Science Forums 2

[KickAssClown]

I quite enjoy hearing all about the various facets of the double slit experiment, with different variables and all.

However, I reconginze that my beef as Buffy says, is not understood in full.

The reason I gave the challenge to present the classical and quantum theories of matter is because I know within reasonable certainty that there exists no such theories. Not formally anyway. My physics book has a chapter early on that describes basic concepts such as mass-energy and matter, but no where in it does it contain a standard theory of mass-energy or matter.

What it does explain is this, Mass-energy are properties of the object matter. It further explains that these properties are the device by which we detect the underlying object, matter.

Now I have a hard time expressing concisely why this fact bothers me in the context of the double slit experiment but I do know that if someone takes a little time and effort to sit and think about the structure of the experiment both microscopicly and macroscopicly they will realize, at least to some degree, that the experimental results are reflective of a structure. What is neglected in all this discussion and interpertation is that the experiment in total is matterial. Everything about it.

Wheather we talk about electrons and their orbits, photons and their phantom rest mass, wheather we are using carbon, cardboard or steel for the barrier. We are using matter for the entire construction. Now in classical experiments regarding non-quantum scale experiments we could neglect such things as the truely fundamental structure of matter, however what this experiment does goes far beyond that scale. It obviously enters into a different realm of scale.

Take for instance CraigD's comment:

Originally Posted by CraigD

On the scale of photons and electrons, and other fundamental particles, the idea of classical size and collisions isn’t useful.

CraigD here asserts, implicitly, that what is being played with is fundamental particles, I would assert that what is infact being played with is not fundamental, though I would conceit that it is made up of fundamentals.

I am not necessarily saying that the experimental results are incorrect, what I am disputing, what I am remain skeptical of is the interpertation of the results.

My reasoning for remaining skeptical arrises from the simple fact that these interpertations, by even the most knowledgable, come about without a real scientific basis. There is no theorem of mass, no theorem of matter, no theorem of energy.

As such what can be really said about the interaction of matter particles/waves? When the term matter, mass, and energy are all so ill defined?