- #36
Dadface
- 2,489
- 105
bhobba said:Many posters have explained it to you. What I am having difficulty with is you for some reason do not seem to want to accept it.
Its easy - errors and loose language abound in the professional literature and don't always get piked up by referees. That's all there is to it.
Why do you continue to want to pursue it?
Thanks
Bill
I wan't to pursue it because I'm interested in it. Yes posters have explained things and the explanations all seem credible. I have been thankful for the advice given here and haven't, wittingly, rejected any of it. However, the fact remains that there are many others who still refer to concepts such as duality and if the authors referees and journals are all getting it wrong why is it not being more widely challenged. Or if it is being challenged, apart from on this forum, where can I look it up?
The main thing I would like at the moment is for some of the pro duality (camp 2) members to protect their position. I'm getting arguments from one side only and It seems that I'm expected to accept that without question. It's like trying to find the sum of a random series of numbers when half of them are missing.
Please try the following because it might make you better understand my position on this matter:
Do a Google search for Nature.com and when you get to their site search "wave particle duality imaged for the first time". When I tried this earlier 71 hits came up. Look at the titles of the papers on page one. When I did so earlier two titles of particular interest came up:
1. The Duality Principle in the Prescence of Post Selection
2. Wave Particle Duality of Single Surface Plasmon Polaritons
I'm assuming these are published papers and they even referred to duality in their titles. I haven't yet looked at the other pages.