Andreas Most wrote:
TomGee wrote:
...
So are you saying that by "collapse" you mean "summarize"? At the
instant that you observe the wave function, you mean that it does not
physically collapse, which it cannot do, but rather you mean that it is
a summary of the electron's location?

No, the wave function cannot be observed. Instead it tells you what can
be observed.


Oh no, that don't work. The wave function collapses upon someone
observing it, since observing an electron itself does not cause a cat
to live or die. That is the whole problem, where a mere glance from a
human being causes the electron wave function to collapse, thereby
providing you with a summary of the electron's information, and the
mere glance in a box gives you the info whether the cat inside is
alive or dead. Do you see how silly all that is?

...
Yes. I could not go back to read exactly what you said when I was
responding in my post, so I had to generalize what you said or
inferred. I agreed that interpreting the wave function as a physical
object is wrong, and to me that infers you mean that to do so makes the
concept unworkable. Your explanation below about what you did mean
clarifies it for me, and I stand corrected.

This attitude is a good starting point for you to understand some
physics.


Your attitude shows everyone you're just full of it.


To give an example: The moon is a physical object having e.g mass.
But the moon's orbit is not a pysical object. It has no mass.
It is simply a function of position and time.
However, this function tells me where to look when I want to see the
moon. Thus, the function of the moon's orbit is the information about
where to find the moon.

Very good analogy, but we are talking about the electron's orbit, so
why not use the electron instead of the moon? The eIectron has mass
like the moon and it is claimed that its orbit is a function of
position and time. In mathematics, a function is a quantity defined by
other values all of which are variable. Thus, the function
attributable to the electron's orbit would be the variable quantity
based on the calculation of the particle's position wrt a given time.

The electron's orbit can be expressed as a function of position and time
but not its position as a function of time.


Right. So your analogy don't work either. You claim that the
"function" of the moon's orbit, a quantity, is defined by the other
variables involved, in this case position and time. You also claim
that the quantity - i.e., the function, of the moon's orbit is the
information about where to find the moon. But if you already know the
position of the moon, you already know where to find it, right?

The wave function is simply the "cloud" in which we may find the
electron at any given moment. I have read it called a "standing wave"
also. It is not the orbit of the electron, rather, it is all of the
orbits that the electron is likely to take in its motion within the
atom. It is not useful for "finding" the electron, rather, it is
called the wave function solely for the purpose of having it collapse
when someone looks at it, IMO.

In the last article I read about it, the electron was accelerated to
very high speed within its "cloud" and after awhile, the experiment
resulted in the cloud changing into what was called a "superposition
state". As I said, that was some time ago, and I assume they have gone
way beyond that or discovered their conclusions were somewhat offtrack.


In this case, the function of an electron's orbit is simply the
position of the electron determined by the known velocity and time
factors. The time factor is an arbitrary one, but because of the
Principle of Uncertainty, we cannot obtain the information you claim we
get as a summary from calculating the time and speed within the orbit.
We cannot know the exact speed of the particle because our act of
setting its location prevents us from knowing its precise location.

You are right with what your saying. But I didn't claim that you can
measure the position and momentum of an electron at the same time.
I just used the analogy to illustrate that the wave function is
a mathematical object, not a physical one.


I said nothing about momentum, either. The wave function is not a math
object but a math quantity.


Now, you say that the function of the moon's orbit tells you where to
find the moon, and I assume you meant to say also, "at a given
instant", since you must select a time during the orbit in order to
find the object. But calculating the location of the moon is not the
same as with particles because the Uncertainty principle applies to
quantum objects, and thus your information is still a guess.

To be precise: the uncertainty principle also applies to the moon.
The effect is however so small that it can be neglected.

In mathematics, a function also denotes a relationship of two sets in
which each member of one set uniquely corresponds to a member of the
other set. I don't see how that definition can apply here, but if you
do, feel free to explain it.

Well, for quantum mechanical wave functions you would have amplitudes
as a function of e.g. position and time.


Surely, but how do those quantities help you find the electron, and
since you already know where it is, why are you looking for it?

...
As a consequence different observers may have different
wave functions for their description of a quantum mechanical system.

Yes, and none of them accurate or viable.

Depends on what you call accurate.
The point is there is no better description possible.


Yes, that is the nitty gritty of it, isn't it? Weird science has
gotten us to the point where scientists create fantasy to describe
theory, and they sell to themselves and to the public.


So you are saying that particle accelerations occur naturally?

Do TV sets or computers occur naturally?


Evasion attempt noted.

...
And please, TomGee. Read more carefully what I wrote or
I won't be able to respond to something you thought (or wished)
I have said.

Why not? If I write something that I do not explain well enough for
you to understand, simply say so and I will elaborate on it. Your
responses are well-received by me as I think they are well-founded and
reasonable. Feel free to correct me of any mistaken ideas I get about
what you say. There is no other way to have a discussion.

You have so many mistaken ideas that it is hard to find a start.


With so many at hand, you could have listed at least one. I have
pointed out your silly ideas at every point of my objections. You OTOH
claim I have many wrong ideas yet you list none. Talk is cheap but
supporting your opinions is hard work.


I could only recommend that you read some physics basics book.
(E.g. Feynman lectures)


Bad recommendation, if it gives me the same fairy tales you believe in.


And possibly you should stop distrusting science. What physicists say
is usually well founded although it might not always be easy to
comprehend for a layman (and sometimes even for other physicists).


Bad understanding: I do not mistrust science. I mistrust those like
you who talk nonsense all day long and then turn up their snotty noses
at anyone who shows them up.


If you do not understand the principle concepts of quantum mechanics
because you have not studied physics does not necessarily mean that
quantum mechanics is wrong.


Apparently you don't understand "the principle concepts of " qm because
you studied the wrong physics. You are the one saying that qm is
wrong, as shown with your fairytale belief in the non-qm superposition
theory. You do know all that is theory and none of it is fact,
principle, or law, right?


Sorry, I will stop the discussion here.


Yes, no need to embarass yourself any more than you have already.