Mueen Nawaz <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote:
> One could simply explain this by saying 
> that the presence of two slits causes the electron to act in a 
> probabilistic manner - resulting in an interference pattern.

  That's not an explanation. You are not telling what exactly is it
with the two slits that causes the interference pattern, you are just
telling that when there are two slits, there is an interference pattern.
Thus you are not explaining anything, you are simply stating the result
of the experiment.

>         And, AFAIK, that's the best explanation there is.

  Except that it's not an explanation at all. It's simply stating the
result of the experiment.

>         And detecting which slit an electron passes through is also evidence 
> that it isn't passing through both slits.

  It's only evidence that measurements mess up with the electron. It
doesn't explain the reason for the interference pattern.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message