Undergrad Is the wavefunction a physical quantity?

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on whether the wavefunction is a physical quantity or property of a quantum system. The Joint Committee for Guides in Metrology defines a physical quantity as something that can be quantified by measurement, but participants express uncertainty about applying this definition to the wavefunction. The consensus leans toward the notion that the wavefunction does not fit the criteria for a physical quantity, primarily due to the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics. The conversation also references the PBR theorem as a potential avenue for further exploration. Ultimately, the thread is closed due to the complexity of the topic and the challenges of moderating the discussion effectively.
lightarrow
Messages
1,966
Reaction score
64
Physics news on Phys.org
There's no really satisfactory answer to your question, in part because there is no really satisfactory definition of what a physical quantity is (a definition that links to wikipedia is no definition at all), in part because the mathematical formalism of quantum mechanics doesn't give much of anything except probabilities. However, it is very hard to imagine any definition of "quantified by measurement" that could be applied to a wave function... so the not really satisfactory answer to your question is "No".

You might want to try googling for "PBR theorem" though.

I'm going to close this thread now, not because there is anything wrong with the question, but because moderating the discussion is going to be a lot of work with no happy outcome an internet forum is poorly suited to discussing it. As always, everyone is encouraged to PM me or another mentor if they would like the thread reopened so that they can contribute.
 
Time reversal invariant Hamiltonians must satisfy ##[H,\Theta]=0## where ##\Theta## is time reversal operator. However, in some texts (for example see Many-body Quantum Theory in Condensed Matter Physics an introduction, HENRIK BRUUS and KARSTEN FLENSBERG, Corrected version: 14 January 2016, section 7.1.4) the time reversal invariant condition is introduced as ##H=H^*##. How these two conditions are identical?

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
7K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
743
Replies
1
Views
6K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 38 ·
2
Replies
38
Views
9K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
6K
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
4K