On Monday, October 28, 2019 at 1:11:12 AM UTC-6, Brent wrote: > > > > On 10/27/2019 8:18 PM, Alan Grayson wrote: > > > > On Sunday, October 27, 2019 at 4:47:41 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: >> >> >> >> On 10/27/2019 3:41 PM, Alan Grayson wrote: >> >> >> >> On Sunday, October 27, 2019 at 4:27:09 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On 10/27/2019 2:24 PM, Alan Grayson wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sunday, October 27, 2019 at 2:52:01 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 10/26/2019 11:43 PM, Alan Grayson wrote: >>>> >>>> Here's what I understand about an electron in the double slit >>>> experiment. It doesn't occupy two locations simultaneously as a particle. >>>> Rather, when *not* observed it behaves like a wave, goes through both >>>> slits, and interferes with itself. When observed, it behaves as a >>>> particle. >>>> >>>> >>>> There's your problem. You're insisting that the electron is changing >>>> around because it "behaves" differently. The behavior is in your >>>> interpretation. It's not in the mathematics. So the fact that it seems >>>> to >>>> jump around in ontology is the fault of your interpretation trying to >>>> impose a medieval idea of substance. >>>> >>> >>> And your interpretation is that the mathematics says the electron has >>> two positions or paths simultaneously, and goes through both slits? >>> >>> >>> The wf goes thru both slits. >>> >> >> That's more or less what I said. AG >> >>> >>> Where does the mathematics assert that unintelligible claim? Waves can >>> go through both slits, but not particles. >>> >>> >>> In your classical world view. >>> >> >> Not necessarily classical, but rather interpreting the "particle" as a >> wave when we don't look; a quantum pov. My interpretation explains why >> interference disappears in which-way experiment, >> >> >> Your interpretation being what exactly? Does it work for the Buckyball >> C60 experiment? >> > > It's just an application of the wave-particle duality. When you're not > looking, it acts like a wave (and goes through both slits without a > baffling contradiction if it's considered a particle); and when you're > looking it acts like a particle, and hence goes through one slit or the > other, and no interference. I expect it would work for C60. The main > advance represented by C60 is the demonstration of interference for a > quasi-macro object. AG > > > But nobody looks at the C60s. The interference pattern disappears > anyway. The trouble with the interpretation you cite is that it depends on > an ill defined process called "looking at it". > > Brent >
Let me introduce you to a familiar concept in QM; observation! It can be an instrument as Feynman states. If you OBSERVE a C60, won't the interference disappear? I assume it would if it behaves like any other particle in a slit experiment. Isn't the notable thing about a C60, is the manifestation of interference? 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/78d72d0f-0473-40cc-94ae-a369c0b958c9%40googlegroups.com.
