Darren New wrote:
> not know a thing; there is too much science.  Absence of such evidence 
> is only extremely weak evidence of absence.  So do not mistake your 

	Note that you're quoting this, and it's contradicting your statement in 
this very same subthread.
	
	I have to say that, quite unlike you, you've been somewhat unclear in 
your position on this whole thing. I initially thought you were saying 
time travel is a possible explanation, but you weren't saying that was 
how it happened. IOW, you didn't know of any data contradicting that 
theory, but you did that contradicted the notion that an electron went 
through both slits.

	But now I'm not sure - so let me ask explicitly:

1) Do you actually believe the time travel theory? If so, can you cite 
experimental evidence supporting it? I have not yet looked at the links 
you've provided thus far, but will later.

2) My view, as stated earlier, is that we have a formalism that 
accurately describes the results, but does not address (or care about) 
questions such as whether particles traveling through time or go through 
two slits. My understanding (based on what is typically taught in 
introductory grad courses on QM - I've not studied QED or anything more 
advanced) was that this is still the "state of the art". There may be 
interpretations that explain things further, but none that have been 
well tested enough to put serious stock into it. If you know otherwise, 
I'd love to read about them.
	

-- 
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