From: nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz   
      
   Rich L. wrote:   
   > 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.   
   >   
   > I don't understand how you can say that the wave concept is worthless.   
      
   I didn't. Please read more carefully. What I *did* say is:   
      
   M-$   that the quantum object "is more of a wave than anything else"   
       is a postulate, not a known fact;   
   M-$   that postulate is based on an iinvalid and incorrect conclusion,   
       and is therefore worthless.   
      
   > It is essential to QFT   
      
   False. QFT is misnamed. It's pretty mathematics, and that's all it is.   
   The physical "explanations" grafted onto it are, as I explained above,   
   worthless in terms of Theoretical Physics. They explain nothing, and   
   they keep physicists' minds off Physics.   
      
   >                        and any calculation of the intensity   
   > distribution, and those calculations agree precisely with   
   > experiment.   
      
   As has been said many times before: the model is not the reality.   
   That is so no matter *how* well the model agrees with experiment.   
      
   > There is clearly SOMETHING that has wave-like properties.   
      
   No. There is something happening that produces wave-like outcomes.   
      
   > I think this whole debate is missing that the wave and particle nature   
   > apply to two different aspects of propagation.   
      
   No. It is missing the fact that I stated in my second paragraph above.   
      
   > Emission and absorbtion ALWAYS occures in discrete lumps,   
   > like a particle.   
      
   Which is a definitive contradiction of the wave model.   
      
   > However the way the "particle" gets from the emission event to   
   > the absorption event is distinctly wave-like.   
      
   You're getting warmer. The outcomes of some events are "wavelike"   
   in appearance.   
      
   > Effects like diffraction proves this latter point.   
      
   They do not. No-one has ever looked for an alternative explanation.   
   As it happens, there is one.   
      
   > There is no conflict if you recognize these two separate aspects   
   > of propagation.   
      
   The "wave/particle" duality concept is a kludge, put together because   
   physicists had boxed themselves in by not questioning the invalid   
   conclusion I spoke of above.   
      
   Ned   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)