Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> >   But their simultaneous location in more than one place can be inferred
> > by other side-effects. 

> Nope. When you actually measure it, it's only going thru one slit.

  So when the electron hits the sensitive film *after* it has passed the
slits, it goes back to the past and changes it so that it goes through
only one of the slits after all?

  I knew quantum mechanics were whacky, but I didn't know particles could
travel back in time and change their previous behavior because the effect
of that behavior was measured *after* the fact.

> > For example a single electron can pass through two
> > slits at the same time, interfering with itself after doing so.

> Not as such. Yes, you get interference patterns. No, as far as I know, 
> there's no evidence to suggest it goes through both slits. Nobody is 
> quite sure how it works, but there's no measurement that when you say 
> "where is the thing" it ever gives you more than one answer.

  So you are saying that, even though the only possible explanation for
interference patterns is that the electron passed through both slits,
there's still no evidence of that?

  If there's "no evidence", what do you call the interference pattern?
"Non-evidence"?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message