Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> 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