Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> >   I'm getting tired of your straw men.

> It wasn't a straw man. It was a question.

  Yes, sure. When you accuse me of using straw men, that's always correct
(and no matter how much I try to explain my arguments, it doesn't change
the fact). When I accuse you of making straw men, that never is the case.
How convenient.

> There is none, zero, zilch 
> evidence of an electron ever being in two places at once. If you think 
> an interference pattern shows this, you're mistaken.

  I'm not the only one who has this "mistaken" notion. From the very
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment article itself
(emphasis mine):

"In the path integral formulation, a particle such as a photon takes
every possible path through space-time to get from point A to point B. In
the double-slit experiment, point A might be the emitter, and point B the
screen upon which the interference pattern appears, and a particle takes
every possible path, including paths ***through both slits at once***, to
get from A to B."

  Ergo, I am not making this up.

  (I'm not saying that's the correct explanation. Sure, it may be
incorrect. However, that's not really the point. I'm just saying that it
*is* an existing explanation, and one which makes even a little bit of
sense to me.)

  As for what happens when a detector is added, the same paragraph continues
(still emphasis mine):

"When a detector is placed at one of the slits, ***the situation changes***,
and we now have a different point B. Point B is now at the detector, and a
new path proceeds from the detector to the screen. In this eventuality
there is only empty space between (B =) A' and the new terminus B', no
double slit in the way, and so an interference pattern no longer appears."

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message