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?