• dudinax@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    but this is just purely metaphysical.

    But there really is an interference pattern. Whatever is happening is physical, not metaphysical, and is happening “through” or “because of” both slits at the same time.

    Unless you’re trying to argue that the statistical behavior of electrons is somehow decoupled from the behavior or each individual electron, which would seem to me to be a very odd metaphysical position.

    • bunchberry@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      3 days ago

      I am saying that assigning ontological reality to something that is by definition beyond observation (not what we observe and not even possible to observe) is metaphysical. If we explain the experiment using what we observe then there is no confusing or contradiction, or any ambiguity at all. Indeed, quantum mechanics becomes rather mechanical and boring, all the supposed mysticism disappears.

      It is quite the opposite that the statistical behavior of the electron is decoupled from the individual electron. The individual electron just behaves randomly in a way that we can only predict statistically and not absolutely. There is no interference pattern at all for a single electron, at least not in the double-slit experiment (the Mach–Zehnder interferometer is arguably a bit more interesting). The interference pattern observed in the double-slit experiment is a weakly emergent behavior of an ensemble of electrons. You need thousands of them to actually see it.