Abstract This chapter considers and responds to criticism that wave function realism is only plausible as an approach to the interpretation of nonrelativistic quantum mechanics and not relativistic quantum theories and quantum field theories. This critique gains traction as wave function realism has until now been formulated and defended solely within the context of idealized, nonrelativistic quantum mechanics. The chapter considers five such arguments and responds to each. An important lesson is that wave function realists should only adopt the wave-function-in-configuration-space picture as part of an interpretation of an idealized nonrelativistic quantum mechanics. More generally, the space the wave function inhabits will vary as the quantum theory the wave function realist is developing an interpretation of varies. The chapter develops a sketch of what wave function realism looks like in one relativistic context. It then discusses the issue of the interpretation of quantum theories in the limit of physical theorizing.
Abstract This chapter considers and responds to criticism that wave function realism is only plausible as an approach to the interpretation of nonrelativistic quantum mechanics and not relativistic quantum theories and quantum field theories. This critique gains traction as wave function realism has until now been formulated and defended solely within the context of idealized, nonrelativistic quantum mechanics. The chapter considers five such arguments and responds to each. An important lesson is that wave function realists should only adopt the wave-function-in-configuration-space picture as part of an interpretation of an idealized nonrelativistic quantum mechanics. More generally, the space the wave function inhabits will vary as the quantum theory the wave function realist is developing an interpretation of varies. The chapter develops a sketch of what wave function realism looks like in one relativistic context. It then discusses the issue of the interpretation of quantum theories in the limit of physical theorizing.
The purpose of the present chapter is to respond to a thread of recent criticism against one candidate framework for interpreting quantum theories, a framework introduced and defended by David Albert and Barry Loewer: wave function realism, a framework for interpreting the ontology of quantum theories according to which what appears to be a nonseparable metaphysics ofentangled objects acting instantaneously across spatial distances is a manifestation of a more fundamental separable and local metaphysics in higher dimensions. Thechapterconsiders strategies for extending the wave function realist interpretation of quantum mechanics to the case of relativistic quantum theories, responding to arguments that this cannot be done.
Introduction It is not exaggeration to claim that one of the major divides in the foundations of non-relativistic quantum mechanics derives from the way physicists and philosophers understand the status of the wave function. On the instrumentalist side of the camp, the wave function is regarded as a mere instrument to calculate probabilities that have been established by previous measurement outcomes. On the other “realistic” camp, the wave function is regarded as a new physical entity or a physical field of some sort. While both sides agree about the existence of quantum “particles” (the so-called theoretical entities), and therefore reject the radical agnosticism about them preached by van Fraassen (1980), the various “realistic” (and consequently, instrumentalist) philosophies of quantum mechanics are typically formulated in different, logically independent ways, so their implications need to be further investigated. For instance, on the one hand it seems plausible to claim that a realistic stance about the wave function is not the only way to defend “realism” about quantum theory. One can support a “flash” or a “density-of-stuff ” ontology (two variants of GRW), or an ontology of particles with well-defined positions (as in Bohmian mechanics), as primitive ontologies for observer-independent formulations of quantum mechanics (Allori, Goldstein, Tumulka and Zanghí, 2008). “Primitive ontologies”, as here are understood, are not only a fundamental ground for other ontological posits, but also entail a commitment to something concretely existing in spacetime (see also Allori, 2013). On the other hand, however, it is still debated whether such primitive ontologies can be autonomous from some form of realism about the wave function (Albert, 1996). In order to discuss this problem, we begin with a preliminary clarification of the meaning of “realism” and “instrumentalism” in physics, which are often subject to ideological and abstract discussions that often have little to do with the practice of physics (Section 9.2).
Abstract This chapter explains the use of wave functions in quantum mechanics in order to develop a preliminary argument for wave function realism, one that is commonly found in the physics and philosophy of physics literature. It distinguishes ontological questions about the status of the wave function from the more discussed measurement problem for quantum mechanics, and explains how wave function realism is an approach to ontology that is compatible with several rival solutions to the measurement problem. The chapter then presents an initial, but not ultimately decisive, argument for wave function realism based on the ubiquity of wave function representations in quantum physics.
Abstract What are the ontological implications of quantum theories, that is, what do they tell us about the fundamental objects that make up our world? How should quantum theories make us reevaluate our classical conceptions of the basic constitution of material objects and ourselves? Is there fundamental quantum nonlocality? This book articulates several rival approaches to answering these questions, ultimately defending the wave function realist approach. Wave function realism is a way of interpreting quantum theories so that the central object they describe is the quantum wave function, interpreted as a field in an extremely high-dimensional space. According to this approach, the nonseparability and nonlocality we seem to find in quantum mechanics are ultimately manifestations of a more intuitive, separable, and local picture in higher dimensions.
We expound an alternative to the Copenhagen interpretation of the formalism of nonrelativistic quantum mechanics. The basic difference is that the new interpretation is formulated in the language of epistemological realism. It involves a change in some basic physical concepts. The ψ function is no longer interpreted as a probability amplitude of the observed behavior of an elementary particle but as an objective physical field representing the particle itself. The particles are thus extended objects whose extension varies in time according to the variation of ψ. They are considered as fundamental regions of space with no internal structure. This implies some kind of nonlocality. Symmetrization of the configuration space wave function is interpreted as a mathematical description of a physical process, which also leads to nonlocal effects. Special consideration
Scientific realism has traditionally maintained that our best scientific theories can be regarded as more or less true and as representing the world as it is (more or less). However, one of our very best current theories—quantum mechanics—has famously resisted such a realist construal, threatening to undermine the realist stance altogether. The chapters in this volume carefully examine this tension and the reasons behind it, including the underdetermination generated by the multiplicity of formulations and interpretations of quantum physics, each presenting a different way the world could be. Authors in this volume offer a range of alternative ways forward: some suggest new articulations of realism, limiting our commitments in one way or another; others attempt to articulate a ‘third way’ between traditional forms of realism and antirealism, or are critical of such attempts. Still others argue that quantum theory itself should be reconceptualised, or at least alternative formulations should be considered in the hope of evading the problems faced by realism. And some examine the nature of these issues when moving beyond quantum mechanics to quantum field theory. Taken together they offer an exciting new set of perspectives on one of the most fundamental questions in the philosophy of modern physics: how can one be a realist about quantum theory, and what does this realism amount to?