From: nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz   
      
   SEKI 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.   
   >   
   > I cannot understand what you mean by the above sentences.   
      
   It's simple and straightforward enough. I don't understand why you   
   have a problem with it.   
      
   > Do you completely deny the accomplishments of the time-honored   
   > and  established experiments?   
      
   What accomplishements?   
      
   The discovery of the discrete nature of the photovoltaic effect?   
   The observation of the discrete nature of the "interference" pattern   
   produced by large-particle versions of Young's experiment?   
   The observation of the discrete nature of extremely low-light exposures   
   in digital photography?   
      
   Those experiments all achieved the same thing: definitive contradiction   
   of the wave model of light, and definitive confirmation of the particle   
   model of light.   
      
   ----moderator's partisan comment snipped----   
      
   Ned   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)