Warp wrote:
>   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.

	Precisely. It's a descriptive formalism. AFAIK, physicists simply don't 
know what is going on, and nor are they sure there is any more to it 
than the above.

>>         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.

	Isn't that what a theory is?

	A theory is not a theory if it is not testable. My "explanation" is 
testable. If you do the experiment tomorrow, my description will hold true.

	Your claim that it passes through both slits is untestable. We can 
never detect that it is doing this.

>>         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.

	And that there is an interference pattern does not explain how many 
slits the wave passed through.

-- 
A closed mouth gathers no feet...


                     /\  /\               /\  /
                    /  \/  \ u e e n     /  \/  a w a z
                        >>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
                                    anl

Post a reply to this message