Recent content by CHOP

That's no issue. The probabilities depend on the measurement performed. It's simply how nature is. How nature is, can never be an issue. And whatever mathematics is calibrated to how nature is, is a mathematics without issue. Correct. No, that's just a way of thinking of it. I think...

The certainty is no more interesting than the lack of definiteness. The two things play off each other to become interesting. What makes the certainty interesting is the lack of definiteness. What makes the lack of definiteness interesting is the certainty. Both are after the same thing. We...

"Photon not particle" makes no difference. All kinds of particles can be used in this experiment. Not sure why you are putting so much emphasis on what to call a photon. You can call a photon what you like - I make the same points regardless. The point was, that you are treating the thing in a...

Whose right? What a time to ask! We don't understand QM yet. Which is kind of like superposition (which you are working on). Whose right is like whose got spin up. Everyone is right until the facts are known. No, but in a more serious way, if you want to give people the 'most safe, most...

So, you just want to explain superposition? Just so it can be understood (by the average person) what that is even referring to? You don't care how to explain it, as long as it is explained?

It seems the key point, this: It can always be said that this one particle has gone through a slit. It would be wrong to say that only if: where it landed contradicted where it was said to come from (and CM determines that). The problem arises when we talk in terms of a quantity of particles...

This statement: "Something goes through both slits when there is interference" is problematic. Let's break it up into the two problems: 1. Again, if you mean (by 'interference') the activity of interfering, which happens before a particle registers at screen, then you have to show that such...

No, I wouldn't say it the way you have just suggested. The way you have suggested is not a working way. You have basically made a contradictory statement. You say it went through one slit, and also say there was interference. Well, there can't be interference (that 'activity') if the particle...

Just to clarify: The less vivid slabs of the route correspond to the times you left the pond, but are still there (in your mental image) because you saw them sometimes. Whatever is controlling when, during that route, you 'typically' get up to warm the coffee, is what creates the bias of...

Nugatory, thank you very much for your detailed post and for honing in on where my concerns are, Right. Which is an elegant explanation, beautiful really. Yes, nicely pointed out. It can be thought of as spontaneous 'flashes' on screen, but corresponding (by time, etc) to had they arose...

I didn't say you didn't offer that. I thanked you for it. Not sure what's the issue. Right, that's just how the experiment works. I think you are thinking in a way I am not. You are thinking in the sense of "What here is associated with which pattern" -- relative orientation of filters...

thank you for that explanation i wouldn't say it's about the relationship of these polarized slits. i would say, the relationship of these slits bares a relation with the relation of the slits in all the different variations of the experiment, whose results are likewise. That what these...

Exactly my point.

The point is, that there is an enormous range of frequencies available, from single isolates shots to incredible rapid fire, and all of that is simply ONE at a time. As for your claim that 'it is possible' to get more than ONE at a time (in the smallest possible time interval), you realize that...

I didn't ask why you think there is interaction. I asked what I asked, which is, how does the polarizer interact with the photon. And I am talking about the photons that pass through, since only they contribute to the outcome. No I didn't. You are confusing things. I was talking about an...