From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!torn.onet.on.ca!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!usc!wupost!uunet!trwacs!erwin Tue Jun  9 10:07:35 EDT 1992
Article 6130 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!torn.onet.on.ca!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!usc!wupost!uunet!trwacs!erwin
>From: erwin@trwacs.fp.trw.com (Harry Erwin)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Hypothesis: I am a Transducer (Formerly "Virtual Grounding")
Message-ID: <624@trwacs.fp.trw.com>
Date: 6 Jun 92 20:21:24 GMT
References: <1992Jun4.142045.1608@oracorp.com>
Organization: TRW Systems Division, Fairfax VA
Lines: 25

Re: wave functions

I've given some physicists the willies with this interpretation, and yet
others have told me it's not far off: Consider an electron. In our universe,
you can't have just "an" electron, because it is surrounded by a cloud of
virtual particles, and identifying the real electron from the virtual ones
nearby is impossible. Hence, the wave function actually describes a cloud
of particles. The value of the wave function integrated over a small
region is the expected excess of electrons in that cloud in that region
when you sum _everything_ in the cloud. Hence there is no _real_ electron,
but rather a cloud of virtual particles that has an excess averaging one
electron.

Since the sum we are dealing with is a conditional sum over an infinite
set, we can get other results besides an excess of one electron. If you're
in an accelerated frame, you will see particles that you wouldn't see in a
frame at rest... So the nature of the reference frame may well define your
rules for doing the conditional sum...

Not being a physicist, I'll leave it at that.

Cheers,
-- 
Harry Erwin
Internet: erwin@trwacs.fp.trw.com


