Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 8/28/84; site lll-crg.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!mtuxo!mtunh!mtung!mtunf!ariel!vax135!petsd!pesnta!amd!vecpyr!lll-crg!brooks
From: brooks@lll-crg.ARPA (Eugene D. Brooks III)
Newsgroups: net.physics
Subject: Re: Re: Faster than Light
Message-ID: <681@lll-crg.ARPA>
Date: Fri, 5-Jul-85 04:36:25 EDT
Article-I.D.: lll-crg.681
Posted: Fri Jul  5 04:36:25 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 7-Jul-85 05:56:36 EDT
References: <353@sri-arpa.ARPA>
Organization: Lawrence Livermore Labs, CRG group
Lines: 33

> 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.
It is just a probability amplitude that you square to get the probability
of various results.  People get unhappy with the idea of it "collapsing
instantanously" because they think of it as a real physical object.  This
causes them to think that someting is moving faster than light when it
"collapses".  Nothing is moving!  There wasn't anything there in the first
place.  The only real things that happend were the release of a photon
at one place and its later capture somewhere else.  Nothing happens in
between.  You conjure the wavefunction up in your head to explain the
probability distribution of the results and it works, I will be the last
to argue with that, but the wave function is in your head.  The only real
physical happenings are the release and detection of the photon.

Only the "event", ie the firing of a phototube is real.  Insisting on
believing that the wavefunction is a real physical object will only keep
you from developing an intuition that removes any headaches over the EPR
paradox and the like.  There is no such thing as a wave function meter,
you can't measure it directly.  You can only see the phototube fire and
that it all there is to it.  If you don't repeat the experiment many times
you can't even find out anything about the supposed "wave function".  You
can only know that the phototube fired.

Physics is what happens on the experimental table, theorists should not get
their backs up about this statement as I am a theorist, theory is what goes
on in your head. The wave function which is a figment of ones imagination
is a computational tool.  Can you loan me a cup of wavefunction just like a
cup of sugar?