On Saturday, October 26, 2019 at 7:09:19 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote: > > > > On Saturday, October 26, 2019 at 5:57:57 PM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote: >> >> >> >> On Saturday, October 26, 2019 at 4:19:06 PM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On Saturday, October 26, 2019 at 3:15:21 PM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Saturday, October 26, 2019 at 4:09:08 PM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Saturday, October 26, 2019 at 3:03:20 PM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Saturday, October 26, 2019 at 3:42:58 PM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Why not make your point with waves so at least it's intelligible? >>>>>>> You can get the same results in the Heisenberg Picture, but to >>>>>>> understand >>>>>>> "interference" you need to at least start with waves. AG >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> But that premise (*to understand "interference" you need to at least >>>>>> start with waves*) is simply wrong, and perhaps is the root of your >>>>>> misunderstanding. >>>>>> >>>>>> @philipthrift >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> No, it's just a convenient, intuitive starting pont. That's all. I >>>>> conclude you can't do it. Thanks for the effort. AG >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I conclude you will never understand any answer to your question: "what >>>> does *interference* mean". >>>> >>>> @philipthrift >>>> >>> >>> You could start with S's equation and use waves in your explanation, and >>> then generalize it. But the fact that you refuse to do so, and instead rely >>> on other interpretations, such as Heisenberg's, suggests you don't >>> understand "interference". AG >>> >> >> >> >> *You could start with S's equation and use waves in your explanation, and >> then generalize it.* >> >> OK. When you find an explanation in these terms, let us know. >> >> @philipthrift >> > > I don't have one. That's why I asked. One can show that Heisenberg's > Picture, which doesn't use waves, gives the same results as Schroedinger's > Picture, which uses waves, but that's no explanation of "interference". AG >
Maybe this will work as a definition of "interference". Imagine an electron impinges on a screen in a double slit experiment, and at a particular location on the screen, called "the Event", through either of two slits. Suppose it has a probability amplitude of phi1 through slit1. Now imagine another electron, at a later time, impinging on a screen with probability amplitude of phi2 for the same event, but through slit2. If phi1 and phi2 represent different amplitudes or paths for the same Event, we must imagine the waves "interfering" even though they are not simultaneous, and the probability of that event with two possible paths, is the absolute value squared of the sum of phi1 and phi2. AG -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/9ac6ed55-3bcb-494c-8655-9a6fdf916425%40googlegroups.com.
