|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
scott wrote:
>> Except that's exactly the point. The math says it's the latter case.
>> And the cat experiment is to point out how absurd that conclusion is.
>> Hence, the math must be mistaken.
>
> What happens if you shut the double-slit experiment away in a box, with
> photon detector attached to each slit? Will the interference pattern
> still be generated?
No. Worse, check out this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheeler%27s_delayed_choice_experiment
Basically, the photon behaves differently even if you measure it *after* it
has passed through the slits. Which is why it's pretty safe to assume it's
not "going thru both slits" when you get the interference pattern.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed_choice_quantum_eraser
This one changes whether the photon went thru one or both slits *after* it
has already been detected. Hard to see how that's the behavior of a wave
that passes through both slits.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Human nature dictates that toothpaste tubes spend
much longer being almost empty than almost full.
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |