Darren New wrote:
> You're looking at a pattern of events, seeing that its mathematical 
> equation matches in some ways the mathematical equation of the height of 
> a wave, and you're saying "hence, the phenomenon must be a wave." 

More specifically, it's not that the electron interferes with itself. 
It's that there's an interference-like pattern (i.e., a convolution) in 
the *probability* that an electron goes to a specific place.

The electron isn't a wave, because you don't see a wave even when there 
*is* an interference pattern. Instead, you see an interference pattern 
in the *probabilities* that an electron will show up at some particular 
point on the screen.

The electron always shows up at one point, every time you measure it, 
including when it has "been through both slits".   You never, ever see 
an "electron wave" even when both slits are open and you're getting 
"interference". The interference of the electron isn't with itself. The 
"interference" pattern comes from the probability of the electron being 
at one place convolving with the probability of the electron being at 
other places.

An electron isn't a wave. It shares none of the properties of waves.

A whole bunch of electrons share a bunch of properties that waves have. 
That doesn't make individual electrons waves any more than it make 
individual water molecules waves.

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     "That's pretty. Where's that?"
          "It's the Age of Channelwood."
     "We should go there on vacation some time."

Post a reply to this message