- #1

matrixrising

- 67

- 0

Is the wave function describing reality or does it describe the observers uncertainty about the system? I say that it's real but I would like to hear any comments or evidence that suggest the wave function isn't a description that has a one to one correspondence with a underlying reality.

It's like a function that describes a car driving 50 miles an hour for 1 mile. You can predict where the car will be at a half a mile or 3 quarters of a mile. The function describes the underlying reality of the car traveling for 1 mile at 50 MPH.

With a quantum system, we can't predict where the particle will be but we can assign probabilities to where the particle might be. The wave function describes an underlying reality where the particle is in a pure quantum state and goes through both slits at the same time to a mixed state where we assign probabilities and the particle has went through one slit or the other and the observer just doesn't know which slit.

So why is the function for the car traveling 50 MPH for 1 mile real and the function for the pure or mixed state of the wave function abstract? In other words, when there's a one to one correspondence, how can it be abstract?

Here's an article from phys.org:

So this is really the crux of the debate. Is randomness inherent in nature or is their some hidden variable or new physics that will do away with this inherent randomness. It goes back to Einstein.

So I see think there's a universal wave function in a pure state and when these pure states decohere into mixed states then local universes emerge. So it's like the wave function is the UN and everything from photons, atoms, rocks, trees and human beings are measuring devices that represent the wave function in these local environments.

A measuring device like the human brain or a photon can store bits and measure it's environment. So we can reduce classical Shanon entropy to zero. When this occurs we have a now moment for example, turning over a playing card that's face down. I think this speaks to a Quantum mind but that's a topic for another thread.

I wanted to hear the evidence that the wave function doesn't correspond to an underlying reality that's inherently random and it's just an abstract description of the observers uncertainty. How can we build quantum computers if superposition isn't an objective reality of the system's wave function?

It's like a function that describes a car driving 50 miles an hour for 1 mile. You can predict where the car will be at a half a mile or 3 quarters of a mile. The function describes the underlying reality of the car traveling for 1 mile at 50 MPH.

With a quantum system, we can't predict where the particle will be but we can assign probabilities to where the particle might be. The wave function describes an underlying reality where the particle is in a pure quantum state and goes through both slits at the same time to a mixed state where we assign probabilities and the particle has went through one slit or the other and the observer just doesn't know which slit.

So why is the function for the car traveling 50 MPH for 1 mile real and the function for the pure or mixed state of the wave function abstract? In other words, when there's a one to one correspondence, how can it be abstract?

Here's an article from phys.org:

“Consider a meteorologist who gives a prediction about tomorrow’s weather (for example, that it will be sunny with probability 33% and cloudy with probability 67%),” they write. “We may assume that classical mechanics accurately describes the relevant processes, so that the weather depends deterministically on the initial conditions. The fact that the prediction is probabilistic then solely reflects a lack of knowledge on the part of the meteorologist on these conditions. In particular, the forecast is not an element of reality associated with the atmosphere but rather reflects the subjective knowledge of the forecaster; a second meteorologist with different knowledge may issue an alternative forecast. Moving to quantum mechanics, one may ask whether the wave function that we assign to a quantum system should be seen as a subjective object (analogous to the weather forecast) representing the knowledge an experimenter has about the system or whether the wave function is an element of reality of the system (analogous to the weather being sunny).”

Colbeck and Renner argue that, unlike a weather forecast, the wave function of a quantum system fully describes reality itself, not simply a physicist's lack of knowledge of reality. In their paper, they logically show that a quantum system's wave function is in one-to-one correspondence with its “elements of reality,” i.e., the variables describing the system's behavior.

“This [idea that the wave function represents reality] means that the wave function includes all information that is in principle available about the system, i.e., nothing is missing,” Renner told Phys.org. “Nevertheless, even if we knew the wave function of a system (and therefore reality), its future behavior cannot be predicted with certainty. This means that there is inherent randomness in nature.”

So this is really the crux of the debate. Is randomness inherent in nature or is their some hidden variable or new physics that will do away with this inherent randomness. It goes back to Einstein.

Quantum mechanics is certainly imposing. But an inner voice tells me that it is not yet the real thing. The theory says a lot, but does not really bring us any closer to the secret of the "old one." I, at any rate, am convinced that He does not throw dice.

Einstein himself used variants of this quote at other times. For example, in a 1943 conversation with William Hermanns recorded in Hermanns' book Einstein and the Poet, Einstein said: "As I have said so many times, God doesn't play dice with the world." (p. 58)

So I see think there's a universal wave function in a pure state and when these pure states decohere into mixed states then local universes emerge. So it's like the wave function is the UN and everything from photons, atoms, rocks, trees and human beings are measuring devices that represent the wave function in these local environments.

A measuring device like the human brain or a photon can store bits and measure it's environment. So we can reduce classical Shanon entropy to zero. When this occurs we have a now moment for example, turning over a playing card that's face down. I think this speaks to a Quantum mind but that's a topic for another thread.

I wanted to hear the evidence that the wave function doesn't correspond to an underlying reality that's inherently random and it's just an abstract description of the observers uncertainty. How can we build quantum computers if superposition isn't an objective reality of the system's wave function?

Last edited: