Reality is just a quantum wave function

Taking Schrödinger’s wave equation seriously

Wave Function

Most interpretations of quantum mechanics have taken non-locality – “spooky action at a distance” – as a brute fact about the way the world is. But there is another way. Take seriously quantum theory’s higher-dimensional models, and we could make sense of the strange, "spooky" phenomenon of entanglement and restore some order to cause and effect. Perhaps the wave function is all there is, writes Alyssa Ney.

 

Since the first Bell tests in the 1980s by Alain Aspect and his collaborators, experiments have confirmed again and again what quantum mechanics predicts: our three-dimensional reality is nonlocal. Particles or atoms - quantum systems - created in entangled states can continue to influence each other instantaneously, even when separated over great distances. For those wanting to understand what physics tells us about the nature of our world, these experiments cry out for explanation. How could the world fundamentally be so as to allow instantaneous effects over great spatial distances?

Philosophers of physics seek metaphysical models that are compatible with the reality of quantum entanglement, possible realities that can underlie these experimental appearances. Most models taken seriously today simply accept that there are brute correlations that can persist between objects in entangled states, even those that are separated by great distances. But another idea worth exploring is that the results of these Bell tests are trying to tell us that the three dimensions in which we experience the world are not the deepest reality. Rather, the nonlocality we observe over distances in three dimensions appears as a byproduct of a more fundamental spatial framework in higher dimensions. And in this higher-dimensional framework, the correlated subsystems of entangled particles are not separated at all.

The higher-dimensional approach along these lines that is most commonly discussed today is called wave function realism. This is the view that reality isn’t fundamentally a collection of objects – particles, atoms – spread out in three-dimensional space or even four-dimensional spacetime, but instead, reality is fundamentally a wave function, a field-like object that exists in some higher-dimensional quantum reality.

___

Physicists have mostly tossed aside the idea that these higher-dimensional representations are tracking what is real.

___

Higher dimensions

The idea of higher dimensions is familiar from string theory. String theorists speculate that the world contains seven extra dimensions in addition to the three with which we are already familiar. String theorists provide an explanation for why we don’t notice these extra dimensions, arguing they are curled up in a way that makes them too small for us to see. In quantum mechanics, the higher dimensions aren’t there as extra dimensions in addition to the usual three. Instead, in order to represent systems as entering into entangled states, quantum mechanics presents us with entirely distinct spatial frameworks.

21 09 08.Quantum mechanics and our part in creating reality copy SUGGESTED READING Quantum mechanics and our part in creating reality By BlakeStacey Configuration space

One such framework is configuration space. Configuration space representations were introduced in the nineteenth century to provide more rigorous and elegant formulations of classical mechanics. However, they become even more indispensable in quantum mechanics. In configuration space, as the name suggests, each point corresponds to a total configuration: a complete specification of determinate locations for each particle in a given system. This means configuration spaces used to represent a system of particles with apparent locations in three-dimensional space will be 3N-dimensional, where N is the number of particles. That is to say that each point in space will be labelled by 3N numbers. For a system with two particles, the configuration space is six-dimensional and a point in space (a configuration) can be provided by six numbers where the first three correspond to the x, y, and z coordinates for the first particle and the second correspond to the x, y, and z coordinates for the second. For a system of three particles, we need a nine-dimensional configuration space; for four particles, a twelve-dimensional configuration space. And for our universe, which is thought to have about 1080 particles, configuration space is 3x1080-dimensional.

In a classical situation, one in which the locations of all particles is determinate, a system can be represented by one simple point in its configuration space. In quantum mechanics, however, particles have indeterminate positions, and so a quantum system must be represented as a field smeared out over this configuration space. This is the quantum wave function. The wave function field will have amplitudes at points in configuration space that correspond to locations in three-dimensional space where these particles may be found.

Hilbert space

Another higher-dimensional framework for representing systems in quantum mechanics is Hilbert space. Each dimension in a Hilbert space corresponds to a determinate state of some observable (a position coordinate or spin along a given axis, for example). Here, total systems are represented as vectors or rays in Hilbert space. For example, to represent a system of two spin-1/2 particles, physicists will use a ray in a four-dimensional Hilbert space, with two dimensions corresponding to the spin of the first particle being up or down along some dimension, and two corresponding to the spin of the second particle being up or down along that or some other dimension. When we consider observables like position coordinates that can take an infinite number of possible values, the Hilbert spaces become infinite-dimensional.

Though higher-dimensional representations like these are ubiquitous in quantum mechanics, usually physicists do not take them seriously as representing what our world is like. In quantum mechanics, physicists have mostly tossed aside the idea that these higher-dimensional representations are tracking what is real.

___

I myself am more sympathetic to wave function realism, a higher-dimensional interpretation of quantum mechanics that picks up where Schrödinger left off

___

Interpreting Schrödinger’s wave equation

This distaste for higher dimensions arguably partly explains the rise of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. In 1926, as is well known, Schrödinger reformulated quantum mechanics using his famous wave equation. This formulation lent the promise of allowing not only a simpler and more familiar mathematical statement of the theory, but also a formulation that would be more capable of providing a clear account of the nature of the world according to quantum mechanics, at least more capable than Heisenberg’s matrix formulation. Schrödinger’s formulation allowed one to see quantum systems as waves or fields evolving smoothly and continuously over time in accordance with his wave equation. However, Schrödinger quickly discarded this hope, as it was repeatedly pointed out that the representation of these waves’ evolution (for N particle systems) required configuration spaces of 3N dimensions. It seemed obvious that these waves in higher dimensions couldn’t be interpreted realistically. And so, Schrödinger joined his colleagues in setting aside the hope for a realistic picture of the world according to quantum mechanics, and instead adopted the Copenhagen interpretation.

Not all physicists today are so resistant to taking higher-dimensional interpretations of quantum mechanics seriously. For example, the physicist Sean Carroll, in his recent book on quantum mechanics, Something Deeply Hidden, argues that the best interpretation of quantum mechanics takes it to represent the world fundamentally as a ray in Hilbert space. There are interesting arguments that lead to a view like that, however, I myself am more sympathetic to wave function realism, a higher-dimensional interpretation of quantum mechanics that picks up where Schrödinger left off and interprets the world fundamentally as a wave or field. In this case, the world is not a simple ray in Hilbert space, but instead a field, the wave function, spread out over configuration space.

The idea that we take configuration space representations in quantum mechanics seriously as tracking physical or real, fundamental fields in 3N dimensions traces at least to John Bell in the 1970s. Bell was a key figure trying to pull the physics community back to the practice of treating its theories as realistic depictions of the world. As the philosopher of physics David Albert has been pressing since the 1990s, given the indispensability of higher-dimensional representations in quantum mechanics, a realistic attitude toward these theories seems to require we take wave functions as real, even if this means they inhabit not the three-dimensional world of our appearances, but a more fundamental realm of higher dimensions.

As I argue in my recent book, The World in the Wave Function, however, even if higher- dimensional frameworks like configuration space or Hilbert space might be indispensable to the formulation of quantum mechanics, that does not mean that those wanting to interpret these theories realistically must take them as describing a world with hidden dimensions. Since Bell, many different interpretational frameworks have appeared which provide alternative ways of making sense of the quantum formalism.

___

This leaves us with a way of resurrecting Schrödinger’s hope of providing a smooth and continuous realist interpretation of quantum mechanics

___

Explaining spooky action at a distance

However, this does not mean there is not a good argument for preferring higher-dimensional, wave function realist interpretations over these others. It is here that we can return to quantum nonlocality and the surprising results of the many Bell experiments. Recall what these experiments show is that when we consider quantum systems spread out in three (or four) dimensions, there are persistent correlations that suggest immediate interactions over long distances (“spooky action at a distance”). The wave function realist argues that there is a deeper explanation for why we see these correlations. They are a manifestation of a field that is evolving in a higher-dimensional space in which there is no instantaneous action at a distance.

What is interesting is that the way alternative low-dimensional metaphysical frameworks have proven adequate to providing an interpretation of quantum mechanics is by giving up on fundamental locality. But in doing so, they have given up on trying to explain nonlocality. They just take it as brute, as given. In a sense, this is to give up on a very basic principle of science: that we explain correlations in terms of a common cause.

If one follows the wave function realist in trying to explain nonlocality in terms of a common, higher-dimensional cause – the wave function – this leaves us with a way of resurrecting Schrödinger’s hope of providing a smooth and continuous realist interpretation of quantum mechanics. The higher dimensions are surprising. But they are not superfluous. They play an explanatory role in making sense of the persistent and puzzling results of Bell tests. This does not mean we can know with certainty these higher dimensions are real. But at this early stage of grappling with these experimental results, it is an explanation, and this makes it worth pursuing.

Latest Releases
Join the conversation

Xinhang Shen 18 January 2022

Quantum computers and quantum communications are hoaxes.

Illicit Ostgaard 16 January 2022

How do quantum computers work if quantum entanglement hasn't been proven?

Darryl McMahon 16 January 2022

Quantum mechanics has overthrown the classical concept of a particle as an object. Now a particle is a quantum event (see Rovelli for instance) which exhibits weird nonclassical effects of superposition and entanglement. Wavefunctions seem like a promising step towards merging physical reality with all its constraints (cosmic speed limit, conservation laws of energy, momentum etc) with quantum reality. Think of quantum events as where energy etc is transferred between interacting wavefunctions. Each event is like one frame in a movie but random and in vast numbers giving the impression of a continuum approximating a classical particle (such as tracks in a bubble chamber). What exists between events? If wavefunctions are real they would provide continuity between events. Interesting unsolved questions might be solved if wavefunctions are real. How do wavefunctions affect space-time hence gravity, and vice-versa? Do wavefunctions have mass additional to the masses of quantum particles they create? Considering that 95% of the energy in the universe remains unexplained the reality of wavefunctions should not be dismissed!

Bud Rapanault 15 January 2022

The wavefunction is a mathematical formalism that only predicts aggregate statistical outcomes of certain unknown processes. The attempt to reify that formalism into a physical "thing" is doomed to failure because a wavefunction is not an observable, physical "thing", it is only a mathematical formalism.

Metaphysics and mathematics are not science, they study by-products of the human imagination. The human imagination has never been a reliable guide to the nature of physical reality. Science is the study of those things that can be observed and measured; it has succeeded where metaphysics, philosophy, and mathematics have failed - by understanding the nature of physical reality in terms of the things that comprise physical reality.

Entanglement - a volatile condition for which there is scant evidence beyond some highly constrained laboratory experiments - can be readily understood in terms of known physics and established theory. Matter - objects having a rest mass - are three dimensionally localized and time-bound. Electromagnetic energy is four dimensionally non-local and timeless - that is what is meant by the description of light as traveling a null geodesic.

Along a null geodesic there is no time differential. So two photons correlated by a common origin are always (from a 4D perspective) in "instantaneous" contact despite any spatial separation. We don't need to contemplate higher (meaning unobservable) dimensions. We need only properly account for the two distinct dimensional frames of the physical reality we actually observe, the 3D realm of matter and the 4D realm of radiant electromagnetic energy. Physical reality is woven of those two distinct but interrelated realms and each must be treated with a different dimensional frame, 3D for matter and 4D for electromagnetic radiation.

Xinhang Shen 14 January 2022

I don't believe that experiments have proved the existence of the phenomena of quantum entanglement. Quantum entanglement should not exist in nature because the wave of probability is the result of misinterpretation of the wave of aether, the existence of which is denied by special relativity. Now special relativity has been disproved. The fatal error of special relativity is that it uses Lorentz Transformation to have redefined time (called relativistic time) which is no longer the physical time defined by physical clocks. We can use special relativity to prove clock time is still absolute in the framework of special relativity. Lorentz Transformation tells us that the relativistic time of the moving frame becomes shorter than that of the stationary frame. As period is relativistic time in special relativity, the period of the moving clock should become shorter too. As the number of periods equals to relativistic time divided by period, the recorded number of periods of the moving clock remains the same as that of the stationary clock because the relativistic effects of the relativistic time and period in the division cancel each other. Since clock time equals to the recorded number of periods multiplied by a calibration constant, the clock time of the moving clock always equals to that of the stationary clock, i.e., clock time is independent of the reference frame, absolute, completely different from relativistic time. Therefore, special relativity is wrong.

The existence of aether is a direct result of the disproof of special relativity. As the speed of light is fully determined by the properties of the medium rather than its initial speed and light can propagate in all spaces including those between galaxies, stars, planets, human beings, molecules, atoms, electrons and nuclei, light should be waves of the medium existing in all these spaces. This medium is called aether. As there is no such a magic speed in nature that can be the same relative to all reference frames, the speed of light is constant only relative to the aether just as the speed of sound is constant only relative to the air. Michelson-Morley experiment proves aether can't be rigid. Therefore, aether must be a fluid filling up all spaces in the visible part of the universe, delivers all electromagnetic forces, and plays critical roles in particles physics.

spyroe theory 14 January 2022

wave function interpretation is mans way not the universes way.
We will never know the truth only our version of the truth.
The universe is unwinding from the inside out. High heat trying to escape from the centre to the outer edge in a torus shape.
All energy has a backside.

Krzysztof Ciuba 14 January 2022

The real or realist are: data of experiments, formula of wave function, and (DULL) interpretation of all above because QM Is a statistical theory and not on "object"! WHAT HELL with the present ....Academia?

If you want to join the world's leading thinkers debating the biggest ideas across Science, Philosophy, Politics and the Arts, get your ticket to HowTheLightGetsIn London 2022 here.

Last few tickets remaining!