Questions about properties of wave-functions

Jazzdude

The introduction of particles that are piloted by the field is a nonlinearity of the theory. The fields stay linear, but the properties of the particles are not subject to superposition. So it's the lack of a linear structure in the point particle representation that breaks the linearity of the theory.

As for other interpretations that are able to actually derive the Born rule, I'd be interested in hearing which you have in mind. The only derivations I know of are in the context of MWI (with artificial assumptions that are practically equivalent to stating the Born rule directly) or Zurek's envariance, which I consider circular.

audioloop

yes sir, i forgot the minus symboll.
thanks.

audioloop

well, related arguments.

Schroedinger equation from an exact uncertainty principle
J. Phys. A 35 (2002) 3289
http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0102069

Exact uncertainty approach in quantum mechanics and quantum gravity
Gen. Relativ. Gravit. 37 (2005) 1505
http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0408098v1.pdf

and
http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0610142v2.pdf

audioloop

unifying quantum and thermodinamics

Nonlinear extensions of Schrödinger-von Neumann quantum dynamics: a list of conditions for compatibility with thermodynamics.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0402180v1.pdf


Nonlinear Quantum Evolution Equations to Model Irreversible Adiabatic Relaxation with Maximal Entropy Production and Other Nonunitary Processes.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/0907.1977v1.pdf



....In contrast with the epistemic framework, where the linearity of the dynamical law is a requirement, the assumed ontic status of the density operator emancipates its dynamical law from the restrictive requirement of linearity....

Simon Bridge

San K is still wrestling with these concepts if recent threads are anything to go by...
Depends what you mean by real - it is useful to think of them as mathematical tools for helping make predictions.They cannot do this. You do not get a photon interacting with a wavefunction - the photon and wavefunction are different descriptions of the same thing.[also see answer to #4]Some wave functions describe travelling waves, so they can be thought of as travelling. This basically means that the time evolution of a wave-function means that the peaks and troughs are in different places at different times.Wavefunctions can be used to describe quantum entanglement.No. This question was revisited in your recent thread here.The "collapse" is part of a description known as the Copenhagen Interpretation. It is not considered "instant" and there is some debate about how seriously to consider it.No - entanglement is a different process. A photon is usually detected by electromagnetism - it gets destroyed, and it's energy absorbed by an electron, which gets ejected. (There are other methods - but this gives you the idea: detection is not some magical effect of now you see it now you don't... it is a physical process.)There are wavefunctions which can be represented in terms of space-time... If we treat the Sun as a source for photons, and the earth as a detector, then we can use a wave-function method to work out the probability of the Earth detecting a photon from the Sun and so make predictions about the observed solar photon flux at the earth. We can also work out the probability that it, instead, finds itself at some other opaque obstruction. The final destination of the photon remains uncertain until it arrives and is detected.

... it may be useful people who have attempted to help San K with these earlier threads to visit some of the recent ones as it seems that some misunderstandings persist.