Re: interference question
puppet_sock_at_hotmail.com
Date: 09/22/04
- Next message: Dirk Van de moortel: "Re: The Paradox No Relativist Can Weasel Out Of"
- Previous message: Dirk Van de moortel: "Re: Another Immortal Fumble: Trivially Easy to Prove"
- In reply to: DAH: "interference question"
- Next in thread: DAH: "re:interference question"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 22 Sep 2004 12:03:49 -0700
dharder@bnl-dot-gov.no-spam.invalid (DAH) wrote in message news:<41517f54$1_2@127.0.0.1>...
> Take Young's double slit interference experiment as an example. Shine
> light on the slits. If there was no screen/detector present behind
> the slits, and if the experiment was done in perfect vacuum, would
> there still be interference in space where the screen would normally
> be? In other words, is a material medium required for interference
> of waves to occur. How would one devise an experiment to test that,
> without the experimental setup negating the test?
If a tree falls in the woods, and nobody puts a screen under
it to catch the pattern of leaves, will someobdy write a
palindromic Haiku about it?
Socks
- Next message: Dirk Van de moortel: "Re: The Paradox No Relativist Can Weasel Out Of"
- Previous message: Dirk Van de moortel: "Re: Another Immortal Fumble: Trivially Easy to Prove"
- In reply to: DAH: "interference question"
- Next in thread: DAH: "re:interference question"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
