- #1
Nickyv2423
- 46
- 3
Is there a psi ontic version of the Copenhagen interpretation ( where the wave function is regarded real)? Can the wave function be real in Copenhagen interpretation?
I think the von Neumann collapse interpretation can be considered as an ontic version of Copenhagen.Nickyv2423 said:Is there a psi ontic version of the Copenhagen interpretation ( where the wave function is regarded real)? Can the wave function be real in Copenhagen interpretation?
It means ontic. If you ask what ontic means in mathematical terms, then I have two answers.martinbn said:What does it mean for the wave function to be real?
Demystifier said:One is the PBR criterion
The PBR criterion is not concerned with the question whether any of the observables (position, momentum, spin, ...) is ontic. They only consider the question whether the wave function (which is not an observable) is ontic. And their conclusion is that it is. But note that conclusion is based on the assumption that there is something which is ontic. So if there is something ontic at all (which a priori may be something different from wave function, for instance it can be Bohmian particle positions), then wave function is ontic too.PeterDonis said:I'm not sure I understand how this criterion is supposed to work. Their criterion basically seems to be that something is a "physical property" if for any collection of probability distributions ##L## corresponding to that property, the distributions corresponding to different labels ##L##, ##L'## are disjoint (Fig. 1 in the paper and accompanying discussion). But, using their example of a classical point particle in one dimension, position would seem to be a physical property but there are certainly collections of probability distributions corresponding to position that are not disjoint (for example, any collection of Gaussians centered on different points). Does that mean position of a classical particle is not a physical property?
Demystifier said:The PBR criterion is not concerned with the question whether any of the observables (position, momentum, spin, ...) is ontic.
PeterDonis said:I'm not sure I understand how this criterion is supposed to work. Their criterion basically seems to be that something is a "physical property" if for any collection of probability distributions ##L## corresponding to that property, the distributions corresponding to different labels ##L##, ##L'## are disjoint (Fig. 1 in the paper and accompanying discussion). But, using their example of a classical point particle in one dimension, position would seem to be a physical property but there are certainly collections of probability distributions corresponding to position that are not disjoint (for example, any collection of Gaussians centered on different points). Does that mean position of a classical particle is not a physical property?
Position is ontic in classical mechanics, and the authors of the paper take it for granted. But that's not what they are concerned about. They want to determine whether something like probability amplitude can be ontic. So they devise a criterion which can be applied to probability amplitudes. A particle position is not a probability amplitude, so it's not so simple to apply the criterion to particle positions. A probability amplitude associated with an ontic position ##X## is something likePeterDonis said:Yet position does not seem to meet the paper's criterion for something ontic
atyy said:f you know x=a with certainty
Demystifier said:They want to determine whether something like probability amplitude can be ontic. So they devise a criterion which can be applied to probability amplitudes. A particle position is not a probability amplitude
PeterDonis said:But what if you don't? That's the case the paper appears to be discussing.
atyy said:I think the original paper introducing this definition gave a clearer motivation
The psi ontic Copenhagen interpretation is a theory in quantum mechanics that suggests that the wave function, or psi, is not just a mathematical representation of the probability of finding a particle in a certain state, but is an ontological reality that exists independently of observation.
The traditional Copenhagen interpretation states that the wave function only represents our knowledge or information about a system, and does not have an independent existence. The psi ontic interpretation, on the other hand, posits that the wave function is a real entity that exists regardless of observation.
There is currently no definitive experimental evidence to support the psi ontic interpretation. However, there are ongoing debates and experiments that aim to test the validity of this theory.
The psi ontic interpretation has significant implications for our understanding of the fundamental nature of reality and the role of consciousness in quantum mechanics. It also challenges traditional notions of causality and determinism.
In the psi ontic interpretation, entangled particles are seen as being connected by a real physical link, rather than just a mathematical correlation. This raises questions about the nature of this connection and how it can be affected by observation.