🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <3NOV199213105174@csa2.lbl.gov>, sichase@csa2.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE) writes:
> 
> The wavefunction of an electron describes it's position distribution in 
> a particular electromagnetic potential, not its shape.  The shape of an 
> electron would be determined by the wavefunctions of its constituents, 
> if they were found to exist.  If you don't understand this, I recommend 
> Liboff's _Quantum Mechanics_ as a good place to freshen up on the 
> interpretation of the wave function.  

I understand that the constituents of the proton determine its shape
as defined by cross section and that the electron does not seem to have
any constituents and thus has a point like cross section.
I suspect that all the standard interpretations of the wave function
are wrong. That there is more than one interpretation is one
indication that this is true. I object to teaching and discussing
interpretations of the wave function as if they were established fact
instead of the philosophical speculation that they are. For the same
reason I object to the statement that the wave function does not
define a shape. If the wave function is an objective physical phenomena
it does define a shape albeit a highly mallable one. This is an open
question subject to experimental test. To treat it otherwise is a mistake.

Paul Budnik