> On 28 Oct 2019, at 11:27, Alan Grayson <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > 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?
They will disappear from your first person perspective. They will not disappear from the 3p more complete perspective, which will explain also why you will believe that the interference seems to have disappeared from your perspective. Bruno > 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] > <mailto:[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 > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/78d72d0f-0473-40cc-94ae-a369c0b958c9%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>. -- 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/510FA101-3C68-4057-AA13-B4B1C5DB9E78%40ulb.ac.be.
