Re: interference question
From: Paul Cardinale (pcardinale_at_volcanomail.com)
Date: 09/22/04
- Next message: habshi: "Re: THE GAS MISER"
- Previous message: Igor: "Re: Transverse speed in EM waves?"
- In reply to: DAH: "re:interference question"
- Next in thread: Bjoern Feuerbacher: "Re: interference question"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 22 Sep 2004 15:25:19 -0700
dharder@bnl-dot-gov.no-spam.invalid (DAH) wrote in message news:<4151b84a$1_2@127.0.0.1>...
> 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?
>
An interference pattern only exists upon observation. We can't say
anything about what's happening with unobserved particles (except what
the probability is of observing them at a particular place and time).
Paul Cardinale
- Next message: habshi: "Re: THE GAS MISER"
- Previous message: Igor: "Re: Transverse speed in EM waves?"
- In reply to: DAH: "re:interference question"
- Next in thread: Bjoern Feuerbacher: "Re: interference question"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
