re:interference question
From: DAH (dharder_at_bnl-dot-gov.no-spam.invalid)
Date: 09/22/04
- Next message: Uncle Al: "Re: Space, time, the works."
- Previous message: Nth Complexity: "The Florentz Transformations"
- In reply to: DAH: "interference question"
- Next in thread: John T Lowry: "Re: re:interference question"
- Reply: John T Lowry: "Re: re:interference question"
- Reply: Paul Cardinale: "Re: interference question"
- Reply: Bjoern Feuerbacher: "Re: interference question"
- Reply: Mark Fergerson: "Re: interference question"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 22 Sep 2004 12:37:14 -0500
Mark--"You stick something (i.e. a screen) in the way, you observe a
pattern. No matter where you put it, you see what the theory predicts.
That means the _potential_ for the patterns to exist is there whether
you put the screen there or not."
Yes, the 'potential' does exist, I would not argue that point, but
does that 'potential' manifest as a real diffraction pattern if there
is no atomic medium for the wave interference to deposit energy in?
Without the screen, do the waves just pass through each other without
real interaction?
DAH 9/22/04
- Next message: Uncle Al: "Re: Space, time, the works."
- Previous message: Nth Complexity: "The Florentz Transformations"
- In reply to: DAH: "interference question"
- Next in thread: John T Lowry: "Re: re:interference question"
- Reply: John T Lowry: "Re: re:interference question"
- Reply: Paul Cardinale: "Re: interference question"
- Reply: Bjoern Feuerbacher: "Re: interference question"
- Reply: Mark Fergerson: "Re: interference question"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
