
#1
Sep1611, 03:35 PM

PF Gold
P: 670

Does the wave function represent the physical state of the system (MW) or merely our information about the system (orthodox interpretation)? If it represents something in between (Bohmian), what does that imply? Furthermore, if QM is supposed to be more “fundamental” than classical physics, does this suggest that configuration space is more "fundamental" than normal 3space or (4 dimensional spacetime)? If it’s more fundamental, why does the world appear to evolve in 3space or (4 dimensional spacetime)? I mean what is the nature of this configuration space where the wave function lives in? Goldstein writes:
A second point is that for a multiparticle system the wave function (q) = (q1 ,..., qN ) is not a weird field on physical space, its a weird field on configuration space, the set of all hypothetical configurations of the system. For a system of more than one particle that space is not physical space. What kind of thing is this field on that space? http://philsciarchive.pitt.edu/1272/ http://users.ox.ac.uk/~sfop0257/papers/Finding.pdf If one takes the quasiobjective (in between) view as in the Bohmian model, what does the necessary nonlocality/nonseparability imply? Moreover, how is it possible that the wave function acts upon the positions of the particles but it is not acted upon by the particles? So that in, Bohmian mechanics there’s no back action, no effect in the other direction, of the configuration upon the wave function, which evolves autonomously via Schrodinger’s equation, in which the actual configuration Q does not appear. Furthermore, there are problems with treating the wave function as nomological (denoting a law of nature) as in Bohm's model because, "laws aren’t supposed to be dynamical objects, (as) they aren’t supposed to change with time, but the wave function of a system typically does...(since), we can in (a) sense control the wave function of a system. But we don’t control a law of nature. This makes it a bit difficult to regard the wave function as nomological." http://math.rutgers.edu/~oldstein/papers/rrwf.pdf 



#2
Sep1711, 03:03 AM

P: 6

I think that the wave function represents the congruence of trajectories of one particle (simple case) in the compactified Minkowski spacetime.
http://socionet.ru/publication.xml?h=repec:rus:gulthb:1 



#3
Sep1711, 04:53 AM

P: 1,967





#4
Sep1711, 11:42 PM

PF Gold
P: 670

What is the wave function about?We propose that the reason, on the universal level, that there is no action of configurations upon wavefunctions, as there seems to be between all other elements of physical reality, is that the wavefunction of the universe is not an element of physical reality. We propose that the wave function belongs to an altogether different category of existence than that of substantive physical entities, and that its existence is nomological rather than material. We propose, in other words, that the wavefunction is a component of physical law rather than of the reality described by the law. But this version of the pilot wave seems to have been abandoned. In the present form of pilotwave theory, ψ is regarded as ontological treated as "a new kind of causal agent acting in confguration space." I think this is how Bohm originally interpreted it. http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~mdt26/...008_denial.pdf 



#5
Sep1811, 12:11 AM

P: 6





#6
Oct111, 08:11 PM

P: 148

If you try to give quantum mechanics a naive realist interpretation, like Bohm or Everett, you find yourself contorting yourself beyond belief with things that are unobservable, bring forth no new results and still have gaping big holes. But these girls tell it better than I can:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=saWCyZupO4U On a more serious note, this short paper in Physics Today by Asher Peres and Chris Fuchs might be interesting: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc...=rep1&type=pdf Skippy 



#7
Oct111, 09:02 PM

PF Gold
P: 670





#8
Oct111, 10:43 PM

P: 1,967





#9
Oct111, 11:33 PM

P: 148

I also don't think "science of meter reading" is an accurate description of searching for understanding of the universe without the baggage of accepting unobservable entities as a matter of faith. Skippy 



#10
Oct311, 04:17 AM

Sci Advisor
P: 4,491

Applied Bohmian mechanics: http://www.amazon.com/AppliedBohmia.../dp/9814316393 http://europe.uab.es/xoriols/Books?a...&target=Flayer 



#11
Oct311, 04:35 AM

P: 1,967





#12
Oct311, 08:26 AM

Sci Advisor
P: 4,491

"... we believe that Bohmian mechanics can help us make progress with our real problems. There are, at least, three clear reasons why one could be interested in studying quantum problems with Bohmian mechanics: (1) Bohmian explaining: Even when the Copenhagen mathematical machinery is used to compute observable results, the Bohmian interpretation ofently offers better interpretational tools. We can find descriptions of electron dynamics such as “an electron crosses a resonant tunneling barrier and interacts with another electron inside the well”. However, an electron crossing a tunneling region is not rigourously supported within orthodox quantum mechanics, but it is within the Bohmian picture. Thus, in contrast to the Copenhagen formulation, the Bohmian interpretation allows for an easy visualization of quantum phenomena in terms of trajectories that has important demystifying or clarifying consequences. In fact, Bohmian mechanics allows for a simultaneous description and interpreation of quantum mechanics within the same theoretical framework. In particular, it provides a singleevent description of the experiment, while Copenhagen quantum mechanics accounts for its statistical or ensemble explanation. We will present several examples in chapters 2 and 3 emphasizing all these points. (2) Bohmian computing: Although the predictions of the Bohmian interpretation reproduce the ones of the orthodox formulation of quantum mechanics, its mathematical formalism is different. In some systems, the Bohmian equations might provide better computational tools than the ones obtained from the orthodox machinery, resulting in a reduction of the computational time, an increase in the number of degrees of freedom directly simulated, etc. We will see examples of these computational issues in quantum chemistry in chapters 4 and 5, as well as in quantum electron transport in Chap. 6. (3) Bohmian thinking: From a more fundamental point of view, alternative formulations of quantum mechanics can provide alternative routes to look for the limits and possible extensions of the quantum theory. As we will discuss later, the work of John Bell on nonlocality is a clear example of the unquestionable utility of understanding quantum phenomena with Bohmian mechanics. In particular, Chap. 7 presents the route to connect Bohmian mechanics with geometrical optics and beyond opening the way to apply the powerful computational tools of quantum mechanics to classical optics, and even to electromagnetism. The natural extension of Bohmian mechanics to the relativistic regime and to quantum field theory are presented in Chap. 8, while Chap. 9 discusses its application to cosmology." For more details, you need to get the book itself. 



#13
Oct311, 01:18 PM

P: 1,967





#14
Oct411, 12:44 AM

P: 1,414





#15
Oct411, 03:31 AM

Sci Advisor
P: 4,491





#16
Oct411, 04:12 AM

P: 1,414





#17
Oct411, 04:53 AM

P: 1,967





#18
Oct411, 09:16 AM

PF Gold
P: 670

I have to admit, I couldn't help but enjoy the humour (and truth?) about this statement by Fuchs:
Whatever it is, it cannot be for want of a selfordained solution: Go to any meeting, and it is like being in a holy city in great tumult. You will find all the religions with all their priests pitted in holy war—the Bohmians, the Consistent Historians, the Transactionalists, the Spontaneous Collapseans, the Einselectionists, the Contextual Objectivists, the outright Everettics, and many more beyond that. They all declare to see the light, the ultimate light. Each tells us that if we will accept their solution as our savior, then we too will see the light.But there has to be something wrong with this! If any of these priests had truly shown the light, there simply would not be the yearafteryear conference. The verdict seems clear enough: If we—i.e., the set of people who might be reading this paper—really care about quantum foundations, then it behooves us as a community to ask why these meetings are happening and find a way to put a stop to them. http://perimeterinstitute.ca/persona...VaccineQPH.pdf 


Register to reply 
Related Discussions  
Spherical Harmonic Wave Function =? 3D Wave Function  Advanced Physics Homework  1  
calculating the momentum of a debroglie wave from its wave function  Quantum Physics  12  
Wave packet momentum wave function  Advanced Physics Homework  6  
Wave Particle Duality and its relation to the Wave Function  Quantum Physics  2  
Given a wave function at t=0, how do you find the wave function at time t?  Advanced Physics Homework  2 