|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
Darren New <dne### [at] san rr com> wrote:
> I.e., just the opposite. The mathematical model is *not* evidence it's a
> wave, any more than the interference patterns are.
I don't really know your definition of "evidence", but as I understand it,
the interference pattern *is* evidence for it to be wave. It's not *proof* of
it, but evidence is no proof anyways.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |