On 9/22/2011 11:18, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Might be as simple as, "This is a special case where the wave equation is
> not the one you should be using."

There's really only one, you know. At least for photons vs electrons.

> One possible "simple" solution, though it would create its
> own insane questions, would be that a mirror doesn't "bend" light, but
> actually emits a new particle,

Um, we already know that's the case.

> would certainly mess with the existing rules of what is assumed to happen,
> but not directly violate the wave equations. It would also be damn hard to
> detect/test, since.. how do you tell one particle from another, if their
> wavelength, and other characteristics, save for direction of travel, where
> all identical?

You test it by reflecting the light off a surface that also lets some of the 
light pass through, like glass, and studying the interference patterns.

> The phrasing of your "prior" statement was to the effect that, "This doesn't
> happen unless you are observing it." That was what was seriously making me
> wonder. How to you observe the "absence" of a particle, which is what
> happens when your detector is the more distant thing?

I don't know what particle you think is absent. You don't get interference 
effects unless you observe the entangled particle. You're not observing the 
absence of anything. I never meant to imply any particle was missing. I was 
talking about the wikipedia page. If you want to keep talking about this, 
talk about the wikipedia page, and not what you think I might have been 
saying about it.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   How come I never get only one kudo?

Post a reply to this message