Re: interference question
From: Mark Fergerson (nunya_at_biz.ness)
Date: 09/23/04
- Next message: Archimedes Plutonium: "can it see the atoms during superconduction? Re: New electron microscope can actually see atoms; see Pu and see Superconductivity atoms??"
- Previous message: analog57_at_yahoo.com: "Re: Where all the physical laws in place before the Big Bang occured?"
- In reply to: DAH: "re:interference question"
- Next in thread: puppet_sock_at_hotmail.com: "Re: interference question"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 10:18:37 -0700
DAH wrote:
> 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?
Words are so awkward. By "potential" I mean that the math tells us
that if we look for the pattern (stick a screen in the way), we'll see
it (it will become "real"). If we don't, we won't.
> Without the screen, do the waves just pass through each other without
> real interaction?
Yes, except for really strong fields (ridiculously short
wavelengths), but AFAIK that hasn't been observed conclusively. Bjoern,
Unc, anybody know different?
Mark L. Fergerson
- Next message: Archimedes Plutonium: "can it see the atoms during superconduction? Re: New electron microscope can actually see atoms; see Pu and see Superconductivity atoms??"
- Previous message: analog57_at_yahoo.com: "Re: Where all the physical laws in place before the Big Bang occured?"
- In reply to: DAH: "re:interference question"
- Next in thread: puppet_sock_at_hotmail.com: "Re: interference question"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
