For a single particle they are easy to confuse. A wave function ψ(t,x) for a single particle gives a probability amplitude to find the particle at coordinate x at time t. In this case one can imagine an amplitude at each point in space and time, like a field. This interpretation however completely breaks down once you introduce a second particle: the wave function ψ(t,x1,x2) gives a probability amplitude to find particle 1 at x1 and particle 2 at x2 at time t. This no longer admits an interpretation of assigning some value to locations in space. Intuitively one might think you get one amplitude for each particle at some location but that's not how QM works, so we shouldn't think of the wave function as living in physical space.

But if you aren't trying to map the wave function to physical space somehow you are essentially saying that the central construct of your theory has no direct relation to the actual physical processes happening "underneath".

This reduces to a kind of "shut up and calculate" attitude, so it seems poor starting point from which to write an interpretation text.

Space is a part of the wavefunction, as the article explains clearly. The wave function describes where the particles can be in physical space. And, the wave function has the same shape as the wave equations for traditional mechanical waves, like a sound wave or a sea wave.

However, if a classical three-dimensional wave equation describes how matter osciallates in three-dimensional physical space, a quantum wavefunction doesn't do that. Quantum particles don't oscillate in physical space like that. A three-dimensional wavefunction might describe three particles' positions along a one-dimensional line, and it's oscillations are oscillations of probability, not position. The particles don't move, say, up and down. Their probability to be here or there on that 1-d line waxes and wanes.

This is what the article is trying to explain: the basic mathematics of quantum mechanics, the definition of the wavefunction. The value of a wavefunction for the position of three particles is not a position in space at a moment in time. It is a (complex) probability for the position of every particle at that moment.

This only seems confusing when looking at wavefunctions that describe positions. But wavefunctions often have many more observables, such as spin or polarization. A wavefunctions for two electrons moving around on a plane will not be a two-dimensional wave. It will be a wave in a six-dimensional space, whose axis may be "particle 1 has spin up/down, particle 2 has spin up/down, particle 1 position along x axis, particle 2 position along x axis, particle 1 position along y axis, particle two position along y axis".

I'm honestly confused; it's fine to say the wave function lives in some high dimensional phase space and that it's not actually describing some vibration of spacetime. But I don't recall ever imagining the wave function being a vibration of spacetime, is that really something people think?

If I were to express some sort of wave-function-in-spacetime theory, I'd invoke lots of classical fields filling space and have those wiggle.

In any case, the whole bit about the proper two-particle wave function living in a higher dimensional space is somewhat spoiled by the fact that you can factorise it into normal 3-space pieces (so long as you don't have your particles interacting), it doesn't seem such an alien space to me.

Before the wavefunction, we used to explain the double slit experiment (the version without detectors at a slit) as light being an EM wave in physical space, essentially equivalent to a sound wave propagating through the EM field, which breaks on the wall and essentially transforms into two separate waves, each originating from one slit, which are then in phase and so they constructively interfere, forming the final pattern on the screen.

Lots of people think that this is the same picture that the wavefunction gives, but this is wrong. In the QM picture, the emitter emits one photon, which is a quantum of energy described by a four-dimensional wavefunction which assigns some probability of a detection event at the slits, at the screen, etc. In this picture, there is no physical EM wave, any interaction with the light will happen at a single localized point in space. Of course, if you add more particles, especially those carrying charges, the picture changes, and you'll see probabilities that roughly correspond to a picture of an oscillating EM field. But the wavefunction, which is the "bedrock" physical theory, is separate from those waves in the EM field, which are just an approximate picture of the probabilities dictated by the wavefunciton.

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.

I 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.

Also 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.

My 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.

It's not just pretending, deterministic model works, unlike nondeterministic.

That's true, but it's also true of the classical probability distribution p(t,x1,x2).

Yes, which is exactly the point. The main difference is that the wave function has a complex value with norm <= 1, while a probability distribution function has a real value <= 1.

I had the same reaction. If you make it to the end he concludes with:

> The wave function’s pattern can travel across regions of possibility space that are associated with the slits.

Which to me conflicts with his emphatic “no” at the beginning of the article because this implies you can define some mapping between the physical and probability space. And of course you can because if you couldn’t the theory would not be physically predictive.

His point from the beginning is this: the particle described by the wavefunction can't be said to move through both slits at once, because ψ(t, x, y) has a single value for a particular x and y at a particular time. The particle has non-0 probability for both x, y1, t and for x, y2, t, of course - but that just means the particle has non-0 probability to pass through either slit.

And as for saying that the wave moves through both slits, that also doesn't make sense, by the very definition of the wave function - it's a wave in probability space, not in space, so it just doesn't move through space.

> And as for saying that the wave moves through both slits, that also doesn't make sense, by the very definition of the wave function - it's a wave in probability space, not in space, so it just doesn't move through space.

I don't think that's a valid argument. Imagine a regular water wave, i.e. a wavefunction h = h(x, y, t) describing the height of the water at position (x, y) at time t. You could say "this is a wave in height space, not in space, so it just doesn't move through space" and in a certain sense that's true. But obviously there is something that does "move" through "space" to the extent that anything can ever be said to do so.

I’m with you on point 1, (I think this is also obvious from experiment because you will never measure a particle at both slits).

for point 2 it seems you can define a mapping from the physical space to probability space. Saying that the wave doesn’t “move through” space might be technically correct but also seems like semantics on the definition of the phrase “move through” ?

Of course it is to some extent semantics. But the important point is that the wavefunction is not something like a sound wave, or even something like a classical EM wave. Those are all waves defined over 3-dimensional physical space.

In the original QM model, light is not a wave in the classical electrical theory sense. Light is made up entirely of photons, which are particles just like electrons or billiard balls, and they are described by a wavefunction. That wavefunction gives them various probabilities of being in various states at a certain time, and those probabilities can increase or decrease when more particles come into the mix. The states can represent position, momentum, charge, spin, energy levels, etc.

Interference pattern is a measurement of a particle at both slits.

Considering a particle is an excitation of a quantum field, the space of possibilities could be seen as the only space there is. At least that’s what I think (but don’t know for sure) that the mathematical universe hypothesis people posit.