This paper is the 5th in a series of explorations to see if a simple physical interpretation of the quantum-mechanical wavefunction could possibly make sense. It challenges two of the usual objections to such interpretation: 1. The superposition of wavefunctions is done in the complex space and, hence, the assumption of a real-valued envelope for the wavefunction is, therefore, not acceptable. 2. The wavefunction for spin-1/2 particles cannot represent any real object because of its 720-degree symmetry in space. Real objects have the same spatial symmetry as space itself, which is 360 degrees. Hence, physical interpretations of the wavefunction are nonsensical. The heuristic arguments in this paper will, hopefully, convince the reader these objections are subject to interpretation themselves. If anything, the ideas presented in this paper might contribute to a better didactic model for teaching quantum mechanics.
This paper is the 5th in a series of explorations to see if a simple physical interpretation of the quantum-mechanical wavefunction could possibly make sense. It challenges two of the usual objections to such interpretation: 1. The superposition of wavefunctions is done in the complex space and, hence, the assumption of a real-valued envelope for the wavefunction is, therefore, not acceptable. 2. The wavefunction for spin-1/2 particles cannot represent any real object because of its 720-degree symmetry in space. Real objects have the same spatial symmetry as space itself, which is 360 degrees. Hence, physical interpretations of the wavefunction are nonsensical. The heuristic arguments in this paper will, hopefully, convince the reader these objections are subject to interpretation themselves. If anything, the ideas presented in this paper might contribute to a better didactic model for teaching quantum mechanics.
This article explores a possible physical interpretation of the wavefunction. It zooms in on the physical model it implies for an electron in free space (further building on Schroedinger's ideas in regard to the apparent Zitterbewegung of an electron), but then also discusses the wavefunction for particles (including non-charged particles) in general. While it basically concludes that the mainstream interpretation of quantum physics (the Copenhagen interpretation) is and remains the most parsimonious explanation, it also argues that one or two extra assumptions – the wavefunction as a two-dimensional self-sustaining electromagnetic or gravitational oscillation in space – would make more frivolous explanations (many worlds, pilot wave, etcetera) redundant.
If mathematics is the queen of science, then physics might well be the king. It successes are obvious. However, as a science, physics may have failed in one regard, and that is to explain what its basic concepts – such as state vectors, wavefunctions, and transformation matrices – actually represent. When studying quantum mechanics, it is, effectively, hard to keep up the initial enthusiasm, and those who branch out to other fields – which is most of us – quickly end up going through the motions only: we regurgitate models and equations and know how to solve the standard problems, so as to pass the exam, but then forget about them as soon as possible. This paper explores a very intuitive sentiment about the issue: the wavefunction is a rather ‘flat’ mathematical object – it is two-dimensional, basically – so it can’t do the trick, perhaps. In contrast, Maxwell’s equations have real vectors in them, which is why a deeper or more intuitive understanding of electromagnetism comes relatively easily. Indeed, when everything is said and done, we are just human beings living in three-dimensional space, and that is why vector equations (or systems of vector equations), as a mathematical tool, make sense to us. This paper further explores this sentiment. It also offers a way out by, predictably, presenting yet another possible physical interpretation of the wavefunction. More importantly (for the reviewer of this paper, at least), this paper offers a sensible response to the mainstream view that three-dimensional physical interpretations of the wavefunction cannot make any sense because of the weird 720° symmetry of the wavefunction when describing spin-1/2 particles (fermions or – for all practical purposes – electrons). The author does so by analyzing (1) Dirac’s belt trick more in detail – and what it implies in terms of the interaction between the observer and the object – as well as (2) Feynman’s derivation of the transformation matrices for spin-1/2 two-state systems.
This paper investigates the tenability of wavefunction realism, according to which the quantum mechanical wavefunction is not just a convenient predictive tool, but is a real entity figuring in physical explanations of our measurement results. An apparent difficulty with this position is that the wavefunction exists in a many-dimensional configuration space, whereas the world appears to us to be three-dimensional. I consider the arguments that have been given for and against the tenability of wavefunction realism, and note that both the proponents and the opponents assume that quantum mechanical configuration space is many-dimensional in exactly the same sense in which classical space is three-dimensional. I argue that this assumption is mistaken, and that configuration space can be taken as three-dimensional in a relevant sense. I conclude that wavefunction realism is far less problematic than it has been taken to be. 1. Introduction 2. Non-separability 3. The instantaneous solution 4. The dynamical solution 5. Invariance 6. What is configuration space, anyway? 7. Conclusion
This paper further explores the structural similarities between the elementary quantum-mechanical wavefunction and circularly polarized electromagnetic waves to further tune a possible physical interpretation of the wavefunction. The interpretation that is offered analyzes the real and the imaginary part of the wavefunction as oscillations which each carry half of the total energy of the particle. These oscillations are perpendicular to each other, and the interplay between both may describe how energy propagates through space over time. The model is based on three fundamental premises: 1.The dimension of the matter-wave field vector is force per unit mass (N/kg), as opposed to the force per unit charge (N/C) dimension of the electric field vector. This dimension is an acceleration (m/s2), which is the dimension of the gravitational field. 2.This gravitational disturbance may cause a charged mass to move about some center, combining linear and circular motion. This interpretation may reconcile the wave-particle duality to some extent: fields interfere but if, at the same time, they do drive a pointlike particle, this may explain why, as Feynman puts it, “when you do find the electron some place, the entire charge is there.” This hybrid hypothesis is supported by an elegant yet simple derivation of the Compton radius of an electron. 3.In light of the direction of the magnetic moment of an electron in an inhomogeneous magnetic field, the plane which circumscribes the circulatory motion of the electron should also comprise the direction of its linear motion. Hence, unlike an electromagnetic wave, the plane of the two-dimensional oscillation cannot be perpendicular to the direction of motion of our electron. Finally, this paper addresses an issue which has hampered other physical interpretations of the wavefunction: amplitude transformations when going from one representation (or reference frame) to another. Indeed, the author re-visits the original mathematical arguments here and shows that the proposed model, and the related physical interpretation of the wavefunction, are not incompatible with the key results and mainstream logic in this regard.
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.