From: nicolaas.vroom@pandora.be   
      
   On Sunday, 8 January 2017 09:38:43 UTC+1, Rich L.  wrote:   
   > On Saturday, January 7, 2017 at 3:29:52 AM UTC-6, Nicolaas Vroom wrote:   
   >   
   > > Such a comparison with a photon and a wave function is all very tricky   
   >   
   > I agree, I made that argument only to get across the idea of the wave   
   > function as a probability distribution.  The poster seems to be trying   
   > to think that the wave function is something real and represents the   
   > particle itself, which clearly doesn't work.   
      
   I hope that more readers agree with us.   
      
   > >> The mathematics will imply diffusion, just like the wave function   
   > >> for a photon emitted by an atom.   
   > >   
   > > And what does tell you about the behaviour of photons in space?   
   >   
   > Only the probabilities of finding the photon in a particular location at   
   > a particular time.  My point is that the wave function actually tells   
   > you nothing about how the particle gets there.   
      
   Again I agree with you   
      
   > > The first thing you can do is to study the mathematics how water   
   > > waves propagate through one or two holes.   
   >   
   > That can be misleading because the water waves ARE real and show   
   > locality.   
      
   There is nothing misleading in studying experiments involving water waves.   
      
   > QM is inherently non-local, and that is one (of several)   
   > reasons why we consider the wave function to be a purely mathematical   
   > entity, and definitely not the particle itself.   
      
   All physical reactions IMO are local. In fact each physical reaction is   
   a result of an other physical reaction (or change).   
      
   > > With study I mean perform actual experiments not thought experiments as   
   > > what you often see when I study (I mean read about) quantum mechanics.   
   >   
   > There are many real experiments to refer to about all this, the "thought   
   > experiments" are distillations of those experiments.  Study the two slit   
   > experiment, Stern-Gerlach experiments, photon entanglement experiments   
   > (e.g. Aspects experiments) for the original experimental basis for the   
   > thought experiments.   
      
   Non of these experiments can be performed as a thought experiment.   
   The only thing you can do is discuss different setups of each experiment   
   and dependent about the possible results of the experiment which other   
   setups (arrangements) to try next.   
   At the same time, based on the results, you can devellop and refine the   
   mathematics that describe the experiments.   
      
   For example as the results of experiments you can learn that there   
   are correlations involved. Knowing that there are correlations you can   
   refine the experiments to learn more about the boundaries of   
   these correlations.   
      
   > > Along that same line does it make sense to use a concept like   
   > > the collapse of a wave function?   
   >   
   > No, except as a mathematical concept, not a physical one.   
      
   When the 'collapse of the wave function' does not make sense physical,   
   than the concept also not make sense mathematically.   
      
   I get the impression that for some people the action of performing   
   a measurement involves the 'collapse of the wave function'.   
   IMO if this is always the case then the concept does not make   
   sense.   
      
   Nicolaas Vroom   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)