Science Forums 2

[KickAssClown]

Originally Posted by CraigD

I must disagree that it is a “fact” that none of the interpretations provided in this thread, or, I gather KAC means, in the whole of physics literature, have a “real scientific basis”. If none of what most people have for centuries called “science” qualifies as “having a real scientific basis”, this meaning of “real scientific basis” seems so far from the usual one that it’s not useful.

I would warn, in a friendly tone , not to take what I have said outside of context. I only mean the interperation that the electron/photon/etc has passed through both of the slits and that it is "obvious" that this is the case. Now there are parts of the experiment, infact large parts of the experiment, that I will accept have a real scientific basis.

It is the conclusion that I have the issue with. The line of reasoning to me leads to a much different picture than what is given by the vast majority. Similar in vein as the interpertations of the CMB, and the Spiral Galaxy problem. True, a possible interpertation is that the CMB indicates a very large bang. However that is only one of the interpertations and given the parameters of that particular interpertation it would be one of the last on my list, next to "and god said let their be light".

Originally Posted by Erasmus00

the standard model does have a theory of mass based on the higgs/Anderson mechanism.

I fail to see, upon reading some literature about it, how this mechanism, by itself, amounts to a comprehensive theory of matter.

Originally Posted by Erasumus00

Of the force carrying bosons, only the W and Zs have mass.

This says very little considering that I don't even begin to fathom what you mean by mass. Surely they have been measured to possess the property of energy, that I can read for myself. Surely they have been measured to have a relative mass value, once again something I can read for myself. Even photons have a mass value, if only relatively.

Now I will point out further that you, Erasumus00, are the one whom has interjected that "not everything has mass" which is immaterial to my point of contention. Get it, immaterial?

My point here is that the entire experiment is material, irregardless of whether this or that thing has a rest mass property value. Being that the barrier, projectile, coverings, detector and source are all material there are effects, which I can fathom, that would be non-trivial in the interpertation of the outcome of this experiment.

It is in the ignorance of the very question of, what is matter? that I come to question the scientific validity of the interperation of this experiment, and by which I come to reject the very notion that the electron/photon/etc even went through one or both of the slits. I my view there is no reason why it has to, or even why the one projectile must remain the one and only projectile in the whole of the experiment.

The mechanism by which the projectile shot is not the projectile caught, or by which the projectile might find another path to it's target is a discussion for another thread. However, it is entirely possible, plausible even, that the projectile that is shot, is not the one caught. Likewise is it plausible that the barrier itself that may result in the pattern seen. How is it that we are to be sure that it is not the barrier, or the detector, or the box that the experiment is contained within, or the world upon which the experiment takes place does not interfer with the projectile?

Many of you see material as one whole piece, unmoving. I see material as aggregates and individuals constantly flowing, and exchanging places in between the ticks of the clock. The worst part about is that there is no experiment that could be done, as admitted by classical and quantum physics, to discearn between our original projectile and the projectile that is detected at the end.

So, ladies and gentlemen it is by the sleight of hand that I believe we get our seemingly miraclous results. Watch closely and you can see the swap.