4 ms·

If the universe is just the wave function of the universe, then nothing is really a thing with the naive interpretation of a material thing. But that is essenti

If the universe is just the wave function of the universe, then nothing is really a thing with the naive interpretation of a material thing. But that is essentially the distinction I meant, there must be a fundamental thing that we can then chop up into pieces to get the things we are talking about in everyday life. And there would probably still be good reasons to distinguish between fundamental particles and humans because fundamental particles would still be atomic things emerging from the wave function while I would be a certain, slowly changing over time, arrangement of fundamental particles. What I am not really sure about is whether it is consistent with our understanding to say that an electron is just its wave function. We usually use the wave function to describe the state of the electron but we think about the electron as a separate entity with different possible states and the wave function only describes the state the electron is in at a specific point in time. More importantly the wave function of an electron is not a unique thing, if an electron really was just its wave function, which one is it, the one in location space or the one in momentum space or yet another one?

lisper 8y ago
That is an excellent question. The answer is that electrons really are their wave functions. They are not "particles". The explanation is too long for an HN comment but here's a reference: http://www.flownet.com/ron/QM.pdf http://www.flownet.com/ron/QM.pdf or if you prefer a video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dEaecUuEqfc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dEaecUuEqfc
- danbruc 8y ago
  I have seen the talk and may have read the paper, but I remember it mostly for talking about the relation between entanglement and measurements but not for addressing the fundamental nature of particles. But even without rereading the paper I have another point that may cast some doubt onto the idea of the wave function being fundamental. There seems to be growing evidence that space and time are not fundamental which, in my opinion, makes it sound rather unlikely that the wave function will turn out to be the fundamental building block of the universe given the extend to which it depends on these concepts. Essentially I think the most honest answer right now would be to say that our understanding of physics is far from good enough to tackle the question of what is really fundamental and what is just emergent.
  - lisper 8y ago
    The "fundamental nature of particles" (according to QIT) is that there are no particles. > There seems to be growing evidence that space and time are not fundamental Yes. Time actually emerges naturally from QIT. See: http://blog.rongarret.info/2014/10/parallel-universes-and-arrow-of-time.html http://blog.rongarret.info/2014/10/parallel-universes-and-ar...
- whatshisface 8y ago
  There are models where electrons are particles always, they are classified under the group of "pilot wave theories." At present we have proofs that these metaphysical questions are at present unanswerable, which came out many years ago. For some reason nobody wants to take the equivalency proofs seriously, and the ontological debates continue.
  - lisper 8y ago
    You can have particles only if you're wiling to give up on locality. That's a steep price.

lisper 8y ago

That is an excellent question. The answer is that electrons really are their wave functions. They are not "particles". The explanation is too long for an HN comment but here's a reference: http://www.flownet.com/ron/QM.pdf http://www.flownet.com/ron/QM.pdf or if you prefer a video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dEaecUuEqfc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dEaecUuEqfc

danbruc 8y ago
I have seen the talk and may have read the paper, but I remember it mostly for talking about the relation between entanglement and measurements but not for addressing the fundamental nature of particles. But even without rereading the paper I have another point that may cast some doubt onto the idea of the wave function being fundamental. There seems to be growing evidence that space and time are not fundamental which, in my opinion, makes it sound rather unlikely that the wave function will turn out to be the fundamental building block of the universe given the extend to which it depends on these concepts. Essentially I think the most honest answer right now would be to say that our understanding of physics is far from good enough to tackle the question of what is really fundamental and what is just emergent.
- lisper 8y ago
  The "fundamental nature of particles" (according to QIT) is that there are no particles. > There seems to be growing evidence that space and time are not fundamental Yes. Time actually emerges naturally from QIT. See: http://blog.rongarret.info/2014/10/parallel-universes-and-arrow-of-time.html http://blog.rongarret.info/2014/10/parallel-universes-and-ar...
whatshisface 8y ago
There are models where electrons are particles always, they are classified under the group of "pilot wave theories." At present we have proofs that these metaphysical questions are at present unanswerable, which came out many years ago. For some reason nobody wants to take the equivalency proofs seriously, and the ontological debates continue.
- lisper 8y ago
  You can have particles only if you're wiling to give up on locality. That's a steep price.