the result of a measurement of this observable completely predictable. On the other hand, the results of measurements corresponding to a conjugate or non-commuting observable, on the same system in the same state, are indeterminate. Quantum mechanical description of physical systems raises profound questions: How are the wave function and the probabilities for different outcomes of a measurement to be interpreted? Does the wave function represent a single system or an ensemble of systems? Does the physical system actually have the attribute corresponding to the measurement in question or does the measurement itself create the attribute? These questions led to different interpretations of quantum mechanics, which were vigorously debated during the years of its discovery as also in the following decades. The new idea of indeterminacy was especially difficult to reconcile with the long-held view that a physical theory should aim at predicting accurately, and without ambiguity, the result of any measurement on any system, big or small. These debates not only gave us a deeper understanding of quantum mechanics but also changed profoundly the way we view the micro-world.
What is quantum theory? For much of the twentieth century, it was widely believed that the interpretation of quantum theory had been essentially settled by Bohr and Heisenberg in 1927. But not only were the ‘dissenters’ of 1927 – in particular de Broglie, Einstein and Schrödinger – unconvinced at the time: similar dissenting points of view are not uncommon even today. What Popper called ‘the schism in physics’ (Popper 1982) never really healed. Soon after 1927 it became standard to assert that matters of interpretation had been dealt with, but the sense of puzzlement and paradox surrounding quantum theory never disappeared. As the century wore on, many of the concerns and alternative viewpoints expressed in 1927 slowly but surely revived. In 1952, Bohm revived and extended de Broglie's theory (Bohm 1952a,b), and in 1993 the de Broglie–Bohm theory finally received textbook treatment as an alternative formulation of quantum theory (Bohm and Hiley 1993; Holland 1993). In 1957, Everett (1957) revived Schrödinger's view that the wave function, and the wave function alone, is real (albeit in a very novel sense), and the resulting ‘Everett’ or ‘many-worlds’ interpretation (DeWitt and Graham 1973) gradually won widespread support, especially among physicists interested in quantum gravity and quantum cosmology.
Abstract If we are not persuaded of the approach to recovering causality in quantum physics through the de Broglie-Bohm theory (perhaps because, like Einstein, we think this route ‘too cheap’) or Popper’s reinterpretation of the meaning of probability, we must seek alternative solutions to the problems of quantum probability and the collapse of the wave function. Even if we choose to accept what quantum probability tells us concerning the fundamental indeterminism and acausality of the quantum world, we are still left to trouble over quantum measurement.
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 dominance of the Copenhagen interpretation is the result of a historical accident (Cushing, 1994). At the Solvay conference in 1927, Louis de Broglie put forward the deterministic pilot wave theory, described later. Never slow to criticize, Pauli jumped up and demolished de Broglie’s proposal, and de Broglie was so discouraged by this that he did not develop his interpretation any further. The Copenhagen interpretation was then developed by Bohr, Heisenberg, Pauli and many others, as described in the previous chapter. It was strongly supported by von Neumann’s proof of the impossibility of hidden variables. Years later, in 1952, Bohm published a deterministic hidden variable theory, showing that there must be something wrong with von Neumann’s proof. The error was found by John Bell in 1966, as described in the last chapter, and he also showed how Pauli’s objections to de Broglie’s original idea can be answered. If this had been done at the conference in 1927, quantum mechanics could have been interpreted deterministically from the beginning. The essential mistake in the Copenhagen interpretation is to treat it as a complete account of the behaviour of each individual system. It is frequently claimed that it enables us to calculate, at least in principle, everything that can be measured. Thus Hooft (1997, p. 11) said that ‘The laws of quantum mechanics have been formulated very accurately. We know exactly how to compute anything we would like to know.’ Also Peierls (1997, p. 25) has said that quantum mechanics ‘had become a complete and consistent scheme capable of giving a unique answer to any questions relating to actual or possible observations’. Even if this were true, it would not imply that it is the final complete theory, for it is always possible that some new phenomenon might be found that cannot be calculated quantum-mechanically. However, it is not true: there are many phenomena such as the time of decay of a radioactive nucleus, or the direction a particle is scattered by a nucleus, that cannot be calculated, even in principle. Quantum mechanics is therefore an incomplete theory. We can only calculate the statistical properties of these systems, such as the half-life of a radioactive decay or the differential scattering cross-section that gives the probabilities that a particle is scattered through various angles. All measurements of quantum systems are of this statistical character. It might be thought that the possibility of making measurements on a single electron provides an exception to this. However, even in such cases the electron is continually bathed in a fluctuating background radiation from nearby atoms. Since this is variable, that electron is a member of an ensemble of electrons subject to different fluctuations. All these examples clearly demonstrate the statistical character of quantum mechanics. ‘I am rather firmly convinced’, Einstein (in Schilpp, 1949, pp. 666, 671) remarked, ‘that the essentially statistical character of contemporary quantum theory is solely to be ascribed to fact that this theory operates with an incomplete description of physical systems’. As a result, ‘the c-function is to be understood as the description not of a single system but of an ensemble of systems’. So, ‘if the statistical quantum theory does not pretend to describe the individual system completely, it appears unavoidable to look elsewhere for a complete description of the individual systems’. Thus ‘the difficulties of theoretical interpretation disappear, if one views the quantum-mechanical description as a description of an ensemble of systems’. If this is achieved, ‘the statistical theory would, within the framework of future physics, take an approximately analogous position to statistical mechanics within the framework of classical mechanics’. ‘Thus, essentially, nothing has changed since Galileo or Newton or Faraday concerning the status of the ‘‘observer’’ or our ‘‘consciousness’’ or of our ‘‘information’’ in physics’ (Popper, 1982, p. 46). Once this is accepted, the quantum paradoxes that plagued the Copenhagen interpretation are easily resolved, as described below. In any textbook of quantum mechanics problems such as the calculation of the energy levels of the hydrogen atom are solved as if that hydrogen atom is alone in the universe. As Feynman (1972) remarked, ‘when we solve a quantum-mechanical problem, what we really do is to divide the universe into two parts – the system in which we are interested and the rest of the universe. We then usually act as if the system in which we are interested comprised the whole universe.’ In fact, however, every hydrogen atom on which measurements are made is surrounded by other atoms and exposed to their radiations. Quantum mechanics somehow takes this into account and gives the average behaviour of an ensemble of hydrogen atoms. A more detailed theory takes these influences into account. One attempt to do this is stochastic electrodynamics, described in a later section.