Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> >    But that has nothing to do with whether someone "looked" at the measurement
> > or not. It has to do with whether the two possible paths of the emitted
> > particle were kept separate or whether they were merged before the particle
> > hit the measurement device.

> You misunderstand. The actual particle hitting the measurement device and 
> being checked for interference fringes is *not* the particle being measured. 
> *That* particle takes exactly the same path in both cases.

  No I don't. When I say "emitted particle" I'm talking about the secondary
particle emitted at the slit towards the measurement device that (possibly)
tells which slit the original particle went through.

> > If I understand correctly, the interference
> > pattern would disappear if the emitted particles are kept separate even if
> > nobody "looks" at the result. It has nothing to do with an observer, only
> > with how the original particles and the emitted particles interact.

> I'm not sure what the "emitted" particle is here.

  It's particle B in your list. If the two possible paths that B could take
are merged, the interference pattern appears, but if they are not merged,
the interference pattern disappears. This regardless of whether someone
"looks" at the result of B or not.

  Clearly what happens to B's path affects A (even if this effect happens
through space and time). It's not dependent on whether someone "looks" at
it.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message