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

> The other electrons in the experiment. You don't get an interference 
> pattern from a single electron - that's exactly why people say electrons 
> are particles. You get an interference pattern when you average the 
> probability of many electrons.

  But the electrons are shot one at a time. They do not interfere with
each other. (And don't start talking about the time-travelling nonsense
again. That makes a million times less sense than the electron going
through both slits at the same time.)

> >> 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?

> I don't know. Nobody knows. Except, apparently, you. :-)

  If you don't know, why are you even suggesting it? It's absolutely
nonsensical. The electron passing through both slits (as a wave phenomenon)
at least makes a little bit of sense if you have read even a tiny bit about
quantum phenomena, even if it defies sense at the everyday macroscopic
level.

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

> And yet, somehow, whenever you look, it only goes through one slit at a 
> time. How does it know?

  How can you "look" without interfering with the electron? Is there any
way of measuring the location of the electron without exerting some kind
of force or energy on it?

  A wave which suddenly behaves like a particle when it's measured may
make little sense, but at least it makes more sense than time-travelling
electrons.

> >   From these two you want me to choose number 2. 

> Given the choice between a theory that has copious experimental evidence 
> against it, and saying "we don't have a good theory", yes, picking "we 
> don't have a good theory" is better.

  You and your mythical "copious experimental evidence". The only evidence
which you have mentioned is that when the electron is measured, it behaves
like a particle (without even specifying how you can measure it without
affecting its properties).

  It's a bit like someone saying "a car can travel even faster than
100 km/h" and then someone going to a parking lot and saying "no, that's
not true, look at all these dozens of cars which are not even moving!"
He has "copious evidence" against the claim, yes. That doesn't necessarily
make the claim untrue. It *is* possible for cars to not to move at all
*and* move at over 100 km/h. Neither phenomenon is negative proof of the
other.

> > but things like time travel are completely believable
> > and understandable.

> Checked to 15 decimal places or so.

  Using hypothetical particles with no experimental evidence whatsoever
of their existence?

> > Your reasoning doesn't make too much sense to me.

> Common sense doesn't really apply to quantum electrodynamics.

  Yet you are sure that the electron may be travelling in time, but it
certainly does not go through both slits at the same time.

> >>  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?

> If every time you measure whether it went through both slits, the answer 
> is "no", why do you think it ever goes through both slits? Even if you 
> measure after it has already passed through the slits?

  Because it's a possible explanation for the interference pattern.
It may just be that when you measure it, you affect the electron and
it stops behaving like a wave. Why? I don't know. But it sounds less
nonsensical than time-travelling electrons.

> Quantum physics isn't intuitive. But you don't get to throw out 
> experimental evidence just because you can't figure out *why* you get 
> those results.

  Who is throwing out experimental evidence?

  I'm just saying that having a million cars that don't move doesn't
necessarily mean that cars can't move.

> How do you explain electrons going through both slits if, after it goes 
> through the slits, you measure which slit it went through, and you 
> always get the answer "only one"?

  How many times do I have to repeat this?

> >> 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.

> Electrons don't interfere with or cancel themselves out.

  You act inconsistently. Sometimes you are all like "nobody knows,
quantum mechanics defies all sense, how can you be so sure?", and other
times you write absolutes as if you had perfect knowledge on the subject.

> >> 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.

> Then why is it so hard to believe that's true even without it going thru 
> both slits?

  The wave going through both slits explains the interference pattern.
The wave going through one slit doesn't. That's why.

> >>>> 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 do you know it went thru both slits? Every time you ask, it only 
> goes through one slit. You're saying "the only way you can have an 
> interference pattern is for every electron to go through both slits." 
> That's an invalid inference.

  And you are saying "every time you measure the electron, it's going
through only one of the slits, and the interference disappears, thus
the only explanation for this is that the interference pattern is not
caused by the electron going through both slits". I don't see that as
any more valid of an inference.

  On the contrary, the fact that the interference pattern *disappears*
when you mess up with the electron (in other words, when you *make* it
go through one slit, it starts behaving like it's going through only
one slit) seems like a stronger evidence that it indeed is going through
both slits when it's not messed up with. If the electron could be
measured going through only one slit and the interference pattern would
still appear, *that* would be strong evidence that it's not going through
both slits and that the interference pattern is caused by something else.

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

> It hasn't. You are mistaken that the only possible explanation is that 
> the electron is a wave as it passes through both slits.

  I have never said it's the only *possible* explanation. I have said that
it's the only *existing* explanation. There's a categorical difference.

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

> So do you believe in time travel or not? Because clearly the decision as 
> to whether the electron went thru one slit or both is traveling back in 
> time in this experiment, *if* that's what's happening.

  Yeah, that's the only *possible* explanation, sure.

> >>>   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.

> No. The interference can also be "explained" by God screwing with our 
> heads, by intelligent electrons trying to confuse you, or by magic fairy 
> dust. None of those are correct either.

  Please don't start making straw mans. You are trying to make the
explanation sound ridiculous by comparing it to other ridiculous
"explanations".

> >> 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.

> But you *do* know that they go through both slits. Interesting.

  And you *do* know that they don't. Interesting.

> >> The sun rising can be explained by angels pushing it along, as well,
> >   Or electrons travelling in time.

> Mmmmm.  The sweet, sweet smell of assertive ignorance.

  The sweet, sweet smell of a straw man.

> How come it's reasonable that time isn't comparable everywhere, but that 
> subatomic particles can't travel in time?

  Time going at different speeds at different locations is not the same
thing as time-travelling.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message