Andreas Most wrote:
Because you asked for it I just extract your mistaken ideas from your
last posting.

TomGee wrote:
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

Number 1: You cannot observe a wave function. You can only measure
observables like position, energy, momentum etc.

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?

The "mere glance" into the box gives you new information such that you
have to modify the wave function.
Number 2: The wave function is not a physical object. It is simply a
mathematical object that contains all the information you have about a
system. As soon as you have new information (perform a measurement) you
have to modify your description of the system (i.e. wave function)

...
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?

How would I already know where to find the moon without the orbit equation?
(Ok, that is not a mistaken idea. It is simply lack of logic.
So, I do not count it).


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.

Number 3: It is the electron's orbit!
Number 4: There is no looking at the orbit. You can only look at
effects of an orbit (E.g. transition between orbits while emitting or
absorbing a photon).

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.

Number 5: When you are talking about speed in this context you are
talking about momentum. A physics book would have taught you this.

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?

Ah, now you are asking the right questions. But unfortunately it also
shows that you have no idea what a wave function is and what it is for.
I take it as number 6 and must again ask you to read a physics book.


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.

So there they are. BTW, go back to my previous postings and read them
more carefully. There are some mor mistaken ideas from that I have
pointed out to you.

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.

Well if you think these are fairy tales than please give me a proof for
it. But obviously you have never read one of these "fairy tales"
thoroughly enough because you do not even know what a wave function is
and what it is used for. You simply judge by hearsay.


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.

What you call my "nonsense" is the widely accepted science.

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

Where did I say anything about a non-qm superposition theory? I do not
believe in such a thing.

theory. You do know all that is theory and none of it is fact,
principle, or law, right?

Well the point is that experiments confirm the theory. Within the
limits of validity QM predicts the correct outcomes of measurements.
So why should I (or you) doubt that fact?

Sorry, I will stop the discussion here.

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

You are talking about yourself.