It has been widely thought that the ontology of quantum mechanics is real, physical fields. In this paper, I will present a new argument against the field ontology of quantum mechanics by analyzing one-body systems such as an electron. First, I argue that if the physical entity described by the wave function of an electron is a field, then this field is massive and charged. Next, I argue that if a field is massive and charged, then any two parts of the field in space will have gravitational and electromagnetic interactions, while the existence of such self-interactions for an electron contradicts quantum mechanics and experimental observations. This poses a serious difficulty for the field ontology of quantum mechanics. Third, I argue that a particle ontological interpretation of the wave function may avoid the difficulty by providing a plausible explanation of the non-existence of self-interactions. According to this explanation, the wave function of an electron is a description of the state of the random motion of the electron as a particle, and in particular, the modulus squared of the wave function gives the probability density that the electron appears in every possible position in space. Finally, I answer a major objection to the explanation of the non-existence of self-interactions in terms of particle ontology.
It has been widely thought that the ontology of quantum mechanics is real, physical fields. In this paper, I will present a new argument against the field ontology of quantum mechanics by analyzing one-body systems such as an electron. First, I argue that if the physical entity described by the wave function of an electron is a field, then this field is massive and charged. Next, I argue that if a field is massive and charged, then any two parts of the field in space will have gravitational and electromagnetic interactions, while the existence of such self-interactions for an electron contradicts quantum mechanics and experimental observations. This poses a serious difficulty for the field ontology of quantum mechanics. Third, I argue that a particle ontological interpretation of the wave function may avoid the difficulty by providing a plausible explanation of the non-existence of self-interactions. According to this explanation, the wave function of an electron is a description of the state of the random motion of the electron as a particle, and in particular, the modulus squared of the wave function gives the probability density that the electron appears in every possible position in space. Finally, I answer a major objection to the explanation of the non-existence of self-interactions in terms of particle ontology.
We investigate the meaning of the wave function by analyzing the mass and charge density distributions of a quantum system. According to protective measurement, a charged quantum system has effective mass and charge density distributing in space, proportional to the square of the absolute value of its wave function. In a realistic interpretation, the wave function of a quantum system can be taken as a description of either a physical field or the ergodic motion of a particle. The essential difference between a field and the ergodic motion of a particle lies in the property of simultaneity; a field exists throughout space simultaneously, whereas the ergodic motion of a particle exists throughout space in a time‐divided way. If the wave function is a physical field, then the mass and charge density will be distributed in space simultaneously for a charged quantum system, and thus there will exist gravitational and electrostatic self‐interactions of its wave function. This not only violates the superposition principle of quantum mechanics but also contradicts experimental observations. Thus the wave function cannot be a description of a physical field but be a description of the ergodic motion of a particle. For the later there is only a localized particle with mass and charge at every instant, and thus there will not exist any self‐interaction for the wave function. It is further argued that the classical ergodic models, which assume continuous motion of particles, cannot be consistent with quantum mechanics. Based on the negative result, we suggest that the wave function is a description of the quantum motion of particles, which is random and discontinuous in nature. On this interpretation, the square of the absolute value of the wave function not only gives the probability of the particle being found in certain locations, but also gives the probability of the particle being there. The suggested new interpretation of the wave function provides a natural realistic alternative to the orthodox interpretation, and it also implies that the de Broglie‐Bohm theory and many‐worlds interpretation are wrong and the dynamical collapse theories are in the right direction by admitting wavefunction collapse.
In this paper, we propose an ontological interpretation of the wave function in terms of random discontinuous motion of particles. Ac-cording to this interpretation, the wave function of an N-body quan-tum system describes the state of random discontinuous motion of N particles, and in particular, the modulus squared of the wave function gives the probability density that the particles appear in every possible group of positions in space. We present three arguments supporting this new interpretation of the wave function. These arguments are mainly based on an analysis of the mass and charge properties of a quantum system. It is realized that the Schrödinger equation, which governs the evolution of a quantum system, contains more information about the system than the wave function of the system, such as the mass and charge properties of the system, which might help understand the ontological meaning of the wave function. Finally, we briefly an-alyze possible implications of the suggested ontological interpretation of the wave function for the solutions to the measurement problem. The wavefunction 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. (Bell 1990)
What is quantum mechanics about? The most natural way to interpret quantum mechanics realistically as a theory about the world might seem to be what is called wave function ontology: the view according to which the wave function mathematically represents in a complete way fundamentally all there is in the world. We argue that: • Strictly speaking, it is not possible to interpret quantum theories as theories about the wave function; • Even if the wave function is supplemented by additional non-ontological structures, there are reasons not to take the resulting theory seriously; • All quantum theories should be regarded as theories in which physical objects are constituted by a primitive ontology. The primitive ontology is mathematically represented in the theory by a mathematical entity in three-dimensional space, or space-time.
Through studying we investigate the sense of the wave function of the mass and charge the density distributions of the quantum system. According to the protective calculation, a charged quantum system has effective distribution of mass and charging density in space, proportional to the square of the absolute value of its wave function. In a practical interpretation a wave function of the quantum system can be taken as a definition of either a physical field or the ergodic motion of a particle. The main distinction among the ergodic movement of a sphere and a cell lies in the concurrent property a sphere occurs simultaneously in space, while the agosic movement of a cell is spatially separated in time. If the wave function is a physical force, then the mass and charging density are simultaneously distributed in space to the charged quantum system and thus to the gravitational and electrostatic self-interactions of its wave function. This not only contradicts the superposition principle of quantum mechanics but also contradicts the findings of the experiments. Therefore, wave function is not a definition of a physical area, but rather a transient phase of a material.Each moment has a single localized particle with mass and charge, so the wave function is not auto-introduced. Therefore, it has been argued that the classical ergodic model may not correspond to quantum mechanics for determining constant motion of the particles. Based on the negative result, we say the wave function is a random and unsatisfactory explanation of the particles' quantum motion in nature.In this view, the square of the absolute value of the wave function not only gives the particles' potential in certain locations but also the potential where the cell is. The proposed Latest wave-function description offers a natural practical other than orthodox interpretation, and also suggests that the Broglie-Bohm theory and the interpretation of many worlds are incorrect, and the theories of dynamic collapse They are heading in the right direction by accepting collapse of wave function.
Is the wave-function a physical reality traveling through our apparatus? Is it a real wave, or it is only a mathematical tool for calculating probabilities of results of measurements? Different interpretations of the quantum mechanics (QM) assume different answers to this question. It is shown in this article that the assumption that the wave-function is a real wave entails a contradiction with the predictions of the QM, when the special relativity is invoked. Therefore, this text concentrates on interpretations that conjecture that the reality that moves in our apparatuses is particles, and they move under the constraints of the wave-function. The de Broglie-Bohm interpretation, which matches this picture, assumes that the particle travels along a continuous trajectory. However, the idea of continuous trajectories was proved to lead to a contradiction with the quantum predictions. Therefore this interpretation is not considered here. S. Gao conjectured that the particle is in a permanent random and discontinuous motion (RDM). As it jumps all the time from place to place, the total set of occupied positions at a certain time is given by the absolute square of the wave-function. As motivation for his idea, Gao argued that if a charged particle were simultaneously in two or more locations at the same time, the copies of the particle would repel one another, destroying the wave-function. It is proved here that the quantum formalism renders this motivation wrong. Although refuting this motivation, the RDM interpretation is examined here. A couple of problems of this interpretation are examined and it is proved that they don’t lead to any observable contradictions with the QM predictions, except one problem which seems to have no solution. In all, it appears that none of the wide-spread interpretations of the QM is free of contradictions.