What do you think?
Rate this book
Wave Function: Essays on the Metaphysics of Quantum Mechanics
This is a new volume of original essays on the metaphysics of quantum mechanics. The essays address questions such as: What fundamental metaphysics is best motivated by quantum mechanics? What is the ontological status of the wave function? Does quantum mechanics support the existence of any other fundamental entities, e.g. particles? What is the nature of the fundamental space (or space-time manifold) of quantum mechanics? What is the relationship between the fundamental ontology of quantum mechanics and ordinary, macroscopic objects like tables, chairs, and persons? This collection includes a comprehensive introduction with a history of quantum mechanics and the debate over its metaphysical interpretation focusing especially on the main realist alternatives.
244 pages, ebook
First published December 3, 2012
15 people are currently reading
244 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 8 of 8 reviews
August 1, 2016
[The pet shop from the Dead Parrot Sketch. An irate JOHN CLEESE addresses ALYSSA NEY AND DAVID ALBERT]
CLEESE: I would like to register a complaint about this book on the metaphysics of quantum mechanics, what you edited not three years ago for Oxford University Press.
ANADA: Oh yeah? What's wrong wiv it?
CLEESE: I'll tell you what's wrong with it, my good man. Several of the contributors don't know the first thing about quantum mechanics, that's what's wrong with it.
ANADA: Nah, nah, nah, squire. You're mistaken. All 'ighly reputable experts on this very interesting and controversial subject.
CLEESE: Really. Then how do you explain the remark made on page 138 in the chapter The Nature of the Quantum State, where Professor Tim Maudlin says, apropos of the fact that wave functions are elements of a vector space, "Why think that there is any physical relation among physical states that corresponds to the mathematical operation of addition?"
ANADA: I don't get your drift.
CLEESE: Well, can't you think of a physical relation answering to that description?
ANADA: Dunno, squire. Can you?
CLEESE: Superposition.
ANADA: I'm sorry?
CLEESE: Superposition. It's one of the most fundamental principles of quantum mechanics.
ANADA: Oh, right! Superposition. Sorry, I thought you was referring to that copy of the Kama Sutra what 'appens to be lying open on the table over there.
CLEESE: There is no copy of the Kama Sutra on the table.
ANADA: Well, I know there was yesterday. Or maybe last week. Anyway, what about it?
CLEESE: Doesn't it bother you that Professor Maudlin is apparently unaware of something that is introduced in the first few pages of many standard textbooks on quantum mechanics?
ANADA: Now come on guv, you know that's not the right way to read a work of philosophy. 'E's probably being ironic or somefin. It's like Plato.
CLEESE: Plato?
ANADA: Yeah, Plato. In many of the dialogues, Plato makes his characters advance ideas what are obviously contrary to 'is true beliefs. Like in Cratylus, where 'e 'as the eponymous 'ero propose an obviously fallacious theory of lexical semantics.
CLEESE: But excuse me, Professor Maudlin's chapter is not a dialogue.
ANADA: It don't make no difference squire. Trust me. You're just nitpicking.
CLEESE: Very well, let us turn to the following essay, Against 3N-Dimensional Space, by Bradley Monton.
ANADA: Yeah. Classy piece of work. And don't get started on them unfounded accusations that Professor Monton was carrying on wiv some little tart what 'e was supervising. All 'earsay.
CLEESE: I am not interested in Professor Monton's sex life, I am interested in his knowledge of science. Here, on page 160, he claims that the information in a quantum system can be carried by a single property of the system in normal three-dimensional space. The key passage reads as follows: "I grant that the mathematical treatment of the wave function is as of a field in 3N-dimensional space. But the wave function is a representation of the quantum state of that N-particle system. This quantum state is the eigenstate of some observable. Now, what the eigenstate-to-eigenvalue link holds is that if the N-particle system is in an eigenstate of some observable, then the N-particle system actually has the property corresponding to that eigenstate."
ANADA: Beautifully expressed, squire. You can see why all the bints fall for 'im.
CLEESE: But Professor Monton appears to be saying that every quantum state is an eigenstate.
ANADA: And your point is?
CLEESE: Well, if that were the case, then you wouldn't need quantum mechanics.
ANADA: Oh, right, right, right. Now I get it. You orta express yourself more clearly, like what Professor Monton does. Look, 'e's just being ironic again.
CLEESE: But his argument here appears central to the whole chapter.
ANADA: That don't make no difference, squire. I keep telling you, look at Plato. Like, the Timaeus, that's complete bollocks from start to finish. E's just playfully subverting and deconstructing the science of 'is day.
CLEESE: There was no science in the 4th century BC.
ANADA: Proto-science if you like.
CLEESE: And deconstruction hadn't been invented yet.
ANADA: 'E was ahead of 'is time. Very smart geezer, Plato was. Like Professor Monton.
CLEESE: Listen, my good man, this just isn't acceptable. These so-called experts are ignorant. They're misinformed. They're unaware of basic principles and methods. They're not familiar with the literature. They're mistaken about fundamental ideas. They're phoning it in. They're talking crap. They're an insult to anyone who knows the first thing about the subject. They don't ... understand ... physics.
ANADA: Oh, alright, alright. You want a swap?
CLEESE: What've you got?
ANADA: 'Ow about a copy of David Wallace's The Emergent Multiverse? Can't give 'em away. People keep saying it's got too many bleedin' equations.
CLEESE: Done.
[Huge animated foot comes down and squashes both actors]
VOICEOVER: And now for something completely different. An intelligent and responsibly argued book about the philosophical implications of the Many Worlds Interpretation.
October 9, 2019
My favorite book of the year was Sean Carroll’s Something Deeply Hidden, I’m a fan boy of his. I would probably call him my favorite living author. Almost all of what is in these essays seems to be within his book, but his book is packaged coherently as a book should be. These essays have more math/physics equations and implicitly assume that the reader has a friendly relationship with the philosophy of science and at times does not flow coherently from one essay to the next.
I would say those who ignore the metaphysical status of the wave function risk never resolving the measurement problem. One of the authors made the point that General Relativity explains why a clock in a Boeing 747 will move slower relative to a clock on the ground while quantum physics will not. He’ll say perhaps it can be explained by auxiliary hypothesis or maybe not. He’ll state that implies the world is better explained by the continuous paradigm (GR) as opposed to discrete paradigm (QM).
One simple definition for the word metaphysics is that it is the study of first principles. We know the world exist of chairs and tables but we’re not always quite sure what go into making up the chairs or tables, what are their principle (first) components. There is the epistemological (the knowing), we see the chairs and tables, and the ontological (the essence), what are the chairs and tables made of. We knowingly see the phenomenon, the apple falling, but we never see the gravity, we transcendentally deduce and sincerely believe that gravity must be real and is described by a simple equation. By applying that same formal procedure to quantum particles, we end up with a measurement problem, entanglement, double slit anomalies and overall shaky feelings all the while being able to compute and predict to the 10th decimal place.
We know chairs and tables are not fundamental, but, rather, emerge from something more or even up to the point of not knowing if space and time are things-in-themselves or if the Schrodinger Wave Function is real. One of the essays frames the problem such that the wave function has one of three possibilities (1) it is everything, Everett III, (2) is something (but not everything), Bohemian, or (3) is nothing, therefore instantly solving the measurement problem. The Copenhagen Interpretation is when one says upon detection or interaction the wave function collapses and becomes a particle with in a field, but these essays are about the wave function and tend not to go there. (David Deutsche in his book, Fabric of Reality will strongly agree with (1) to the point that he’ll say that the best explanation for reality must be real and therefore he strongly believes in the MWI, and he’ll go on to argue that’s why we have free will).
The wave function of the universe under Bohemian Mechanics does not necessarily have time within it according to one of the essays. Under that paradigm, the universe would be deterministic and a block universe. Popper once made the point that the one of Parmenides (and by extension Plotinus or Spinoza) would give the block universe of Einstein. Time would be an illusion. Newton’s three Laws are vacuous in as much as they are impossible to exist in reality since a body is never absolutely at rest except relative to other bodies or a body is never alone without forces acting on it or even that force is defined as a circular tautology to the point that Ernst Mach had said Newton was impossible to be shown wrong. Up until the early 20th century classical physics was considered universal and necessary not particular and contingent. The current best explanation we have for reality is immanently incomplete.
One of the essays mentioned that the Hilbert Space in which the Schrödinger equations reside ontologically ‘reify the mathematical feature of the representation’ in order to ‘postulate physical facts’. As is my wont from time to time, I’ll make the statement that mathematics is not knowledge about the real world. People, who I deal with, universally think math is real and reifies the world. At the heart of what was in these varied essays is a variation of that, whether or not the math is a real property of the physical world. Maybe it is. Ultimately, we can only understand something and never can get at nothing since our Bayesian prior of existence bias our perspective. The negation of being does not give a something, e.g. an atheist does not mean ‘believe in no God’, and it just means ‘not believe in God’. (BTW, these essays did not mention the Quantum Bayesians (or just briefly did) while Sean Carroll mentions them in detail).
These are cleverly presented essays. At times, they can disagree with previously presented essays and therefore do not read as smoothly as a book would. There is a presumption of philosophical expertise expected from the reader. The math/physics presented is mostly at a superficial level and can be glossed over with little loss in understanding. Spread throughout (but not coherently) there are all of the interesting topics of Philosophy of Science within these essays and that alone makes this book a worthwhile read.
[I felt like appealing to a quantum random number generator in order to see if I should give this book five stars or four stars, but I was afraid I would have to kill a cat, and over all I enjoyed this book but it probably deserves only four stars].
I would say those who ignore the metaphysical status of the wave function risk never resolving the measurement problem. One of the authors made the point that General Relativity explains why a clock in a Boeing 747 will move slower relative to a clock on the ground while quantum physics will not. He’ll say perhaps it can be explained by auxiliary hypothesis or maybe not. He’ll state that implies the world is better explained by the continuous paradigm (GR) as opposed to discrete paradigm (QM).
One simple definition for the word metaphysics is that it is the study of first principles. We know the world exist of chairs and tables but we’re not always quite sure what go into making up the chairs or tables, what are their principle (first) components. There is the epistemological (the knowing), we see the chairs and tables, and the ontological (the essence), what are the chairs and tables made of. We knowingly see the phenomenon, the apple falling, but we never see the gravity, we transcendentally deduce and sincerely believe that gravity must be real and is described by a simple equation. By applying that same formal procedure to quantum particles, we end up with a measurement problem, entanglement, double slit anomalies and overall shaky feelings all the while being able to compute and predict to the 10th decimal place.
We know chairs and tables are not fundamental, but, rather, emerge from something more or even up to the point of not knowing if space and time are things-in-themselves or if the Schrodinger Wave Function is real. One of the essays frames the problem such that the wave function has one of three possibilities (1) it is everything, Everett III, (2) is something (but not everything), Bohemian, or (3) is nothing, therefore instantly solving the measurement problem. The Copenhagen Interpretation is when one says upon detection or interaction the wave function collapses and becomes a particle with in a field, but these essays are about the wave function and tend not to go there. (David Deutsche in his book, Fabric of Reality will strongly agree with (1) to the point that he’ll say that the best explanation for reality must be real and therefore he strongly believes in the MWI, and he’ll go on to argue that’s why we have free will).
The wave function of the universe under Bohemian Mechanics does not necessarily have time within it according to one of the essays. Under that paradigm, the universe would be deterministic and a block universe. Popper once made the point that the one of Parmenides (and by extension Plotinus or Spinoza) would give the block universe of Einstein. Time would be an illusion. Newton’s three Laws are vacuous in as much as they are impossible to exist in reality since a body is never absolutely at rest except relative to other bodies or a body is never alone without forces acting on it or even that force is defined as a circular tautology to the point that Ernst Mach had said Newton was impossible to be shown wrong. Up until the early 20th century classical physics was considered universal and necessary not particular and contingent. The current best explanation we have for reality is immanently incomplete.
One of the essays mentioned that the Hilbert Space in which the Schrödinger equations reside ontologically ‘reify the mathematical feature of the representation’ in order to ‘postulate physical facts’. As is my wont from time to time, I’ll make the statement that mathematics is not knowledge about the real world. People, who I deal with, universally think math is real and reifies the world. At the heart of what was in these varied essays is a variation of that, whether or not the math is a real property of the physical world. Maybe it is. Ultimately, we can only understand something and never can get at nothing since our Bayesian prior of existence bias our perspective. The negation of being does not give a something, e.g. an atheist does not mean ‘believe in no God’, and it just means ‘not believe in God’. (BTW, these essays did not mention the Quantum Bayesians (or just briefly did) while Sean Carroll mentions them in detail).
These are cleverly presented essays. At times, they can disagree with previously presented essays and therefore do not read as smoothly as a book would. There is a presumption of philosophical expertise expected from the reader. The math/physics presented is mostly at a superficial level and can be glossed over with little loss in understanding. Spread throughout (but not coherently) there are all of the interesting topics of Philosophy of Science within these essays and that alone makes this book a worthwhile read.
[I felt like appealing to a quantum random number generator in order to see if I should give this book five stars or four stars, but I was afraid I would have to kill a cat, and over all I enjoyed this book but it probably deserves only four stars].
April 12, 2023
It is incredible how this collection of essays has been published at all, since I have not fallen into such a pessimism towards the current state of the world as to suspect that publishers no longer know that their publications are, as surprising as it may seem, to be read. Indeed, literally anything can be done to this book, except that – it just cannot be read. The maths, jargons, esoteric concepts all pose a challenge to anyone trying to comprehend this material, but these are not the source of the fundamental problem, since, having a solid formation in maths, physical chemistry, and metaphysics, I still find many chunks of words repugnant to a functional human intellect. The fundamental problem, I suspect, is the lack of common sense in the logic flow of these writings, the virtue of ‘sound reasoning of a healthy mind’ highly praised by Aristotle appears to be entirely absent in most essays. This is especially seen in the one by Jill North on ‘The Structure of a Quantum World’, which is likely a primitive AI composition and would not have passed the simplest Turing Test. The very intriguing phenomenon is that the only fully intelligible essay is written by Bradley Monton, who ironically is famous for thinking that quantum mechanics is plainly false, and no one can blame him for thinking that after reading other essays in this book. The introduction, however, is otherwise meritorious insofar as it sketches out a brief history of the development of QM and its popular interpretations. Perhaps it really comes down to the philosophical archetype one ultimately emulates, although I would say the wavefunction ultra-realists demonstrate not so much a neo-Platonic mindset as an anti-Platonic one: they make all the metaphysical mistakes committed by the former but with none of their mesmerising transcendental beauty. I genuinely wish the ontological ugliness (i.e., what they call simplicity) of the models such as the One Particle in the 3N-Dimensional World is not what motivates them, but I have little justification to prove that my wish is not irrational. In conclusion, if you, unfortunately, also happen to be interested in quantum mechanics and its metaphysical implications, it may be better to start from Cicero.
January 20, 2023
Very nice snapshot of the field (metaphysical issues in the foundations of quantum mechanics) as it was about a decade ago. No mention of the PBR theorem (which was very new at the time), but overall these contributions don't seem very dated.
September 17, 2021
Very academic treatment of the wave function. I like Baggot's treatment of this topic more. You can tell I liked it better because I wrote a longer review. This tackles the same issues but is too damn dry.
July 24, 2015
This is a fascinating collection of essays, each aiming to understand the metaphysical consequences of quantum mechanics. All essays take a realist approach to the wave function, though they mostly represent different proposals.
Overall, like any collection of essays, it is something of a mixed bag. It is somewhat helpful as an introduction to various positions by not privileging only one interpretation. However, the essays are only able to offer a snapshot of the ontology proposed by each individual contributor. Further, quantum mechanics is complex and can hardly be interpreted without engaging the mathematics involved.
Alyssa Ney, thankfully, offers a helpful introductory chapter wherein much of the basic mathematical concepts are explained. It is slow reading for someone who, like myself, is not experienced with the necessary mathematics. But, taking time with it helps prepare the reader for the essays in the book.
Overall, I think this book is worth reading for several goals:
1) for finding out what kind of revision to our assumed ontology might be required by quantum mechanics.
2) for understanding the various kinds of philosophical interpretations of quantum mechanics available.
3) for understanding the Everettian "many worlds" interpretation and the multiple metaphysical interpretations available for it.
Worth efforts for philosophers wanting to understanding the implications of quantum mechanics for metaphysics and worth effort for scientists looking for help making ontological sense of the phenomena of quantum mechanics.
Overall, like any collection of essays, it is something of a mixed bag. It is somewhat helpful as an introduction to various positions by not privileging only one interpretation. However, the essays are only able to offer a snapshot of the ontology proposed by each individual contributor. Further, quantum mechanics is complex and can hardly be interpreted without engaging the mathematics involved.
Alyssa Ney, thankfully, offers a helpful introductory chapter wherein much of the basic mathematical concepts are explained. It is slow reading for someone who, like myself, is not experienced with the necessary mathematics. But, taking time with it helps prepare the reader for the essays in the book.
Overall, I think this book is worth reading for several goals:
1) for finding out what kind of revision to our assumed ontology might be required by quantum mechanics.
2) for understanding the various kinds of philosophical interpretations of quantum mechanics available.
3) for understanding the Everettian "many worlds" interpretation and the multiple metaphysical interpretations available for it.
Worth efforts for philosophers wanting to understanding the implications of quantum mechanics for metaphysics and worth effort for scientists looking for help making ontological sense of the phenomena of quantum mechanics.
May 16, 2019
This is a collection of essays on the ontology of the wave function. The target audience is relatively narrow: the intersection of those who have a basic knowledge of quantum theory and those with a kink for analytic metaphysics. The essays vary in complexity/difficulty, and I admit I found one of them (4. Reality and the role of the wave function in quantum theory) too difficult to follow.
Overall, this collection of essays seems a good place to start for understanding the palette of philosophical views available today on that most fundamental of questions - 'What exists?' - assuming some previous knowledge of physics. Since I started out largely unbiased/uncommitted to any of these views, the greatest difficulty I encountered was that the essays were changing my views back and forth. For a while, I was convinced of quantum wave monism; shortly after, it seemed plain silly. Reality flickered back and forth between being 3(4) and 3N-dimensional, and so on. Perhaps this is a good sign for the book.
I found the best essays to be Alyssa Ney's sweeping Introduction and 8. Ontological reduction and the wave function ontology, Tim Maudlin's lucid 6. The nature of the quantum state, Jill North's 9. The structure of a quantum world, and David Wallace's 10. A prolegomenon to the ontology of the Everett interpretation.
And right now, I am an Everettian.
Overall, this collection of essays seems a good place to start for understanding the palette of philosophical views available today on that most fundamental of questions - 'What exists?' - assuming some previous knowledge of physics. Since I started out largely unbiased/uncommitted to any of these views, the greatest difficulty I encountered was that the essays were changing my views back and forth. For a while, I was convinced of quantum wave monism; shortly after, it seemed plain silly. Reality flickered back and forth between being 3(4) and 3N-dimensional, and so on. Perhaps this is a good sign for the book.
I found the best essays to be Alyssa Ney's sweeping Introduction and 8. Ontological reduction and the wave function ontology, Tim Maudlin's lucid 6. The nature of the quantum state, Jill North's 9. The structure of a quantum world, and David Wallace's 10. A prolegomenon to the ontology of the Everett interpretation.
And right now, I am an Everettian.
Want to read
October 22, 20161) Two mathematical frameworks were invented to describe quantum mechanics: Matrix Mechanics(Heisenberg, Born, Jordan) and Wave Mechanics(Schrödinger). These frameworks were proven to be equivalent by Schrödinger, however Heisenberg did not accept the wave version because he thought only states that had reality were the observables represented by matrices. Even Bohr, who insisted that reality should be limited to what is observed, used both frameworks.
2) Dimensions of a Hilbert Space(Matrix Mechanics) represents possible states. For instance, two dimensional Hilbert space is enough to describe the spin of a particle because particles can have only spin up or spin down.
3) Configuration Space is 3-dimensional for an individual system. A system of N particles may be represented as a system of N points in a 3-dimensional coordinate space or alternatively as 1 point in a 3N-dimensional configuration space. This has troubled Schrödinger as he tried to understand wave function realistically.
4) For nonrelativistic systems, the law specifying how the state vector or wave function of any system changes over time is the time-dependent Schrödinger equation, which has 2 features: It is deterministic, which means given the state of a system at a time one can predict with certainty what the state of the system will be in the future, and it is linear, which means
if |A> evolves to |A'> and |B> evolves to |B'>
then
a|A>+b|B> evolves to a|A'>+b|B'>
5) Linearity of Schrödinger Equation gives us the Measurement Problem. For example, in the Schrödinger's Cat Experiment, the wave function of whole system:
1/sqr(2)*|no gas released>(device)*|cat>(alive) + 1/sqr(2)*|gas released>(device)*|cat>(dead)
and this equation never evolves one of the states. However, what we observe is not a superposition of cat being both alive and dead. We observe either gas released and cat is alive or no gas released and cat is dead but not both.
To solve this problem Paul Dirac and John von Neumann has developed modified version of quantum mechanics. According to Von Neumann, there are 2 kinds of process: Process 1, interaction between a quantum system and something external to the system, which is stochastic. Process 2, linear evolution of a quantum system. However, this type of modification arises a new question: "What is measurement?"
6) Bohm developed his own theory, which is known as Bohmian Mechanics. This theory says wave function of the system does not contain all information about the system unlike quantum mechanics. According to Bohm, particles have always definite properties. Because the theory contains more variables than that the quantum state contains, it's a hidden-variables theory. In 1927, de Broglie rejected his pilot-wave theory under criticism from Wolfgang Pauli at Solway Congress and a later critique by von Neumann. But Bohm responded to both criticisms.
In Bohmian Mechanics, wave function is taken as a universal wave function, which describe the universe as whole, and exists as a filed in configuration space. This mechanics is also deterministic like quantum mechanics.
7) According to Everett, when the observation is made, the equations evolves into:
1/sqr(2)*|belief cat is alive>|no gas released>(device)*|cat>(alive) + 1/sqr(2)*|belief cat is dead>|gas released>(device)*|cat>(dead)
Therefore, there is no "collapse" but divided universe in one of which cat is alive and in other cat is dead.
8) There is another alternative to quantum mechanics, unlike Bohmian mechanics it also says wave function is complete description of system. It's called The Ghirardi–Rimini–Weber theory, which says wave function collapse happening spontaneously without measurement. As the complexity of the wave function increases, the probability of a jump increases.
9) The view that wave function of a system is everything there fundamentally is called wave function monism. All but Bohmian Mechanics accept this assumption.
The view that wave function is a physical object, a field in configuration space is called wave function realism.
10) Bell proposed what is called local beables to connect quantum predictions with our experience. Local beables exist somewhere in ordinary space. He said theories were required to have local beables if they were to allow local causality.
2) Dimensions of a Hilbert Space(Matrix Mechanics) represents possible states. For instance, two dimensional Hilbert space is enough to describe the spin of a particle because particles can have only spin up or spin down.
3) Configuration Space is 3-dimensional for an individual system. A system of N particles may be represented as a system of N points in a 3-dimensional coordinate space or alternatively as 1 point in a 3N-dimensional configuration space. This has troubled Schrödinger as he tried to understand wave function realistically.
4) For nonrelativistic systems, the law specifying how the state vector or wave function of any system changes over time is the time-dependent Schrödinger equation, which has 2 features: It is deterministic, which means given the state of a system at a time one can predict with certainty what the state of the system will be in the future, and it is linear, which means
if |A> evolves to |A'> and |B> evolves to |B'>
then
a|A>+b|B> evolves to a|A'>+b|B'>
5) Linearity of Schrödinger Equation gives us the Measurement Problem. For example, in the Schrödinger's Cat Experiment, the wave function of whole system:
1/sqr(2)*|no gas released>(device)*|cat>(alive) + 1/sqr(2)*|gas released>(device)*|cat>(dead)
and this equation never evolves one of the states. However, what we observe is not a superposition of cat being both alive and dead. We observe either gas released and cat is alive or no gas released and cat is dead but not both.
To solve this problem Paul Dirac and John von Neumann has developed modified version of quantum mechanics. According to Von Neumann, there are 2 kinds of process: Process 1, interaction between a quantum system and something external to the system, which is stochastic. Process 2, linear evolution of a quantum system. However, this type of modification arises a new question: "What is measurement?"
6) Bohm developed his own theory, which is known as Bohmian Mechanics. This theory says wave function of the system does not contain all information about the system unlike quantum mechanics. According to Bohm, particles have always definite properties. Because the theory contains more variables than that the quantum state contains, it's a hidden-variables theory. In 1927, de Broglie rejected his pilot-wave theory under criticism from Wolfgang Pauli at Solway Congress and a later critique by von Neumann. But Bohm responded to both criticisms.
In Bohmian Mechanics, wave function is taken as a universal wave function, which describe the universe as whole, and exists as a filed in configuration space. This mechanics is also deterministic like quantum mechanics.
7) According to Everett, when the observation is made, the equations evolves into:
1/sqr(2)*|belief cat is alive>|no gas released>(device)*|cat>(alive) + 1/sqr(2)*|belief cat is dead>|gas released>(device)*|cat>(dead)
Therefore, there is no "collapse" but divided universe in one of which cat is alive and in other cat is dead.
8) There is another alternative to quantum mechanics, unlike Bohmian mechanics it also says wave function is complete description of system. It's called The Ghirardi–Rimini–Weber theory, which says wave function collapse happening spontaneously without measurement. As the complexity of the wave function increases, the probability of a jump increases.
9) The view that wave function of a system is everything there fundamentally is called wave function monism. All but Bohmian Mechanics accept this assumption.
The view that wave function is a physical object, a field in configuration space is called wave function realism.
10) Bell proposed what is called local beables to connect quantum predictions with our experience. Local beables exist somewhere in ordinary space. He said theories were required to have local beables if they were to allow local causality.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
Displaying 1 - 8 of 8 reviews