View Single Post
ThomasT
#40
Oct7-11, 12:32 PM
P: 1,414
Quote Quote by ThomasT
Standard 'uninterpreted' QM doesn't posit a physical 'collapse' of a wave shell in real space and time.
Quote Quote by bohm2 View Post
This is what I find so difficult to understand about the epistemic view. If one treats the wave function as a mathematical probability wave (an epistemic device to calculate the probability of finding a particle in a particular spatial location) it seems like a very strange sort of probability wave, since it can have "physical" effects like the interference pattern in double-slit experiments.
Well, interacting waves produce interference patterns. That shouldn't seem so strange. And it's good to keep in mind that wave-mechanical QM is based largely on classical wave mechanics.

I don't know exactly how Shroedinger came up with his wave equation, but maybe somebody here does.

You can treat the wave function as a mathematical probability wave because that's all that can be known for sure that it is. However, the fact that it actually works as well as it does seems to suggest that there's some more or less familiar wave mechanics happening in the underlying reality. But that might be misleading. I don't know. Anyway, probability distributions are waves, and the wave functions of QM are probability distributions.

Quote Quote by bohm2 View Post
Even the probability density doesn't appear like the classical notion of probability.
From Wiki:
Probability amplitude
Probability density function

Quote Quote by bohm2 View Post
I'll never understand this and I tried to understand Fuch's arguments but as hard as I tried, I just couldn't follow them.
I think you'll eventually understand it. And then you can explain it to me.

I don't think I've read the Fuchs article that I think you're referring to. Maybe I'll get to it this afternoon.