|
|
Warp wrote:
>> 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.)
You're misreading him. He said that a single electron does not produce
an interference pattern (i.e. if you shoot only one electron). To get an
interference pattern, you need many electrons (even if shot one at a time).
>> 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.
Actually, he's not. He's merely saying it is a theory. His point is
that your belief has been tested and is questionable.
> 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
How are you making it go through one slit, when you measure it after
it has gone through it? Did the electron know in advance that you were
going to measure it?
>> 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.
Quote from you:
"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?"
--
Fax me no questions, I'll Fax you no lies!
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|