Is quantum wave function a real object or a mathematical tool?

[DanteKennedy]

I've read that there are a few interpretations about this (the ontic and epistemic view), but I'm curious about you guys. What's your opinion?

 

[martinbn]

When you say a real obejct, what do yo mean by that?

 

[Paul Colby]

Hum, is the number 3 a real object? I would say no but that’s just me.

 

[FactChecker]

Subatomic particles present wave-like behavior that is real and measurable but is not classical particle behavior. It's not just a mathematical trick.

 

[timmdeeg]

Whether or not the wave function real is in the sense of ontic is interpretation dependent.

 

[pines-demon]

I've read that there are a few interpretations about this (the ontic and epistemic view), but I'm curious about you guys. What's your opinion?

What is yours?

 

[gentzen]

Is quantum wave function a real object?​

I've read that there are a few interpretations about this

Independent of whether the wave function is real, it is certainly not an object. Just like an electric field is not an object either, despite being quite real.

 

[timmdeeg]

Independent of whether the wave function is real, it is certainly not an object. Just like an electric field is not an object either, despite being quite real.

What exactly is the difference between the wave function being an object and being ontic in case it is ontic according to a certain interpretation?

 

[PeterDonis]

What's your opinion?

Physics is not about opinions. Different QM interpretations say different, and mutually inconsistent, things about what the wave function is or is not, but they all make the same predictions for all experimental results, so there's no way of testing their claims. That's all we can say at this point.