Originally Posted By: finiter
Orac, you are saying: "If I take a photo of that one electron event I will see the interference pattern." Do you mean that if you sent just one electron only, and then stopped the experiment, you will get an interference pattern. Can you provide a suitable link which clearly states that?


http://www.phys.ethz.ch/~ihn/papers/GustavssonNanoL08.pdf

Done for the first time in 2008 been done a mirriad of different ways since.

Would you like a full list of then last I looked been confirmed about 90+ ways.

With quantum dots and quantum entangling a single electron its rather trivial these days.

So there is a single electron interferring with itself explain away please.


Quote:

Again, you have still not provided any proof for QM. As far as observations are concerned, I have provided alternate explanations earlier. In which case do you want an alternate explanation?


What absolute rubbish all you have done is said I see those observations but that isn't QM.

Then you have to explain the observations and you can't.

Edit: I am trying to not be forceful here and tolerant but sorry I am getting frustrated with the cyclical nature of argument.

Quote:

QM is an established theory. The same argument that you have put against me (Some idiot when you were going to school told you there were these things called particles, they had no valid observation to tell you that but they did. You believed that implicitly and infact you have built illussions around it in your head this is "your reality".) can be said of you also. Heisenberg got a wrong idea that there is duality at the level of particles. The QM is built on that wrong assumption. Now QM is the in-thing and is being taught. So many people believe in it, and argue that no other explantion will be valid.


Sorry some idiot did tell you a lie ... unless you care to show me an observation that only a particle can explain otherwise we have no need for a particle to exist in science we call that occums razor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor)

There is nothing really controversial in what I have told you here all that really changes is your cute little solid particles become these wavey things the world doesn't end because of it.

Heisenberg was doing the best to create a story consistant at the time. His uncertainty principle is correct and we know why because the particles are virtual they aren't real so we can dispense with the duality.

The reason people believe in QM is because it has observation evidence and NEVER been wrong even with some of the most weird and unlikely results.

If you feel comfortable in your little particle fantasy then stay there it's like newtonian physics it sort of works. I guess you have to stay with your nice school book image of the planetary atom as well. And hey some people still believe the earth is flat.

Science progress is a relentless moving forward creating a solid consistant theory that explain ALL observations not just some you chose to accept.

Last edited by Orac; 11/02/11 02:59 PM.
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.