Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Incidentally, it doesn't interfere with itself - I misspoke. It 
> interferes with other electrons.

  What other electrons?

> Sure, they only go through one at a 
> time. What was that about time travel?

  The electron somehow magically knows that in the future more electrons
will be there and act accordingly?

> >   However, when there are two slits, the electron passes through and starts
> > interfering with itself, as if it has passed through both and changed
> > direction in different ways.

> How do you know?

  I don't, but there seems to be just two alternatives:

1) The electron passes through both slits at the same time, interferes
   with itself, and thus acts according to a logical mathematical formula.

2) Something completely unknown is happening which we can't even begin
   to theoretize.

  From these two you want me to choose number 2. Moreover, you seem to
be saying that an electron passing through two slits at the same time is
too hard to believe, but things like time travel are completely believable
and understandable. Your reasoning doesn't make too much sense to me.

>  Every time you measure whether it went through both 
> slits, the answer is "no, there was only one electron."

  Of course there was only one electron. And yes, measuring messes up
the electron. So what?

> You keep 
> asserting this, with no evidence other than "I can't think of any other 
> explanation", along with rejecting both evidence and other explanations.

  You want me to believe some stories about time-travelling electrons
instead of thinking that the interference is simply caused by the
electron going through both slits as if it was a wave. Honestly, what
do you expect me to believe more, as a rational person?

> Your intuition is confusing you. How does it "know" there's a back 
> surface to the glass and therefore needs to reflect differently? How 
> does it "know" there's another electron already "on the way" to where 
> it's going and hence that position needs to be avoided?

  What another electron? I don't understand.

> Why is it a wave going through both slits but a particle by the time it 
> gets to the detector?

  Why do quanta behave both like waves and particles? I don't know.
It just seems they do.

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

> I don't know, and as far as I understand, nobody else does either. But 
> all of the evidence so far suggests your interpretation is incorrect.

  *All* the evidence? Including the interference pattern?

  How come a phenomenon which was evidence for the electron passing as
a wave through both slits has suddenly become evidence of the contrary?

> For example, if you do the same thing with photons, wait for them to go 
> thru the slits, and after they've already passed through, you either 
> turn on or off the detector that says which slit they went through, you 
> always see them only go through one slit when the detector is on, and 
> always generate interference probabilities when the detector is off. How 
> do you explain that?

  I don't know why measuring quanta messes up with their behavior.

> >   The interference can be explained with the electron passing through both
> > slits at the same time.

> Yes.

  First you say that *all* evidence suggests that the claim is incorrect,
and now you admit that at least one piece of evidence doesn't.

> But that's also at odds with many other experiments. If the 
> electron goes through both slits, why is it that you never see it go 
> through both slits when you put a detector behind each slit?

  I don't know why measuring quanta messes up with their behavior.

> The sun rising can be explained by angels pushing it along, as well,

  Or electrons travelling in time.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message