Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site brl-tgr.ARPA Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!mtuxo!mtunh!mtung!mtunf!ariel!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!hplabs!qantel!dual!lll-crg!gymble!umcp-cs!seismo!brl-tgr!gwyn From: gwyn@brl-tgr.ARPA (Doug Gwyn) Newsgroups: net.physics Subject: Re: Re: Faster than Light Message-ID: <11387@brl-tgr.ARPA> Date: Fri, 5-Jul-85 14:36:53 EDT Article-I.D.: brl-tgr.11387 Posted: Fri Jul 5 14:36:53 1985 Date-Received: Thu, 11-Jul-85 06:03:26 EDT References: <353@sri-arpa.ARPA> <681@lll-crg.ARPA> Organization: Ballistic Research Lab Lines: 13 > > The wave function is more than just a computational device - it is the actual > > probability amplitude, whose mod-squared gives the probability density of > > seeing a photon at a given point. The wave function collapse is the stronger > > I certainly agree that the wavefunction is a probability amplitude which > mathematically propagates according to a set of equations of motion. It > is not however real physical entity like for instance an electric field. (followed by a discussion about how the wave function isn't real) Everything you say about the QM wave function could also be said about the electric field. What makes the electric field any more real than the QM wave function?