More evidence the wave function is real but non physical

I have been posting this paper for years on this site and others.

The wave-function is real but nonphysical: A view from counterfactual quantum cryptography

Counterfactual quantum cryptography (CQC) is used here as a tool to assess the status of the quantum state: Is it real/ontic (an objective state of Nature) or epistemic (a state of the observer's knowledge)? In contrast to recent approaches to wave function ontology, that are based on realist models of quantum theory, here we recast the question as a problem of communication between a sender (Bob), who uses interaction-free measurements, and a receiver (Alice), who observes an interference pattern in a Mach-Zehnder set-up. An advantage of our approach is that it allows us to define the concept of "physical", apart from "real". In instances of counterfactual quantum communication, reality is ascribed to the interaction-freely measured wave function (ψ) because Alice deterministically infers Bob's measurement. On the other hand, ψ does not correspond to the physical transmission of a particle because it produced no detection on Bob's apparatus. We therefore conclude that the wave function in this case (and by extension, generally) is real, but not physical. Characteristically for classical phenomena, the reality and physicality of objects are equivalent, whereas for quantum phenomena, the former is strictly weaker. As a concrete application of this idea, the nonphysical reality of the wavefunction is shown to be the basic nonclassical phenomenon that underlies the security of CQC.

arxiv.org...

Now there has been an experiment that confirms this.

Researchers achieve direct counterfactual quantum communication

In the non-intuitive quantum domain, the phenomenon of counterfactuality is defined as the transfer of a quantum state from one site to another without any quantum or classical particle transmitted between them. Counterfactuality requires a quantum channel between sites, which means that there exists a tiny probability that a quantum particle will cross the channel—in that event, the run of the system is discarded and a new one begins. It works because of the wave-particle duality that is fundamental to particle physics: Particles can be described by wave function alone.

phys.org...

Again, this is the transmition of information from point A to B without the need of a physical medium to transmit the information.

Using this effect, the authors of the new study achieved direct communication between sites without carrier particle transmission. In the setup they designed, two single-photon detectors were placed in the output ports of the last of an array of beam splitters. According to the quantum Zeno effect, it's possible to predict which single-photon detector will "click" when photons are allowed to pass. The system's nested interferometers served to measure the state of the system, thereby preventing it from changing.

Alice transfers a single photon to the nested interferometer; it is detected by three single photon detectors, D0, D1 and Df. If D0 or D1 click, Alice concludes a logic result of one or zero. If Df clicks, the result is considered inconclusive, and is discarded in post-processing. After the communication of all bits, the researchers were able to reassemble the image—a monochrome bitmap of a Chinese knot. Black pixels were defined as logic 0, while white pixels were defined as logic 1.

phys.org...

Here's the abstract from the paper:

Intuition from our everyday lives gives rise to the belief that information exchanged between remote parties is carried by physical particles. Surprisingly, in a recent theoretical study [Salih H, Li ZH, Al-Amri M, Zubairy MS (2013) Phys Rev Lett 110:170502], quantum mechanics was found to allow for communication, even without the actual transmission of physical particles. From the viewpoint of communication, this mystery stems from a (nonintuitive) fundamental concept in quantum mechanics—wave-particle duality. All particles can be described fully by wave functions. To determine whether light appears in a channel, one refers to the amplitude of its wave function. However, in counterfactual communication, information is carried by the phase part of the wave function. Using a single-photon source, we experimentally demonstrate the counterfactual communication and successfully transfer a monochrome bitmap from one location to another by using a nested version of the quantum Zeno effect.

www.pnas.org...

This is a game changer. I have often compared the wave function to what we call spirit. It's the immaterial aspect of all things. One of the horrible consequences of materialism is the exclusion of an immaterial reality that makes not just humans but all things connected.

Western Materialism should have died a long time ago. It hasn't because materialism has become a religion.

I know a lot of this stems from the rift between the Catholic Church and how they tried to control scientific thought. The problem here is, materialist allowed that rift to extened into spirituality. Religion and spiritualitty is 2 different things. Religion can have man made constructs and some can be destructive. Spirituality doesn't have any of these constructs.

Hopefully science starts to openly accept that there's an immaterial aspect to what we call reality.

a reply to: neoholographic

The wave function is real, is's a quantum mechanical construct.

But if it's non physical, then my guess is it's intermingling between the dimensions of information, consciousness, & energy.

I wonder the percentage of immaterial versus material is. Similar to the universe and dark matter I assume.

a reply to: neoholographic

But surely the wave function (I'm assuming you are referring to the Schrodinger wave function) represents an oscillation in probability distribution rather than a spatial oscillation in some sort of medium?

a reply to: chr0naut

I want to hear this.

a reply to: neoholographic

To put what Chr0naut said in layman's terms: the wave function was never called a physical thing in the first place. It's not an actual wave (like a sound wave or light wave), but actually a mathematical function, basically a formula just like E=mc^2 and such.

Of course the universe isn't populated with little "E=mc^2", "F=mv2/r", etc signs floating about. I don't understand how this comes as a shock to you?

Once again you have misunderstood key principles of physics. You should read your own links - in none of them do they say that wavefunctions are actually physical. A wavefunction is basically just a probability distribution curve, just like in statistics.

a reply to: neoholographic

This is like that time when you thought that "algorithms" were robots, and that algorithms were going to end the world.

a reply to: swanne

First off, you don't have a clue as to what you're talking about as usual. I never said algorithms were robots and I remember that debate and how foolish you looked in it and then you vanished because you couldn't respond. I talked about how intelligent algorithms will run robots just like they're starting to run everything else.

With the wave function you're wrong again. Their has been in a debate in physics since quantum mechanics first arrived on the scene on whether the wave function is ontic(real) or epistemic (statistical).

You said:

To put what Chr0naut said in layman's terms: the wave function was never called a physical thing in the first place.

Your ignorance and lack of research is astounding. Like I said, this debate about the wave function being real or not real has been going on since it's foundation. Here's a recent paper that tried to show the wave function is physical.

At the heart of the weirdness for which the field of quantum mechanics is famous is the wavefunction, a powerful but mysterious entity that is used to determine the probabilities that quantum particles will have certain properties. Now, a preprint posted online on 14 November1 reopens the question of what the wavefunction represents — with an answer that could rock quantum theory to its core. Whereas many physicists have generally interpreted the wavefunction as a statistical tool that reflects our ignorance of the particles being measured, the authors of the latest paper argue that, instead, it is physically real.

The debate over how to understand the wavefunction goes back to the 1920s. In the ‘Copenhagen interpretation’ pioneered by Danish physicist Niels Bohr, the wavefunction was considered a computational tool: it gave correct results when used to calculate the probability of particles having various properties, but physicists were encouraged not to look for a deeper explanation of what the wavefunction is.

Albert Einstein also favoured a statistical interpretation of the wavefunction, although he thought that there had to be some other as-yet-unknown underlying reality. But others, such as Austrian physicist Erwin Schrödinger, considered the wavefunction, at least initially, to be a real physical object.

www.nature.com...

Let me repeat this one part. This shows that you don't even bother to do a little research before you post. The debate about the nature of the wave function has been going on since the inception of quantum mechanics.

The debate over how to understand the wavefunction goes back to the 1920s.

You said:

To put what Chr0naut said in layman's terms: the wave function was never called a physical thing in the first place.

This is just a flat out lie and you don't even have to be deeply immersed in the history of QM to know there has been this debate about the wave function for years.

Here's a story about a recent debate on this issue.

Physicists debate whether quantum math is as real as atoms

Such experiments have persuaded many physicists to live comfortably with the wave function’s probabilities, happy to comply with an often-repeated quantum theorist creed: “Shut up and calculate.” But others insist that the wave function or quantum state has real physical existence. Whether it’s real or merely a tool for calculating probabilities is today “perhaps the most hotly debated issue in all of quantum foundations,” quantum physicist Matthew Leifer writes in a recent paper in the journal Quanta.

Dressing this debate in philosophical jargon, Leifer and others in the field label the two possibilities as “ontic” and “epistemic.” These are not words you should try to use at home. But when eavesdropping on quantum debates, you should know that “ontic” refers to something physically real; “epistemic” alludes to mere knowledge about something.

www.sciencenews.org...

Again, what this shows is that you and others if they agree with your nonsense are WOEFULLY ignorant about a basic debate regarding the nature of the wave function that has been going on since the inception of QM.

a reply to: neoholographic

Whatever man, believe what you want to believe. Seems to me like you have all figured it out, as always.

As for me I have a job and must take my leave. I shall leave you have the last word. After all, if reality is an illusion, as you profess, then there is no point to this debate anyway, eh?

originally posted by: swanne
a reply to: neoholographic

Whatever man, believe what you want to believe. Seems to me like you have all figured it out, as always.

Translation:

I tried again to refute Neo but jumped the gun. I failed because I didn't do basic research into the history of QM.

a reply to: neoholographic

Aannd as usual, you're mixing up two different things together just to confuse things up even more. Yes, the spatial distribution and properties of particles, as modeled by a wave function, is real (and also the topic of debate amongst those who oppose QM). But the function itself is just an abstract, mathematical formula.

What is it you want to hear?

-you're right! We're all idiots!

-of course neo! Mathematical functions are actual, physical symbols that float in space! Why didn't we see that?

-you're awesome neo!

Take your pick. I actually did study QM, and even taught it. I even predicted and eventually spotted Dark matter particles signature in black hole spectrums. But who am I to argue with the great Neo?

Good bye!

a reply to: swanne

You said:

you're right!

I know

of course neo!

Glad you realize that your statement was asinine.

you're awesome neo!

I AGREE!!

On a serious note, everything you say falls flat when you make comments like this:

To put what Chr0naut said in layman's terms: the wave function was never called a physical thing in the first place.

The debate about the nature of the wave function has been going on since the 1920's. It's still being hotly debated today. You don't have to be a Theoretical Physicist to know something so basic.

You then say you studied and taught QM. Why should anyone believe this when you don't know about something so simple?

The debate about the true nature of the wave function is at the heart of QM and has been around since it's inception. Part of the reason why we have hidden variable theories is because of the debate about the nature of the wave function.

Many don't want to accept that it's real because of things like superposition, entanglement and non locality. They say the wave function just represents our lack of knowledge about some underlying physics or hidden variable.

So far, there doesn't look like there's a hidden variable because of Bell's Theorem.

Scientist propose hidden variables because they want certainty but at the heart of QM is uncertainty.

So again, it's just astounding that you don't know the basic history of QM and the debate about the nature of the wave function which has been at the heart of QM since it's inception.

I wonder whether the OP is aware of this critical appraisal of Pusey's theorem. It's been five years since Pusey and friends publshed their last revised version of their 'earthshaking' theorem and yet the earth remains disappointingly unshaken. Moreover, the theorem remains untested. Apparently it may not be possible even to verify it.

a reply to: Astyanax

Of course I am but that has nothing to do with the debate.

Yes, people have refuted Pusey and I don't agree with their conclusions. I didn't quote it to say I support it. I quoted it to respond to an asinine comment.

To put what Chr0naut said in layman's terms: the wave function was never called a physical thing in the first place.

Saying the wave function was NEVER called physical is just a lie. So I talked about the theorem to show that there is a debate about the nature of the wave function not to support the conclusion of the theorem.

This is pretty obvious if you just take the time to read the posts before responding.

If you read any of my post you would know I don't think the wave function is physical. I think it's real but non physical.

a reply to: neoholographic

" Albert Einstein also favoured a statistical interpretation of the wavefunction...."

Didn't Einstein say that God doesn't play dice?

originally posted by: Alien Abduct
a reply to: neoholographic

" Albert Einstein also favoured a statistical interpretation of the wavefunction...."

Didn't Einstein say that God doesn't play dice?

Yep and Einstein was wrong. Local realism has been dead for a while now but materialist try to hold onto it anyway.

Quantum physics: Death by experiment for local realism

A fundamental scientific assumption called local realism conflicts with certain predictions of quantum mechanics. Those predictions have now been verified, with none of the loopholes that have compromised earlier tests.

www.nature.com...

Here's another recent experiment.

Proving Einstein Wrong: Rolling the Dice on Randomness in Quantum Mechanics

Albert Einstein once said that “God does not play dice with the universe,” implying that quantum particles are not strictly randomized. According to his principle of local realism, Einstein believed that each particle needs to have a pre-existing value to be measurable. In other words, if there is no value before a measurement is made, a measurement can’t be made.

For those studying in the field of quantum mechanics, however, local realism just doesn’t pan out, and scientists have been trying to prove it ever since John Stewart Bell first created ‘Bell’s Theorem,’ which states that “No physical theory of local hidden variables can ever reproduce all of the predictions of quantum mechanics.”

Participants contributed to the study by playing a video game created by the scientists who ran the project. In the game, players independently introduced sequences of 0s and 1s as randomly as they could. Those sequences, in turn, controlled the experiments by determining the measurements of quantum particles in 12 labs.

Each of the bits created by the players gave the scientists millions of unpredictable, independent decisions with which to measure their particles. The independence of the decisions was critical as without it the experiment would not be able to reach a valid conclusion about the Bell theory. Going by that theory, experimenters must do their measurements using human decisions, and when they calculate the “Bell parameter” (or, parameter S), S cannot be greater than 2. If it is, then the inequality has been violated, and an intrinsically quantum phenomenon is present. Translation: if S is greater than 2, then there is an element of randomness within quantum mechanics.

So, local reality may be a big load of bunk as far as quantum mechanics is concerned, and randomness may be necessary to understand quantum mechanics.

Upon looking over the data from the experiment, it was determined that Bell’s theory had been violated, confirming the importance of randomness in quantum mechanics and refuting Einstein’s theory of local realism.

edgylabs.com...

The connection between human consciousness and quantum mechanics is a profound one. Also randomness can be deterministic. It all depends on how restrained the probable outcomes are.

When you look at a pair of dice it's 2-12. With cards it's 52. So what outcomes occur is random but what outcomes can occur is non random. So the question becomes how restrained are the probabilities that give us a universe like ours.

We know the Cosmological Constant is highly fine tuned. Now we need to know how restrained are the probabilities that gave us our universe. In String Theory they speculate it's 10^500 false vacua. Some say it's infinite.

So do we live in a Royal Flush universe where it's 40 possible hands that can give you a Royal Flush out of 2,598,960 total hands or is it more like three of a kind where there's 54,912 out of 2,598,960 total hands.

So the question is, how many possible universes can emerge and what percentage of that number gives us universes that looks like ours.

This will tell us a lot because the more restrained the possible outcomes are the more likely it was Created by an Inteligence.

The value of the Cosmological Constant has thrown everything off and I believe it shows the probabilities are VERY RESTRAINED and points to a Self Aware Intelligence that restrained the possibilities that can occur.

Cosmological constant problem

In cosmology, the cosmological constant problem or vacuum catastrophe is the disagreement in measured values of the cosmological constant. In general relativity, the value is measured by the vacuum energy density to be a small value. In cosmological constant, the zero-point energy suggested by c, is measured to be much larger.

Depending on the assumptions, the discrepancy ranges from 40 to more than 100 orders of magnitude, a state of affairs described by Hobson et al. (2006) as "the worst theoretical prediction in the history of physics."[1]

en.wikipedia.org...

This is a very interesting subject and I confess, even though I'm interested in quantum physics, I'm certainly NO expert. There seems to be disagreement on whether a wave function can be successfully explained by using a mathematical formula. I bookmarked an interesting article that discusses the existence of parallel universes and how quantum mechanics might prove this. Bill Poirier a professor of chemistry and biochemistry, published a theory called "Many Interesting Worlds", in 2010, on quantum wave mechanics, that he says "holds up mathematically."

The Texas Tech University professor of chemistry and biochemistry said that quantum mechanics is a strange realm of reality. Particles at this atomic and subatomic level can appear to be in two places at once. Because the activity of these particles is so iffy, scientists can only describe what's happening mathematically by "drawing" the tiny landscape as a wave of probability. Chemists like Poirier draw these landscapes to better understand chemical reactions. Despite the "uncertainty" of particle location, quantum wave mechanics allows scientists to make precise predictions. The rules for doing so are well established. At least, they were until Poirier's recent "eureka" moment when he found a completely new way to draw quantum landscapes. Instead of waves, his medium became parallel universes. Though his theory, called "Many Interacting Worlds," sounds like science fiction, it holds up mathematically. Read more at: phys.org...

Many Interacting Worlds theory doesn't prove that the quantum wave does not exist, or that many worlds do exist, Poirier said. The standard wave theory is perfectly fine in most respects, providing agreement with experiment, for example. "Our theory, though based on different mathematics, makes exactly the same experimental predictions," he said. "So what we have done is to open the possibility that the quantum wave may not exist. It now has only as much right to that claim as do many interacting worlds – no more and no less. This may be as definitive a statement as one can hope to make about a subject that has confounded the best minds of physics for a hundred years and still continues to generate controversy." Read more at: phys.org...

Doesn't this article prove that scientists use mathematics to make precise predictions on the location of particles that exist at the atomic and subatomic level? Also in this article it states that chemists use something called "quantum hydrodynamics," to calculate the motion of the quantum wave using "quantum trajectories." This idea is what really confuses me:

At a certain point, Poirier wondered what would happen if you left the wave computations out and just worked with the quantum trajectories and if the simpler numerical simulation still would be valid. "My key insight was to realize that all you really need are the moving quantum trajectories themselves," he said. "The quantum wave is not actually needed to tell your trajectories how to move. The trajectories tell themselves how to move. Moreover, you don't need the wave for anything else either. Any scientific question that might be answered by knowing the motion of the wave can also be answered just as easily by knowing the motion of the trajectories alone. So the wave becomes completely extraneous and can be discarded altogether." Read more at: phys.org...

At first it would appear that the quantum wave is a tangible thing because of the predicted movements (trajectories) of its atomic and subatomic particles (calculated by quantum wave mathematics). The article then suggests the "wave" causes the trajectory of particles, yet it "becomes extraneous" and can be "discarded" because it's not needed "to tell your trajectories how to move." Now the statement that completely blows my mind: "The trajectories tell themselves how to move." So, I guess the question that I need to ask is, "what" exactly causes these trajectories to move? Is our brain and senses the "what" that actually creates reality...our "physical" world?

I say that there is certainty; we are certainly uncertain of what is certain.

If I turn a flashlight on and off in a pitch black room with three mirrors while waving my hand in a wide circle in front of me, an observer next to me would believe that flashes to his eyes were random because I could turn the flashlight on and off as quickly as I pleased and wave my hand as quickly as I pleased; but only within the bounds that my body would allow me.

But if I wanted to send a morse code message using that light, he may be confused if he fails to understand that the message was encoded in the darkness instead of the light because I used the darkness as dots and lines instead of the light. The entirely wrong idea would be that the message is confusing and random. The reality is that there was a physical underlying aspect... me. But I have the nonphysical mind.

So, to me, it seems the function is only a relationship, the darkness is nonphysical, but the source is physical.

a reply to: neoholographic

Philosophically it's a game-changer, perhaps, as you say. But against the tide of materialistic thought, even something as significant as this won't have much effect on society or culture at large. In my not-very-sophisticated opinion, all it means for sure is that we *might* achieve superluminal communications speeds, which would be useful for colonizing the solar system and beyond, but not necessarily for changing people's minds here on earth.

originally posted by: Alien Abduct
a reply to: neoholographic

" Albert Einstein also favoured a statistical interpretation of the wavefunction...."

Didn't Einstein say that God doesn't play dice?

The fascinating thing about complex equations is that the number of volumes of space that can be considered "inside" is based on the highest power used and is a value less than zero. A plane equation (A.x + B.y + C.z + D = 0) defines a single infinite plane. The equation of a sphere defines a volume of equal distance around a point (x^2 + y^2 + z^2 - R^2 = 0). Start going into cubic equations, and you get an infinite plane and a balloon shape that may or may not be connected together. Go up to quartics (Ax^4 + By^4 + Cz^4 ... ) and you end up defining volumes of space that can be "inside" at multiple points.

If these are used as probability functions to predict where a particle is at any time, then the particle could appear to teleport or "quantum tunnel" between different points in space.