Warp wrote:
>   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?

No. It either interferes with itself or not. You're assuming the only 
way it can interfere with itself is to go through both slits. There's no 
evidence that's the case, and much evidence that it isn't.

>   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.

Actually, yes, they can. For example, a photon can emit a 
backwards-traveling electron (aka a positron) which cancels with the 
electron it emits later, so as to preserve the number of non-virtual 
particles around. It's weird.

But there's no evidence that's what's happening in the two-slit experiment.

>   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?

Yes. What makes you think that the only *possible* explanation is that 
the electron passed through both slits?

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

Interference. Nobody knows why, because every time you measure an 
electron, there's only one, even when both slits are open. There are 
plenty of experiments where both slits are open and you only ever see 
the electron go through one or the other and never both. Of course, you 
don't get the interference when you actually look, but then the fact 
you're looking *after* the electron went through the slits shouldn't 
affect which slits it goes through, should it?

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     "That's pretty. Where's that?"
          "It's the Age of Channelwood."
     "We should go there on vacation some time."

Post a reply to this message