Is the wave function, an unreal tool, to partially model a real interaction?

[San K]

Is the wave function, an unreal (but a useful mathematical) tool, to partially model a real interaction?

i.e. can probabilities have an existence of their own? i.e. exist by themselves without referring to some underlying phenomena?

The wave function is a mathematical/probability tool. It is certainly a very useful tool.

However is the wave function a tool to model some real interaction/resource we don't know much about yet?

What does the wave-function tell us about this "unknown but real" interaction/phenomena?

 

[audioloop]

a good discusion

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=551554

 

[San K]

a good discusion

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=551554

thanks audioloop, it is indeed good and interesting

 

[audioloop]

Psi-Epistemic Theories: The Role of Symmetry
http://arxiv.org/abs/1303.2834

No-go theorems for ψ-epistemic models based on a continuity assumption
http://arxiv.org/abs/1211.1179

but as stated by Rudolph (epistemic proponent):
"Even though it seems very abstract, what we're saying in some sense is tied to space and time,"

"I prepare this, and then I measure that, and so on. So although it comes in very implicitly, I think that ultimately what we will understand is that space and time are just part of what this particular primate has evolved to find a use for – that what's actually going on in the universe doesn't care about space and time."--------
IMO exist various pure quantum states corrrespondent/consistent with only one ontic state
Epistemic-Ontic reality, i.e. wave functions are epistemic and there is some underlying ontic state.

in contrast in the Epìstemic-Epistemic scheme there is no underlying reality
or the Ontic proposition in which the wave function is the reality.

 

[Naty1]

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/co...quantum-state/

Why the quantum state isn’t (straightforwardly) probabilistic
...
Consider, for instance, a very simple interference experiment. We split a laser beam into two beams (Beam 1 and Beam 2, say) with a half-silvered mirror. We bring the beams back together at another such mirror and allow them to interfere. The resultant light ends up being split between (say) Output Path A and Output Path B, and we see how much light ends up at each. It’s well known that we can tune the two beams to get any result we like – all the light at A, all of it at B, or anything in between. It’s also well known that if we block one of the beams, we always get the same result – half the light at A, half the light at B. And finally, it’s well known that these results persist even if we turn the laser so far down that only one photon passes through at a time.

According to quantum mechanics, we should represent the state of each photon, as it passes through the system, as a superposition of “photon in Beam 1″ and “Photon in Beam 2″. According to the “state as physical” view, this is just a strange kind of non-local state a photon is. But on the “state as probability” view, it seems to be shorthand for “the photon is either in beam 1 or beam 2, with equal probability of each”. And that can’t be correct. For if the photon is in beam 1 (and so, according to quantum physics, described by a non-superposition state, or at least not by a superposition of beam states) we know we get result A half the time, result B half the time. And if the photon is in beam 2, we also know that we get result A half the time, result B half the time. So whichever beam it’s in, we should get result A half the time and result B half the time. And of course, we don’t. So, just by elementary reasoning – I haven’t even had to talk about probabilities – we seem to rule out the “state-as-probability” rule.

Indeed, we seem to be able to see, pretty directly, that something goes down each beam. If I insert an appropriate phase factor into one of the beams – either one of the beams – I can change things from “every photon ends up at A” to “every photon ends up at B”. In other words, things happening to either beam affect physical outcomes. It’s hard at best to see how to make sense of this unless both beams are being probed by physical “stuff” on every run of the experiment. That seems pretty definitively to support the idea that the superposition is somehow physical.

above from this discussion in these forums:

The quantum state cannot be interpreted statistically?
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=551554&page=3