Andreas Most wrote:
TomGee wrote:
...
Well, you have a most apt name, Most. You most disagree with
everything, even yourself!

I don't know why you get offensive about my name, apart from the
fact that your interpretation is most probably wrong. The german
word 'Most' means 'juice' and in slavic languages 'most' means bridge.

And I neither disagree with everything nor with myself. Maybe you
read my responses more carefully.

The wave function "collapses" as soon as you
get new information about a quantum mechanical system.


No, it does not.


This is because the wave function summarizes the information you have
about a system.


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?

Izzatso? And just how in your wildest dreams can a wave function
summarize any information you have? How stupid is that? You said the
wave function idea doesn't work and I agreed with you, but here you say
it works just great! What made you change your mind about that?

I nowhere said that the wave function idea doesn't work. I just said
that interpreting the wave function as a physical object is wrong.


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.


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.

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.

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.

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.


A similar reasoning applies to the quantum mechanical wave function.
It is no physical object. But it tells me what my measurement results
on a quantum mechanical system will be. Therefore it summarizes the
information I have about this system.

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.


But since the wave function cannot collapse, er, summarize any
information about anything, there are no consequences at all for any
observers.

Ehhh, have you been listening to what I've said?


Yes, and for any observer to depend on his imprecise observations is
folly.

...
What phenomena are you talking about?


The phenomena is called "superposition".


As I pointed out above there
is no paradoxon with EPR (even Einstein recognized that).
And there is no problem with causality as no information is exchanged.

And yet you said it was a situation of causality. Do you have any idea
what you've said?

Where did I say "it was a situation of causality"?
Again, read carefully what I've written in what context.

...
How do you know that these energies do not occur in nature?

Simple intuition. If they did, there would be no need for researchers
to create them in their experiments.

Very strange idea. If researchers did not need to perform experiments of
things that occur in nature the governments all over the world could
save a lot of money that is currently used in physics, chemistry,
medicine, pharmacy etc. for doing such experiments.


So you are saying that particle accelerations occur naturally?


And what makes you think that quantum physical behavior is different
at high energies?

And what makes you think that it is not? Intuition?

Experimental evidence.


Yeah, right.


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.

TomGee wrote:

It's a shame that the OP responds only to emails, as I have
no intention of doing that.

I emailed him directly a while back, as I took particular exception to
his
Chapter 5 of "The Einstein Hoax". I explained to him in detail why Fig
5.1
works (this is the Alain Aspect measurement of the early 80s), and why
his Fig 5.3 does not work.

He would have none of it, so I pointed him to


http://arxiv.org/ftp/quant-ph/papers/0402/0402001.pdf


which is a follow up paper by Aspect (the very author who Retic is
quoting).


Skip down to Eqn(1) on p3, which is the entangled state Aspect was
working with. He then analyses this as to what you measure at
polarizer I (Alice, the "transmitter"), and polarizer II (Bob, the
"receiver"). Immediately you find Eqn(2), which expands as


P+(a)=0.5
P-(a)=0.5
P+(b)=0.5
P-(b)=0.5


where P is the probability of detecting a photon, + and - are the two
channels of the polarizer (like "parallel" and "perpendicular"), a is
the angle of Alice's polarizer at I, and b is the angle of Bob's
polarizer
at II. The polarizers I and II are the *first* polarization sensitive
elements in the experiment to the left and right (could be
beamsplitters,
polarizers, whatever). After the first polarization dependent element
the coupling is destroyed.


This applies directly to Retic's Fig 5.3, and shows that no matter
what he does at Alice, it makes no difference at Bob, and no signal
can be sent.


This is well known to everyone who has studied entangled photons.


Also:
There is no time information in entangled photons saying when they
become dis-entangled.


See the weird and wonderful experiment


"A delayed choice quantum eraser"
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/9903/9903047.pdf


which shows up many of the strange things of QM, one of which being
the fact that such time information is not present. The only time
information you can get is arrival time at a detector.


This applies directly to Retic's Fig5.2.


So he may as well use a pulsed light source as the "photon source",
and never mind the entanglement. But this case is fully covered by
SR/GR and the Michelson-Morley null-result experiment, both of which
explicitly contradict Retic's conclusion.


So with Fig5.2 and Fig5.3 disproved already by actual experiments, the
whole of his Chapter 5 "The Resurrection of Absolute Velocity by
Quantum Experiments" is gone.


After explaining this to him myself, and how Fig5.1 can still work
(but still can't be used to send info faster than light), after giving
him numerous links where others explain it, over a series of 18 emails,
even in terms an educated layman can understand, his reply was (and I
copy-paste in full)


"Beat it idiot and stop ;oadimg up ,my E-mail with your ignorant crap!"



regards,


br

PD wrote:
...
You are wasting your time with TomGee, aka Thomas Garcia. He likes
"thinking" about such things but couldn't be bothered reading about
them, aside from definitions in his Encarta mini-encyclopedia. He is
easily confused about Newton's first and third laws of motion. His
understanding of dark matter is that there is a lot of it. He has no
understanding of quantum mechanics whatsoever.

However, he does like taunting his respondents, blathering that they
are the "only ones who think that way" and that much of physics is full
of "wild, unsupported opinions."

If you enjoy that sort of thing, have at it.

PD

Thanks for your hint which I appreciate.
I figured it out myself and still thought it is worth a try.
But you are probably right that I am wasting my time.

Regards,
Andreas.

TomGee wrote:
...
Well, you have a most apt name, Most. You most disagree with
everything, even yourself!

I don't know why you get offensive about my name, apart from the
fact that your interpretation is most probably wrong. The german
word 'Most' means 'juice' and in slavic languages 'most' means bridge.

And I neither disagree with everything nor with myself. Maybe you
read my responses more carefully.

The wave function "collapses" as soon as you
get new information about a quantum mechanical system.


No, it does not.


This is because the wave function summarizes the information you have
about a system.



Izzatso? And just how in your wildest dreams can a wave function
summarize any information you have? How stupid is that? You said the
wave function idea doesn't work and I agreed with you, but here you say
it works just great! What made you change your mind about that?

I nowhere said that the wave function idea doesn't work. I just said
that interpreting the wave function as a physical object is wrong.
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.

A similar reasoning applies to the quantum mechanical wave function.
It is no physical object. But it tells me what my measurement results
on a quantum mechanical system will be. Therefore it summarizes the
information I have about this system.

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

But since the wave function cannot collapse, er, summarize any
information about anything, there are no consequences at all for any
observers.

Ehhh, have you been listening to what I've said?

...
What phenomena are you talking about? As I pointed out above there
is no paradoxon with EPR (even Einstein recognized that).
And there is no problem with causality as no information is exchanged.

And yet you said it was a situation of causality. Do you have any idea
what you've said?

Where did I say "it was a situation of causality"?
Again, read carefully what I've written in what context.

...
How do you know that these energies do not occur in nature?

Simple intuition. If they did, there would be no need for researchers
to create them in their experiments.

Very strange idea. If researchers did not need to perform experiments of
things that occur in nature the governments all over the world could
save a lot of money that is currently used in physics, chemistry,
medicine, pharmacy etc. for doing such experiments.


And what makes you think that quantum physical behavior is different
at high energies?

And what makes you think that it is not? Intuition?

Experimental evidence.


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.

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.

...
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.

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.

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.


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.

...
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.

So you are saying that particle accelerations occur naturally?

Do TV sets or computers occur naturally?

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

Sorry, I will stop the discussion here.

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.

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.

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.

"Andreas Most" schrieb
In the EPR case no information is transferred between the two particles
nor is it possible to communicate with such an EPR setup.

That it is not possible to communicate with an EPR device is a proven
theorem. But why do you think no information is transferred?

Instead, Bell's theorem proves that, if you insist that no information
is transferred, you have to give up realism. But once you give up
realism, it makes no sense to say that no information is transferred.

The confusion only occurs when you intepret the wave function as a
physical object.

To interpret the wave function as a physical object is one of the
possible realistic interpretations of quantum theory. In these
interpretations, we have information transfer.

There is no confusion in these interpretations.

Although there is no known mechanism to transport
information without a carrier that has energy, the reasoning for
rejecting propagation of information faster than light deals with
causality, not mass nor energy.

Please present and defend this reasoning.

Ilja

"Andreas Most" schrieb
I nowhere said that the wave function idea doesn't work. I just said
that interpreting the wave function as a physical object is wrong.
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.

A strange analogy which proves nothing.

BTW, there things which, similar to the
trajectory of the moon, tell you where to find other objects
(railways for trains).

A similar reasoning applies to the quantum mechanical wave function.
It is no physical object. But it tells me what my measurement results
on a quantum mechanical system will be. Therefore it summarizes the
information I have about this system.

A box containing some liquid in equilibrium also, in some sense,
summarizes the information I have about the liquid. Therefore the
box is not a physical object?

Ilja