Reading · the wave function · the medium problem

What Does the Wave Wave On?

In every classical wave we ever understood, the wave was an oscillation of something. Water waves are oscillations of water. Sound waves are pressure oscillations in air. Light, for two centuries, was believed to be an oscillation of an invisible aether. Then quantum mechanics arrived with a wave that produces a real, measurable interference pattern in a real, physical laboratory — and that wave, after a hundred years of careful work, appears to be a wave on nothing. Or rather, the question of what it waves on has split modern physics into five answers, none of them comfortable.

A reader's companion to the double-slit experiment and the entries on entanglement, tunneling, retrocausality, and the simulation hypothesis. Pairs with Glitches in Reality and The Simulation Hypothesis · The Evidence.

1. Every wave before quantum mechanics had a medium

In 1801 Thomas Young split a single beam of sunlight through two slits and produced the first laboratory interference pattern. The bright and dark fringes on the screen were, undeniably, the signature of a wave. The question of what kind of wave occupied the rest of the nineteenth century. Maxwell's 1865 equations described light as oscillating electric and magnetic fields propagating through space at c — but propagating through what? The default assumption, held even by Maxwell, was that there had to be a medium: a substance permeating all space, however thin, in which the electromagnetic field could oscillate. They named it the luminiferous aether, and for forty years physicists tried to detect it.

In 1887 Albert Michelson and Edward Morley built an interferometer sensitive enough to detect Earth's motion through the aether by comparing the speeds of light along two perpendicular paths. They found nothing. No motion. No drag. No medium. The null result was the most consequential failed experiment in the history of physics. Einstein's 1905 special relativity made the absence a feature: light has no rest frame because there is nothing for it to be at rest relative to. The aether was dead. And yet light still propagated, still interfered, still behaved exactly like a wave — without anything to wave on.

This was the first time physics had to confront the question your intuition is asking now. The answer the field eventually accepted was that the electromagnetic field is itself the substrate — that the field is its own medium, propagating through spacetime without requiring a material carrier. That answer worked, more or less, for classical light. Then quantum mechanics arrived and made it worse.

2. The wave function is not even a wave in 3D space

Here is the part that almost no popular treatment makes clear. For a single particle, the wave function ψ(x, t) is a complex-valued function over three-dimensional space — at each point and at each moment, ψ assigns an amplitude (a complex number) whose modulus squared, |ψ|², gives the probability density of finding the particle there. So far, this looks like a wave in space, even if it is a wave of probability amplitude rather than a wave of stuff.

But for two particles, the wave function lives on six-dimensional configuration space. For N particles, on 3N-dimensional configuration space. The wave function of the universe lives on a configuration space with a dimension equal to three times the number of particles in the universe. It is not a wave in three-dimensional space at all. It is a wave on a mathematical structure whose dimensionality has no obvious physical interpretation.

This is the deep technical reason your instinct that "a wave has to wave on something" runs into trouble: in quantum mechanics the wave does not live in the space where the interference pattern appears. The pattern appears on a 2D screen in 3D space. The wave that produces it lives in a much higher-dimensional space. Whatever the wave waves on, it is not the room you are in.

3. The five answers, honestly described

The question "what is ψ?" admits at least five serious answers, each defended by working physicists, each with implications most of its defenders prefer to leave implicit.

Copenhagen: ψ is not a wave, it is bookkeeping

The orthodox view since the 1920s, defended by Bohr, Heisenberg, Pauli, and the textbook tradition. The wave function is not a physical entity. It is a mathematical instrument that encodes the probabilities of measurement outcomes. Asking what it waves on is a category error, like asking what the colour of the number seven is.

The problem the reader rightly notices: this answer does not actually explain the interference pattern. If ψ is just probabilities, then the question becomes how probabilities of being at point A interfere with probabilities of being at point B to produce zero probability at the dark fringes — when neither alternative on its own gave zero. Probabilities do not cancel; they add. The mathematics requires amplitudes, not probabilities, to do the cancelling — and the amplitudes are complex numbers, which is the part that has no probabilistic interpretation. Copenhagen tells you the right calculation. It does not tell you what the calculation describes. Bell called this "the shifty split" — the line between system and observer is movable, ill-defined, and quietly does most of the ontological work.

Bohm and de Broglie: the pilot wave is real, and the implicate order is its medium

De Broglie proposed in 1927 that particles have real positions at all times and are guided through space by a real physical wave that carries information about the entire experimental setup. Bohm completed the theory in 1952 and showed it is mathematically equivalent to standard quantum mechanics at the level of all predictions. The interference pattern is no longer mysterious: there is a real wave, it really propagates, it really interferes with itself, and the particle (which always has a definite position) is steered by the wave's gradient.

The price is non-locality: the pilot wave for entangled particles is one wave on configuration space, and a measurement on one particle instantaneously changes the wave at the location of the other. Bohm accepted this and spent the rest of his career arguing that the pilot wave is a clue to a deeper level of reality he called the implicate order — a pre-spatial, pre-temporal substrate from which three-dimensional space and ordinary matter unfold. Particles and waves alike are surface expressions ("explicate") of an underlying enfolded structure ("implicate") that does not have a location because location itself is an emergent property of it. The implicate order is what the wave waves on.

The Couder–Fort oil-droplet experiments at Paris Diderot in 2006 gave a startling classical analog: a droplet bouncing on the surface of a vibrating fluid bath reproduces double-slit interference, quantum tunneling, and quantized orbits — using nothing but classical fluid dynamics. The droplet is the particle. The wave on the fluid surface is the pilot wave. The fluid bath is the medium. We cannot directly see the fluid bath of reality, but the analogy is no longer just philosophy. It is a tabletop experiment.

Most working physicists do not adopt Bohm because the standard formulation is non-relativistic and because Copenhagen is operationally adequate. But the pilot-wave interpretation is having a quiet renaissance precisely because it answers the medium question rather than deflecting it.

Many-Worlds: ψ is the universe, and it never collapses

Hugh Everett in 1957 proposed that the wave function never collapses. Schrödinger's equation governs everything, always. What looks like collapse is the universe branching: every possible outcome of every quantum event is realized in a parallel branch of one giant universal wave function. The interference pattern is a record of branches interfering before they decohere. There is no medium because ψ is not in anything — ψ is everything.

The objections you may raise are the standard objections. The first is parsimony: the theory's equations are simple, but the ontology is enormous — an unimaginably vast branching tree of universes for every quantum event. Defenders say the theory is parsimonious in postulates (no collapse axiom is needed) even if it is extravagant in entities. Critics say this is a sleight of hand: the entities have to live somewhere, and "in the mathematics" is a non-answer.

The second is consciousness. Are the parallel versions of you in other branches conscious in their own right? Most Everettians say yes — each branch contains its own conscious observers, all equally real, none privileged. The implication is that "you" have already died, lived, married, and dissolved into countless versions of yourself, and there is no fact of the matter about which is the real one. Many people find this not just unparsimonious but ethically untenable: it makes every moral choice trivial, since every alternative is also taken.

The third is the computational objection. If a complete simulation of quantum mechanics has to track all branches, the computational load grows exponentially with each measurement. Many-Worlds is not a computationally cheap theory; it is a theory in which the universe is paying a computational cost we cannot see. Either reality has effectively infinite computational resources (which is itself a strong metaphysical commitment), or Many-Worlds is an ontology that cannot be implemented anywhere — making it, in a Bostrom-style universe, less likely than alternatives that can be implemented.

Quantum field theory: the field is the medium, and the field is mathematical

The working theory of modern particle physics — the one that produced the Standard Model and predictions accurate to one part in ten billion — is quantum field theory (QFT). In QFT, particles are not little balls. They are excitations of underlying quantum fields that fill all of spacetime. The electron field, the photon field, the Higgs field — each is defined at every point of spacetime and can oscillate at every point. What we call "an electron" is a localized quantum of the electron field, the way a phonon is a quantum of vibration in a crystal.

In this language, the question dissolves into a partial answer. The wave waves on the field. The field is the medium. The field oscillates, and we detect its oscillations as particles. But what is the field itself? It is a mathematical object: a function (more precisely, an operator-valued distribution) that assigns operators to each point of spacetime. The field is not a substance. It is structure. The "stuff" of reality, in QFT, is mathematical relationships defined on spacetime.

This is the answer that lines up with Max Tegmark's mathematical universe hypothesis: the universe is not described by mathematics, the universe is mathematics. Reality has no additional substrate beneath the equations. The equations are not models of something else; they are the thing. If you accept this, the original question changes shape — the wave does not wave on a substance, because there are no substances. There are only relationships, and the wave is one of them.

John Archibald Wheeler pushed this one step further with his 1989 formulation "it from bit": physical reality (it) emerges from binary information (bit). Every particle, every field, every spacetime structure, derives, at bottom, from yes/no answers to yes/no questions. The substrate of reality is informational. This is the philosophical floor under both the holographic principle and the simulation hypothesis: if information is the foundation, then the universe is a computation, and the wave function is the running program.

Objective collapse: the wave is physical and collapses on its own

A fifth family of interpretations — Ghirardi-Rimini-Weber (GRW), Penrose's gravity-induced collapse, Diósi — proposes that the wave function is physically real and that it collapses spontaneously when a system reaches some threshold (mass, gravitational self-energy, environmental complexity). Below the threshold, ψ evolves unitarily and produces interference; above it, ψ collapses to a definite state. No observer required.

This is the most operationally testable alternative — it predicts deviations from standard quantum mechanics at intermediate scales — and experiments by the Bouwmeester and Aspelmeyer groups are slowly closing in on the predicted regime. So far, no deviation has been seen. Objective-collapse models remain a respectable minority position, motivated explicitly by the desire to make ψ a physical wave with a physical medium, even if the medium remains undefined.

4. Your intuitions, defended

Three intuitions worth saying out loud and standing behind, because they are not naïve. They are the same intuitions David Bohm, John Bell, Roger Penrose, Lee Smolin, and Sean Carroll have all expressed in print, on opposite sides of the debate.

Copenhagen does not explain the interference pattern; it describes it. The probability-wave story does not give a mechanism for how amplitudes physically combine to cancel at the dark fringes. It tells you what to compute. It is silent on what the computation describes. That silence has been the central scandal of quantum mechanics for a century. Bell wrote that the Copenhagen formulation contains "professional unembarrassed ambiguities" — and that is from a Nobel-quality physicist, not a crank. You are not missing something. There is something missing.

Bohm's implicate order makes more physical sense because it does not deflect the question. The pilot-wave theory is a fully causal, fully deterministic theory in which there is a real wave, it propagates on a real (if pre-spatial) substrate, and the interference pattern is what real waves do. The cost — non-locality — is a cost every interpretation eventually pays anyway, because Bell's theorem demonstrated that any theory that reproduces quantum mechanics must be non-local. Bohm just pays the cost upfront and gets a comprehensible mechanism in return. The implicate order is speculative metaphysics, but it is metaphysics designed to ground the pilot wave in something physical rather than dismiss the question.

Many-Worlds may be elegant equations but extravagant ontology, and the consciousness problem is real. Parsimony in physical theories has historically meant fewer entities, not just fewer equations. Newton's mechanics was preferred over Ptolemy's epicycles because it reduced the entities, not because it simplified the formulae. Many-Worlds reverses this: fewer postulates, vastly more entities. Whether that counts as parsimonious is a real philosophical question, not a settled one. And the consciousness question — whether every parallel branch contains its own conscious observers — is not rhetorical; it is the question that determines whether the theory's ethical implications are habitable. Most Everettians have not solved it. Some have abandoned the theory because of it.

QFT with mathematical fields as substrate, and Tegmark/Wheeler's informational ontology, has the most coherent footprint. It accepts that the substrate is non-material without pretending the substrate is nothing. It says the universe is informational structure, and matter is what informational structure looks like from the inside. This is consistent with the holographic principle, with Gates' error-correcting codes in the equations of supersymmetry, with the discrete quantization of every fundamental property, and with the universe's tendency toward computational optimization at the quantum level (the principle of least action). It is not a proof. It is a coherent story in which the wave function is a pattern in the underlying field of mathematical relationships that constitutes reality.

5. Where the trilogy stands

The receiver model the trilogy builds is closest to a synthesis of Bohm and Tegmark. There is a substrate — call it the consciousness field, in Federico Faggin's vocabulary, or the Φ-field in Maria Strømme's, or what the mystics called the field — and it is not material. It is informational, mathematical, possibly experiential at its base. Particles and waves alike are patterns in this substrate. The interference pattern of the double slit is what the substrate looks like when it is allowed to remain in pattern, before being resolved by another excitation (the observer) into a definite outcome.

This is congruent with QFT plus Tegmark — the substrate is mathematical and the field is the medium — and with Bohm's implicate order — the substrate is pre-spatial and unfolds into the world we measure. It is at odds with Many-Worlds (the substrate is one, not branching) and with strict Copenhagen (the substrate is real, not just bookkeeping). The trilogy does not claim to settle the interpretation question. It claims that the receiver-model framework is the one in which the convergence of independent disciplines — physics, biology, philosophy, mysticism — onto the same structure stops looking like coincidence and starts looking like the same architecture seen from different angles.

Anima dramatizes the receiver in clinical practice. Numen dramatizes the pilot wave as the fractal triangle Alex inherits from his father. Limen integrates the physics, the mathematics, and the contemplative traditions in twenty-seven diagrams. Fragile Light takes the architecture seriously enough to ask what political life looks like when one acts as if it is real.

The honest scientific answer to your question — what does the wave wave on? — is that we have not finished the inquiry, and that the interpretations that take the question seriously rather than deflecting it (Bohm, objective collapse, informational QFT) are the ones now gaining ground after a century in which Copenhagen's "shut up and calculate" was the dominant culture. The floor of physics is still being looked for. The wave is real. The medium is uncertain. The investigation is open.

Sources & further reading

Related on this site: the double-slit experiment · quantum entanglement · the observer effect · Tegmark's mathematical universe · Wheeler's participatory universe

← All the reading