From: ralivingston1952@charter.net   
      
   On Tuesday, February 21, 2017 at 2:24:02 AM UTC-6, Ned Latham wrote:   
   > SEKI wrote:   
   >   
   > ----snip----   
   >   
   >> Considering single particle (quantum) interference in a double slit   
   >   
   > The result *looks like* the result of wave interference. Given our   
   > certain knowledge that not all is as it seems, concluding that the   
   > pattern IS a wave interference pattern is invalid.   
   >   
   > Given that large particle versions of the experiment also produce the   
   > same patter, that conclusion is not merely invalid, it is incorrect.   
   >   
   > You should discard it.   
   >   
   >> experiment, we can't deny the fact that a quantum is more of a wave   
   >> than anything.   
   >   
   > It is not known as a fact. It is a postulate. And based as it is on   
   > an invalid and incorrect conclusion, it is worthless.   
   >   
   > ----snip----   
   >   
   > Ned   
      
   I don't understand how you can say that the wave concept is worthless.   
   It is essential to QFT and any calculation of the intensity   
   distribution, and those calculations agree precisely with experiment.   
   There is clearly SOMETHING that has wave-like properties.   
      
   I think this whole debate is missing that the wave and particle nature   
   apply to two different aspects of propagation.  Emission and absorbtion   
   ALWAYS occures in discrete lumps, like a particle.  However the way the   
   "particle" gets from the emission event to the absorption event is   
   distinctly wave-like.  Effects like diffraction proves this latter   
   point.  There is no conflict if you recognize these two separate aspects   
   of propagation.   
      
   Rich L.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)