3 ms·
I morally agree, but not quite: think of the wave function as not more than a bookkeeping device. It does get the job done but be careful to ascribe it too high
by aap_ 2y ago
I morally agree, but not quite: think of the wave function as not more than a bookkeeping device. It does get the job done but be careful to ascribe it too high an ontological status! The path integral formulation seems a lot more natural to me and it does not need a wave function, instead you can derive it and treat it as a bookkeeping device. The way I think about it is that it's an attempt to deterministically model non-deterministic behavior: you "pretend" that the system is deterministic by keeping track of all the possible ways it could have evolved in time. sure enough, once you make a measurement this probability distribution "collapses" and you find out what is actually the case.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- GoblinSlayer 2y agoIt's not just pretending, deterministic model works, unlike nondeterministic.
- SiempreViernes 2y agoI think you are agreeing with my point that declaring the wave function to be mere bookkeeping is a poor foundation for writing about the interpretation of quantum mechanics? Can't really get any other sense out of your reply, but I'm not entirely sure.
- aap_ 2y agoAlso not sure I'm understanding you right :) My view is this: the wave function is mere bookkeeping and not anything ontologically fundamental. However the fact that such a seemingly bizarre concept lets you do quantum physics (even if it's not the only way) points to some fundamental questions about the nature of...well, nature. Of course this is not the only valid view...just one that makes sense to me. Thinking about these sorts of questions is a very fun endeavour.
- SiempreViernes 2y agoMy view is that OP's text about whether the wavefunction goes through both slits is overly long if the premise is that the wavefunction is only for bookkeeping.