Alternative Models of Reality

"John you wrote "The key point as you state is that we don't know what the orientation of the electron is but that doesn't mean it doesn't have one and only one without you looking."

Did you miss the point about the falling coin? To have a definite state it has to be unchanging and observed from only one viewpoint. The measurement, landing on the floor in your coin example, fixes the state and the observation creates an Image reality in which the object is seen to have that one state. Prior to fixing the object in a particular state and then having an observer observe it, it doesn't have a fixed state as that depends upon when, where and how it is observed. It can be described by all the states it 'could be in' not in space or space time but in a theoretical space. That shouldn't be taken as a description of what it is actually.

John asks, What if we have a particle pair created by the vacuum energy - a neutron and an anti-neutron - that escape annihilation and go their separate ways. Neutrons are immune to magnetic fields. Are both particles BOTH neutron AND anti-neutron at the same time until you intersect one or the other, or are both particles EITHER neutron OR anti-neutron?

I don't think a neutron can also be an anti neutron because they are different things not just the same thing observed differently. ( A cat can be alive or dead but it can't be a dog.) In my non mainstream opinion I consider there to be a foundational space underlying the space-time that we see, in which objects do exist as they are prior to observation. I don't believe that it is observation brings objects into a definite known state that occurs at measurement. Measurement establishes where when and how the particle/ object will be sampled. My explanatory framework has somewhere, a foundational Object reality in which it exists. Observation creates another facet of reality which is the output of sensory data processing. In that reality there is only one state for an object, observed by one observer IE from one viewpoint.

John wrote "As to the coin, you suggest that the floor itself is making a measurement turning the coin into an either heads-up/or tails-up state. If the floor is making a measurement, then the floor itself is an observer."

IMO The floor is the measuring apparatus that fixes the coin in one particular state. It is not an observer because it does not produce an output reality that is different from the input. A human observer, fabricating a space-time Image reality in which the object is seen, or a camera or a sensor producing flash or noise can be considered observers.The observation makes the state known.The floor does not make the state known but observation of the coin is required afterwards for it to be known. Likewise the magnets of the electron spin detector fix the state but do not themselves make the state known, some kind of output differing from the input information is needed for that, a photon detector in that case.

John wrote "Let's examine further the absurdity that something can both be and not be at the same time and in the same place, otherwise known in the trade as superposition-of-state."

The superposition of states is not "at a time" The representation in theoretical state space or phase space is just all that it can be, as I said a "holding pen" until what it is can be said, due to measurement and observation or just observation. In my explanatory framework there is an Object reality when the object or particle exists prior to the formation of the space-time output Image reality. The state in that Object reality is unknown, and unknowable, because (Like in the falling coin example) the viewpoint and the were and when has not be established by measurement and the state can also be altering over time (the sequence of iterations of the Object universe) and space, until fixed by measurement.

Anonymous replied on Dec. 1, 2014 @ 00:18 GMT, that was me, Goergina

Georgina,

Thanks again for your reply. I won't pretend that I comprehend all of your points of view, especially one about how something conducting a measurement isn't at the same time an observer, but never mind.

It's good to see people having differing viewpoints and interpretations. As I like to phrase it, "different strokes for different folks" - that's my motto.

That one of the things I like about science. Everything can and should be questioned and there is no appeal to higher authority. The science community needs people who question the establishment and the status-quo and who go against the grain.

I forget who made the observation now, but someone once observed that reasonable people adapt themselves to fit into the world; unreasonable people try to adapt the world to fit them; therefore all progress is made by the unreasonable (against the grain) person.

John Prytz

John,

its simply this,

an observer is an organism or device capable of detection.It can be something designed to detect something in particular, like emission of a photon, or a device such as a still or video camera that detects the environment in general.

Some definitions:

Detection: The action or process of identifying the presence of something concealed

Detector :A device or instrument designed to detect the presence of a particular object or substance:

Definitions from :www.oxforddictionaries.com

Taking the magnets and the electron example again: The magnets do not detect the presence of the photon because they don't identify the state. they are only fixing the sate. It is the photon detector that shows if its spin up or spin down, photon or no photon.

Likewise, the floor fixes but does not detect the state of the coin. It does not "know" if its heads up or heads down. The human observer conducts the detection in this case. The human observer fabricates an Image reality in which the coin is seen on one of the possible states. "Identifying the presence of something concealed" IE Turning the unseen Object reality into a visible Image reality.

All,

I think the delineation between measuring apparatus, and observer (or detector) identifying the presence of something "concealed", is a significant step, overcoming questions such as: is a conscious observer necessary to collapse a wave function? and is everything "aware" and thus an observer? As far as I know there hasn't been this breaking down of process into fixing of a particular state (providing the where when and how the sample is taken ), and then observation; producing an output, from the input sensory data, that indicates what the state is. Such as observable Flash , noise , or direct Image reality fabrication, using sensory data emitted or reflected from the object in a particular state in Object reality.

When does the "wave function collapse" happen? IE Switching from all possibilities in theoretical timeless space( probabilities obtained by sampling over many iterations of the Object universe) to just one particular outcome. Not upon observation but upon sampling by the measuring apparatus that precedes observation. Observation could be delayed for a long time once the sample has been taken, as the sampled state does not alter between measurement and observation.

John,

The theoretical supperposition of states is not at a time and a place,its what it can be possibly be. For analogy lets say you calculate the average number of girls at a school. That average lets say 146 does not represent the number of girls at a position in space at a particular time, lets say at assembly on one particular day. The average could have been found by counting the girls over many days or months,even years. That doesn't make the average false. It is abstract and true without being a part of either the foundational Object reality, that exists sequentially, each iteration wholly at one time only, and without being part of the output space-time Image reality. Likewise a theoretical supperposition of sates, with associated probabilities, can be abstract and true without being a part of either facet of reality.

You wrote"In short, the Moon continues to exist even if no one is looking at it. End of story, or at least this is now the end of my story. If you wish to view reality differently, I have no issue with that."

You are, perhaps without realising, agreeing with me that things have existence without the necessity of observation. They are elements of a reality (Object reality) even if they are not a part of an observed output Image reality. The Image of the moon fabricated from received EM data does not exist without receiving and processing the data. That facet of reality does not exist. What does continue to exist is the object moon, source of the reflected EM data, that was never itself seen and continues to exist not being seen.

John,

you wrote "We do seemingly agree that a thing (of substance and structure) has an independent existence and that existence does not rely on any observation/observer or measurement." Yes we do.

I think to make sense of superposition of states it is necessary to accept that some things can be abstract and true whilst also not having a directly corresponding material existence in Image or Object reality. Leonard Susskind's lectures help elucidate what is really going on.

The average was given as an example of that. It can be true that in a particular location the average number of children is 2.4 but there are no children that are .4. Likewise it can be true that the probability of a win for a particular candidate in a straight voting contest is 70%. But no candidate 70% wins they win or they don't 100%. The probability of finding an up electron 50% though it will be 100% found or 100% not found, you cannot half find an electron spin. The average, or expectation value, is neither spin +1 or spin -1 but 0 even though 0 will never be found.

The probabilities for what something can be can be found by conducting numerous experiments over time. Its just like an average can be found by taking lots of samples over time. The probabilities can then be applied to the unknown state of the particle or object. There are certain probabilities of finding certain outcomes even though the exact outcome that will be found can not be predicted, and I would say that is because until the sample is taken that fixes the state it can not be known, rather than just isn't known. When, where and how measured as well as what is at the moment of measurement determines the outcome. So the interaction with the measuring apparatus is a vital part of producing the outcome measured.

If I understand correctly another way of finding potential outcomes is to put everything known including the effect of interacting with the measuring apparatus into the Schrodinger equation and calculating the possible outcomes. Again there is more than 1 possible outcome and probabilities of what it will be.

You say the superposition of states is at a time and a place, but it is set in state space or phase space which are abstract mathematical spaces not the space of Object reality or the space-time of Image reality. Contradicting your assertion.

Schrodinger's cat thought experiment was proposed to highlight the absurdity of quantum physics. It continues to do that. Nevertheless quantum physics is highly accurate. I think Leonard Susskind is correct that it is necessary to grasp the mathematical foundations before trying to make sense of what is happening in quantum physics. I must watch some more of his lectures.

John,

a falling coin object is not necessarily heads up or tails up it can be in between, unlike the quantum bit produced by measurement that can only be heads or tails. So I disagree that for every definite time and position in space it has definite heads or tails state.

So I suppose we could ask: where is the quantum bit prior to measurement?, and can say it doesn't exist because it is measurement that constrains the result into only two possible outcomes. So the quantum bit is in some significant way different from actual state the object prior to measurement.

If the model of reality used does not have an Object reality component but only the Image reality, output of sensory data processing component then the quantum states in mathematical state or phase space exist abstractly until being resolved into a definite observed reality. Leading to speculation such as do all of the different states exist in different universes? and if we select one outcome does the other non selected also have an observed reality in another universe? However if there is an Object reality, what the state will be found to be is in part determined by the state of the coin itself prior to observation as well as in part the where, when and how it is measured. There is a concrete reason for the outcome, the orientation of the coin.

The probabilities measured are IMO formed from many measurements that have each been influenced by; the starting state of the coin, how the coin was thrown and the characteristics of the coin in motion and the when, where and how of measurement. Initial condition, forces applied, characteristics of change (involving such things as mass and shape (aerodynamics)...time, place and sampling method. They, the probabilities are not just abstract attributes of a system without origin. If all of the different variables are known, they can be represented is an equation that represents the evolution of the system, giving the probabilities of different outcomes.

Both you and I require that the coin exist prior to state measurement, even though the quantum bit does not. That requires a model of reality in which there are beables, those things that exist without requiring observation for their existence. Though that reality must co-exist with the observed reality which is the output of our sensory data processing. The explanatory framework diagram sets out the relationship of the facets of reality and how they relate to different areas of physics.Attachment #1: 5_RICP3D_high_def_essay_version..pdf

Here then is a difference between probabilistic outcomes of quantum systems and singular 'definite' outcomes of classical and relativistic macroscopic physics.

There are probabilities because there are many factors contributing to what the outcome will be. For the coin example, initial conditions, attributes of object such as mass and shape,any deformity, (aerodynamics), the forces applied to the coin, the physics of dynamics including velocity of flight and amount of spin and possibly also the attributes of the medium, such as density and amount of turbulence and always where, when and how the state is is measured.There are many variables affecting its becoming what it is, and what it is will interact with the where, when and how actions of measurement to give an outcome.

The observation of a macroscopic object is usually just a matter of receiving the EM data reflected or emitted from its surface, already in the environment, and processing it into a corresponding Image reality. Once the data has been produced and is in the environment there is no probability involved in what it will be seen to be only the where, when and how components that decide what data will be received and from what viewpoint. Different where, when, and hows can give different Image reality outputs -and that is relativity. Not probabilistic as it is selection from the set of data already in the environment, that is not usually changing in information content, although data distribution can be affected by for example convection currents, that will give a wobbly rather than rigid appearance.

1. Can Cosmic Inflation and Dark Energy be explained using Quantum Gravitational Dynamics? (A merger of Quantum Loop Gravity and Quantum Electrodynamics)

2. Could the potential energy of quantum meta-states be a source of Dark Energy and modulate the inflation field as well?

3. Where does space come from? Could it be from potential energy of quantum meta-states?

Any fundamental theory of quantum gravity should be consistent with the evolution of the cosmos. One of the current mysteries of the evolution of the cosmos is the creation of space during the inflationary period of the big bang and the measured acceleration of the expansion of the universe. There is no doubt that a consistent theory of Quantum Gravity is a hot topic of physics. At this time, the leading candidates are String Theory and Loop Quantum Gravity. The theories have yet to explain how space is created in the evolution of the cosmos. Quantum Gravitational Dynamics is a merger of Quantum Loop Gravity and Quantum Electrodynamics.

Alan Guth first proposed cosmic Inflation in order to explain how space is created during the Big Bang (or Big-Bounce?), he proposed that there is an inflation field, which is somehow activated during the earliest moments of the Big Bang. He offers no explanation on where the energy needed to activate this field comes from. The existence of this field and its partner particle, the Inflaton, has yet to be proved, nonetheless, Inflation is beautifully powerful theory, which solves many problems of cosmology. Since it is currently the best theory to explain the evolution of the early cosmos and how much space is created, I am going to accept it as a valid way to explain the evolution of the expansion of the early universe. Is it possible that the creation of space is derived from the sum of the potential energy of all the potential quantum meta-states of the early universe interacting with the Spin Networks of Quantum Gravitational Dynamics?

Another example of the exponential creation of space is the observation that the expansion of the universe is accelerating. The speed at which the volume of space is increasing has been consistently measured to be greater than the speed of light by measuring the red shifts of super novae in receding galaxies. The existence of Dark Energy was proposed in order to explain the cause of this observed inflation of the universe especially in areas of deep space. To date, finding the source of this Dark Energy has been elusive. One leading explanation is that it is related to the void energy of empty space. This has been observed in the Kasimir Effect.

The law of Conservation of Energy is one of the fundamental laws of physics, I assume it to be valid and consistent. So where is the Inflation Field energy and Dark Energy coming from? Is it possible that the observation of the accelerated expansion of the universe is related to the potential energy of all the potential quantum meta-states of empty space interacting with the Spin Networks of Quantum Gravitational Dynamics? Potential energy can be converted to other forms of energy thus satisfying the law of energy conversion. Can Quantum Gravitational Dynamics be used to predict the potential energy of all of the energy states of the early universe as well as all of the potential energy states of empty space? Once the numerical value of this energy has been predicted then it should be compared to the amount of Dark Energy required to cause the expansion of space. The current value of the Dark Energy has been calculated to be about 70% of the total energy of the universe. . This is an enormous amount of energy and has to come from somewhere.

A consequence of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is that you can not know the exact quantum state of a quantum system such as empty space as well as its rate of change. This means that the energy of empty space is nonzero. A corollary of this is that the minimum size of discrete space has to be large enough to contain some virtual energy.There is a vacuum radiant energy that has been shown to exist in the Kasmir effect and it is caused by virtual particles, which exist as open loops in Quantum Gravitational Dynamics. These loops can interact with each other as well as with spin foam of space becoming closed loops.

According to David Bohm, " the potential energy of so-called empty space is due to the ability of the virtual radiant energy's ability to generate an electromagnetic field." (Quantum Theory 1951). It is also conceivable that radiant energy can interact with other fields as well such as the spin networks of space increasing space in the process.

These virtual particles have been observed to exist when measured in particle accelerators. Thus there are many potential metastable states of these interactions, which can be expressed as probabilities of each metastable states. Using Feynman's methodology of Quantum Electrodynamics, there is sum scalar vector of all of those potential meta-states. One possible outcome is that empty space may be self-propagating thus resulting in the observed accelerated expansion of the universe.

Since the temperature of the early universe is much higher than the temperature of empty space, I presume that potential meta-states of the early universe during the big bang are far more energetic and robust. Could the potential meta-states of the early universe interact with the inflation field thus modulate it?

Thank you for listening. Please respond with your thoughts.

A more fundamental question that no one ever asks is where does 'charge" come from? Why are some particles charged? One obscure thing that I read is that is is caused by the particles spinning in other dimensions. The math has been worked out. But you have to believe in extra dimensions.

Bill,

Without imposing my thinking on the subject on yours, may I just ask some leading questions...

1. IF (in capitals), space is expanding and entropy is increasing, might this not suggest a common production process for the two, since both are in the same direction of time? Or at least a relationship, since Mother Nature is usually very frugal in her ways.

2. What is the meaning of the equation

dS = dE/T?

Given a system of low entropy, how can you quantitatively increase the entropy in the system?

3. If the second law of thermodynamics is correct for our universe and has been correct for all time, meaning the more you look to the past, the lower the entropy of the universe will be and therefore at the beginning, S = 0. If we add the third law of thermodynamics, which guides us what the temperature would be at the lowest possible value of entropy, would the very beginning at time zero be hot or cold?

4. Ludwig Boltzmann has the equation S = k log W inscribed on his tombstone, where S is entropy, k is Boltzmann's constant, log stands for natural logarithm and pay attention here, W stands for the NUMBER OF WAYS the system can be realized by assigning different positions and momenta to the various participants. If space is not infinitely divisible into positions because of a limit at the Planck length ~ 10-35m, in a system of given small size, are there a maximum number of positions and momenta available or is the number infinite?

5. Following from 5., if the thermodynamic equations are infallible, what will physically happen if entropy has to be further increased after the maximum, W for that system size is attained?

6. If your opinion to 6. is that system size will be compelled to increase in obedience to thermodynamic law, is this an explosive mechanical process at high pressure à la Big Bang?

7. Have you calculated what the temperature of the universe will be if it contained all the matter,~ 1052kg (1068J) at the very beginning, say about Planck size before 'inflationary scenario' complication? Do you obtain 1047K or 1032K that fits the model?

8. What really is energy? We use the term often in physics, but what exactly is it? Is it something or a much ado about nothing in the final analysis?

Now, this is speculative and tentative. We know that energy is consumed (-ve) to increase radius and thus potential energy, and such energy is released (+ve) as heat, gravitational waves (for GR people) and electromagnetic radiation when radius and potential energy is reduced. In other words,

Eq.1. increase (+) in potential energy and radius of system = (-)decrease in energy in form of heat, radiation.

Eq.2. decrease in potential energy and radius of system = increase in energy in form of heat, radiation.

So these two 'energy types' appear to be OPPOSITE each other, but both energies all the same.

If we put all the energy terms on one side, can I suggest that if the mathematics is not flawed we could write Eq.1 as:

increase (+) in potential energy and radius of system + increase in energy in form of heat, radiation = 0,

since (-) changes to (+) and decrease changes to increase?

If I am correct, then for a system whose balance sheet was initially ZERO, and which must remain so, ANY increase from zero radius MUST be accompanied by an increase in energy in the form of heat, radiation, etc. This energy balancing must continue always till current era.

I think Edward Tryon reasoned in similar way some 40 years ago.

This may satisfy the condition given by those who do not like to eat free lunch. If the increase in energy from zero is simultaneously accompanied and balanced by increase of radius from zero, then perhaps no free lunch after all and no contravention of energy conservation law as the net energy change is zero.

Well let me pause here for now.

Regards,

Akinbo

John,

What orientations are then "possible" apart from Heads and Tails?

In a quantum rather than binary system are there not complementary (inverse) values for intermediate angles between 100% heads or tails?

And who decided whether I lie under the glass coffee table to observe the ('collapsed' to binary) outcome, or look down from above?

Is it not true that we use a lot of hidden assumptions which we perhaps need to identify and remove?

Best regards

Peter

Yes John including variations of edge up. So the outcome of viewing the sequence of orientations is not either this or that, a quantum bit, in each frame but there are many different orientations, including neither heads up nor heads down. The behaviour of the object is fundamentally different from the quantum bits. The quantum bit is information that can be measured. On,off; up,down; left, right. Outcomes. Catching the coin and holding on the palm of the hand, or flipping onto the back of the non catching hand, or letting it fall on the floor are all ways of measuring the quantum state.Under normal circumstances it will lie flat exhibiting only one of two possible outcomes. When, where and how the measurement is taken together with the orientation of the coin upon measurement generates the state measured. That state does not preexist the measurement because it is formed in part by the measurement procedure/apparatus itself.If you look at the coin palm open when it is caught it gives the opposite outcome to flipping the coin onto the back of the non catching hand and then looking. So how it is measured has a part to play in what the state is found to be.

I wrote " When, where and how the measurement is taken together with the orientation of the coin upon measurement generates the state measured." That is a simplification, I should think such things as momentum. angle of the coin when it strikes the hand or floor and how that surface interacts, its elasticity and topology will also be important in determining the outcome. IE how the measurement apparatus interacts with the subject.

John,

We find what we ask for. If we simply ask 'head/tails'? we get H or T. But ask 'what angle in the y axis'? (or z etc.) we find a different angle in each case. We may also ask and find 'rate of spin' etc. So you're right, but only if using the simplest view.

So in that view we say QM is 'spooky' as it's predictions can't be reproduced classically. But look with better vision and all of nature appears out of the mist! You may need a blindfold to achieve it, so put one on and try this, playing 'Bob' (Georgina, can you play Alice?); You just hold your fingers out, feel the motion of what you touch, and answer the question.

Now what we need to reproduce QM is to find is two different sets of complementary (inversely changing) 'values' in spherical co-ordinates (Dirac's '2 paired 4 stack spinors') which change by the cosine^2 of the 'angle' of detection to be zero at 90 degrees and the reverse at 180. Lastly, you must find differently at the same angle, and the same at opposite angles!

OK, We stand side by side, 1km apart, me in the centre with a sphere spinning on a horizontal axis (either spin, at random). I send it along it's axis to John and a clone the other way to Georgina. It stops before you, still spinning, and you touch the equator.

Q1. Is it spinning clockwise or anticlockwise? ...Of course you can't tell!

Q2. Is it spinning up or down? Now you're 100% certain and find the same, OK?

Now John go round to the other side and face 180^o back the other way,

Q3. NOW is the spin 'up or down?. ...You should find the OPPOSITE.

Now both go round 90^o so you both face me, ..and each touch the pole.

Q4. Are they spinning 'up' or 'down'? ...Of course again you can't tell!

Q5. Are they spinning clockwise or anticlockwise? You'll find the opposite again! But if one of you goes 180^o round and touches the other pole - you'll now report the same! (100% 'correlated') spin.

The states are then 'superposed' and not emergent UNTIL the observer interaction. Now you can float around over and under the sphere on ANY orientation and do the same, with exactly the same set of results! relative to the ('entangled') spin axis.

If you both go to 45^o. You'll find a lower value of both 'states'. The surface speed (Angular Momentum) values change inversely with changing angle round the sphere. Not only that, speed (momentum) changes by the COSINE of the angle!! Now draw graphs of your findings, and with just the tiniest pinch of a secret DFM ingredient borrowed from QED (squaring cos and the wavefunction) you guys have just reproduced almost the entire predictions of QM "classically" just as Bell predicted (you may be shocked if you wish, you have seen the future!).

The bells and whistles are added here, with a soupçon of higher order uncertainty to ward off a fully deterministic existence; Quasi-classical Entanglement, Superposition and Bell Inequalities. (Perhaps my last 2 essays may also help explain John).

Then again if you prefer binary mathematics to thinking and just ask, 'north' or 'south'? or 'heads or tails'? than that is all you'll find.

Do ask questions if the experiment wasn't clear. Was it? Best wishes,

Peter

John,

it does make sense. Until a viewpoint is established, where, when and how the observation is made, such as the location of the camera in your example, there is no one direction from which an observation is being made and all possible viewpoints are valid. The problem is with the demand for one answer to the question regarding state. A cup looked at from above and below is simultaneously concave and convex. Only deciding which viewpoint will be considered resolves the decision into the cup is seen to be concave or the cup is seen to be concave.

Whether considering a macroscopic object or something at a very small, un-observable to the human eye scale, it is necessary to have one viewpoint to have one outcome. Measurement and observation provides that.

Peter's description of the two observers observing the spinning sphere from different viewpoints is correct, so I agree with Peter's "The states are then 'superposed' and not emergent UNTIL the observer interaction. Now you can float around over and under the sphere on ANY orientation and do the same, with exactly the same set of results! relative to the ('entangled') spin axis."

Akimbo, I like your line of reasoning. Have you come across any equations on how space may propagate as entropy and/or potential energy increases?there's a really good book on entropy and time by Sean Carol called From Eternity to Here. I just read this book recently and did not see any mention on how increasing entropy is related to space

Im recent posts I have been restricting the discussion to beables that can be considered in lots of different orientations.As prior to observation all possible viewpoints are equally valid. That is somewhat different from a radioactive particle being both decayed and non decayed until measurement, fixing what the state will be found to be, and observation making the state known.

It seems there are different kinds of scenario to consider, ones in which superposition of all possible states (not just the ones that are observable) is a true representation of what is in Object reality; and those in which superposition is only an abstract representation of what might be, as the outcome of measurement is unknown. In Object reality an actualized particle object (beable) can not be both decayed and not decayed simultaneously.A coin can have every orientation, as any viewpoint is subjective and does not reflect the absolute state of the coin.

Therefore it is necessary to consider the nature of the beable under consideration. See above but also the decision must be made, is it an object or sensory data under investigation. As sensory data too is a part of Object reality. An actualised radioactive particle a-particle can't be both decayed and un-decayed in Object reality. However there can be sensory data in the environment produced preceding decay, produced at decay and produced subsequent to decay. Considering d-particle and output result r-particle (representation of particle):If the particle has decayed either outcome could be found depending upon when and where the sampling measurement is taken. If a sample of earlier data is measured no detection will be found if later data a detection can be made.

So neither a blanket yes supposition exists in reality or a blanket no it is only abstract is correct, its a bit more complex involving questions of what kind of beable and what part of reality is being considered.

Which answers the question is the wave function a representation of what actually exists or just an abstract representation because we lack information- the answer is it depends.Firstly because of the arguments above and because it does include the interaction with the measuring apparatus. Until measurement that part of the Schrodinger equation does not apply and so it is representing possibilities not yet come to pass, giving predictions, not existent actualities.