Re: Telescope Paradox

Posted by lanecove on August 13, 2003 at 06:51:37:

In Reply to: Re: Telescope Paradox posted by davidmac on August 10, 2003 at 09:01:11:

David,

I don't have a problem with doing the double-slit (or four-slit, or any other number), I think it'd be a really good idea.

Among other things, we'd be sure to see what differences there are (if any) between the predictions using Dr A's ignoron idea (BTW, I still don't know what he predicts), and those from 'standard' physics.

Running the experiment 'on-line' was just a crazy idea of mine; I hoped that by agreeing what each experiment actually was ahead of time, then agreeing what the results were (in the sense of what was observed; the interpretion would be left up to others), and how they'd differ if the parameters were changed (e.g. distance bewteen source and slits, separation of slits, wavelength of photons), we'd at least have a common set of agreed results from which to argue theories.

BTW, the only correct response (I know you meant this, I'm just re-inforcing it for other readers) is 'whatever the actual observations are'.

Regards
lanecove

(Report this post to the moderator)

Follow Ups: (Reload page to see most recent)

• Re: Telescope Paradox -- DickT 8/13/03 (0)

Post a Followup