taylor (05/12/82)
I'm not convinced that the 'collapse' of the wave function is a meaningful,
i.e. having a 'physical' answer, question. In order for the electron to
be observed, the observation may be made only within the limits of the
uncertainty principle, which is BOTH time and space dependent. The
Schroedinger equation for that same electron must also be time and space
dependent. Although I haven't made an attempt at a mathematical
calculation, I'll bet that if you write the wave equation for a particle
which could be observed at points as widely separated as you are discussing
here, the parameters must be such that the uncertainty principle makes the
time frame so large that the question of simultaneity/position becomes
moot. If the requirement of ignoring the uncertainty principle is added,
then the question certainly becomes moot, as one can't make meaningful
statements if half the rules are ignored.
"The uncertainty principle 'protects' quantum mechanics. Heisenberg rec-
ognized that if it were possibleto measure the momentum and position
simultaneously with a greater accuracy, the quantum mechanics would
collapse. So he proposed that it must be impossible. Then people sat down
and tried to figure out ways of doing it, and nobody could figure out a
way to measure the position and momentum of anything - a screen, an
electron, a billiard ball, anything - with any greater accuracy. Quantum
mechanics maintains its perilous but still correct existence."
--------- R. P. Feynman
The Feynman Lectures on Physics
Volume III (Quantum Mechanics)