Časlav Brukner, Richard Healey, and von Weizsäcker on the wave function

[bhobba]

PBR theorem rules out ontological models in which the wave function plays an epistemic role.

It's interesting if you take the view, as I do, that the quantum field is ontologically real, and in the non-relativistic limit QFT does not result in ordinary QM, with the state of ordinary QM being simply a calculational aid implied by Gleason. Perhaps the most natural formulation of ordInary QM is F, the second quantisation formulation:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228764947_Nine_formulations_of_quantum_mechanics

Thanks
Bill

 

[Matterwave]

It's interesting if you take the view, as I do, that the quantum field is ontologically real,

What precisely do you mean with "the quantum field"? You mean that in your view, the post-second-quantized "operator valued distributions" used in QFT corresponds to a real physical field?

Those are just operators on states in the Fock space. So what's the purpose of the states in this case?

 

[Sambuco]

It's interesting if you take the view, as I do, that the quantum field is ontologically real, and in the non-relativistic limit QFT does not result in ordinary QM, with the state of ordinary QM being simply a calculational aid implied by Gleason.

Yes, I agree that assuming quantum fields are ontic (whatever that may mean, bearing in mind the issues mentioned by @Matterwave in post #32) would imply that the wave function is ontic as well, in the non-relativistic limit.

Lucas.

 

[bhobba]

would imply that the wave function is ontic as well, in the non-relativistic limit.

Indeed, if the quantum field is ontic, it must still be ontic in the limit.

But the wave function is NOT that limit:
https://arxiv.org/abs/1712.06605

To be fair, some think that the difference (two Schrödinger equations instead of one) is 'trite'.

Thanks
Bill

 

[bhobba]

What precisely do you mean with "the quantum field"? You mean that in your view, the post-second-quantized "operator valued distributions" used in QFT corresponds to a real physical field?

Models a real physical field. As usual, the map is not the territory, but what it is mapping is ontologically real (or at least most take it as real). I must emphasise, of course, that this is an assumption: quantum fields could simply be aids to calculating probabilities, as Gleason's theorem suggests the state may be.

Thanks
Bill

 

[Sambuco]

To be fair, some think that the difference (two Schrödinger equations instead of one) is 'trite'.

Perhaps I include myself in that group Seriously, I do not think it is a trivial matter, but at the same time, I believe it does not alter the analysis regarding whether or not the wave function is ontic.

Lucas.