There is no duality, it is all waves

[slehar]

There is no wave / particle duality, everything is analog continuous waves, and they only appear discrete due to certain resonance effects.

 

For example in the twin slits experiment, there never are individual photons passing through the slits one by one, there are just analog continuous waves that (of course) interfere with each other through the slits.

 

The apparently discrete nature of the measurement is due only to the fact that photons are detected by absorption by an electron (whether in a photocell, photosensitive emulsion, or photopigment in the retina) and electrons are only absorbed at discrete levels that match the energy difference to the higher level orbital to which the electron is boosted, and this absorption absorbs and thus subtracts exactly one quantum from the analog field of light.

 

Light emission is discrete, due to the discrete jump of an electron to a lower level orbital, and light absorption is discrete, due to the discrete jump back up to higher level. But light travels not in discrete photons, but in continous analog waves that disperse outward continuously attenuated constantly by the inverse square law.

 

There is no wave / particle duality. It is all analog continuous waves, and some discrete resonance effects of those analog continuous waves.

[Sayonara]

Doesn't quite a lot of experimental evidence disagree with you?

[Klaynos]

How do you explain the two slit experiment conducted with bucky balls?

[Sisyphus]

Bucky waves, you mean.

[Klaynos]

Bucky waves, you mean.

 

*snigger*

[slehar]

Doesn't quite a lot of experimental evidence disagree with you?

No, there is NO experimental evidence supporting light travelling as discrete photons, there is ONLY evidence for light being emmitted and absorbed in discrete quanta, because emmission and absorption are discrete phenomena due to the discrete nature of the standing waves of electron orbitals.

[Sayonara]

If the experimental evidence agrees with you, then what's the problem?

[Klaynos]

No, there is NO experimental evidence supporting light travelling as discrete photons, there is ONLY evidence for light being emmitted and absorbed in discrete quanta, because emmission and absorption are discrete phenomena due to the discrete nature of the standing waves of electron orbitals.

 

There IS evidence for bucky balls being both waves and particles. If you can deal with this I might give you more time...

[swansont]

For example in the twin slits experiment, there never are individual photons passing through the slits one by one, there are just analog continuous waves that (of course) interfere with each other through the slits.

 

There are single-photon interference experiments.

 

 

The apparently discrete nature of the measurement is due only to the fact that photons are detected by absorption by an electron (whether in a photocell, photosensitive emulsion, or photopigment in the retina) and electrons are only absorbed at discrete levels that match the energy difference to the higher level orbital to which the electron is boosted, and this absorption absorbs and thus subtracts exactly one quantum from the analog field of light.

 

How small can one make this analog field? There is an intensity that scales with the number of quanta, right? ^{[math]I = n\hbar\omega[/math]} Why can't n=1?

 

 

Light emission is discrete, due to the discrete jump of an electron to a lower level orbital, and light absorption is discrete, due to the discrete jump back up to higher level. But light travels not in discrete photons, but in continous analog waves that disperse outward continuously attenuated constantly by the inverse square law.

 

If emission is discrete, where does the rest of the "analog field" come from? How does it attenuate according to the inverse-square law?

[BhavinB]

Although I find slehar's explanation incorrect, the conclusion that there is only waves, no duality shouldn't be discredited so easily.

 

Most particle-like behaviour can be interpreted as wave interactions. This is not to say that there is no discrete photon. I merely suggest that we can interpret particle interactions as complicated wave interactions. It serves us quite well to think of particles bouncing around in many scenarios though which is probably why the duality concept exists.

[CPL.Luke]

It sounds like slehar is thinking about it merely as a wavicle type of thing. this is the way that I prefer to think about it and it works out quite well. Nothing new just semantics really.

 

 

Unless of course slehar is ignoring the collapse of a wave function...

[slehar]

If emission is discrete, where does the rest of the "analog field" come from? How does it attenuate according to the inverse-square law?

 

When an electron drops to a lower orbital, it releases one quantum of electromagnetic energy that spreads outward from that source, spreading out and becoming more diffuse by the inverse-square law. It cannot break into discrete photons, because it started off as one quantum to begin with. That is why the whole notion of photons as discrete particles is nonsense.

 

When many electrons drop to lower orbitals, they each release one quantum that disperses outward in overlapping superimposed waves. When enough of these analog waves happen to add together to exactly one quantum at some point, an electron at that point can absorb that one quantum and rise to a higher orbital, and thereby subtract that one quantum from the analog field.

 

Unless of course slehar is ignoring the collapse of a wave function...

 

The so-called "collapse of the wave function" is nothing other than the wave being absorbed by an electron rising to the next energy level, which is a discrete phenomenon that either occurs entirely, or does not occur at all. Only a part of the analog wave collapses in this manner, that is, one quantum of energy is subtracted from it by the absorbing electron. But the rest of the wave remains analog and continues through undisturbed.

 

The whole wave/particle duality is an artifact of the discrete nature of absorption and emission. There never was, nor never will be, a single "photon" traveling like a discrete wavelet, because like all electromagnetic energy, the "photon" would spread out as it travels, eventually spreading to a tiny fraction of the original quantum released from the source on emission.

 

It serves us quite well to think of particles bouncing around in many scenarios ... which is probably why the duality concept exists.

 

Give me ONE example of where thinking of photons as discrete particles offers a better explanation than the wave explanation (with discrete quantized emission and absorption, due to the quantal nature of the standing waves of the electron orbitals)

 

The twin slits experiment is just made spooky and mysterious and paradoxical when you think of single photons interfering when passing through the slits one by one. The situation becomes perfectly intuitively clear when you abandon that nonsense explanation and say that light travels as analog waves which (of course) interfere while passing through the slits, but they only get absorbed in discrete quanta when enough of them add up constructively at the detector and boost an electron up a level.

 

There are single-photon interference experiments.

 

There are weird spooky paradoxical single-photon explanations for phenomena which can be explained very simply and intuitively using a continuous wave explanation.

[insane_alien]

how do you explain the photoelectric effect? why is there a threshold frequency if there are no discrete photons?

[Klaynos]

There are weird spooky paradoxical single-photon explanations for phenomena which can be explained very simply and intuitively using a continuous wave explanation.

 

And there goes any integrity you had.

 

You cannot say "they are spooky paradoxical" and then say they can be explained using your continuous wave idea, if they they can be explained. Explain them!

[swansont]

When an electron drops to a lower orbital, it releases one quantum of electromagnetic energy that spreads outward from that source, spreading out and becoming more diffuse by the inverse-square law. It cannot break into discrete photons, because it started off as one quantum to begin with. That is why the whole notion of photons as discrete particles is nonsense.

 

That quantum of energy can later interact in a particular location; it is not spread out. Do you have experimental evidence to back this up?

 

This would be inconsistent with observing low-intensity, localized signals from an atomic or molecular source emitting EM quanta.

 

When many electrons drop to lower orbitals, they each release one quantum that disperses outward in overlapping superimposed waves. When enough of these analog waves happen to add together to exactly one quantum at some point, an electron at that point can absorb that one quantum and rise to a higher orbital, and thereby subtract that one quantum from the analog field.

 

Again, this seems testable, as there are low-intensity conditions where you wouldn't get absorption. Any experiments to back it up?

 

 

The twin slits experiment is just made spooky and mysterious and paradoxical when you think of single photons interfering when passing through the slits one by one. The situation becomes perfectly intuitively clear when you abandon that nonsense explanation and say that light travels as analog waves which (of course) interfere while passing through the slits, but they only get absorbed in discrete quanta when enough of them add up constructively at the detector and boost an electron up a level.

 

But what happens when you reduce the intensity below the multiple-quanta level? Why do we still get interference, and signals at the detector?

 

There are weird spooky paradoxical single-photon explanations for phenomena which can be explained very simply and intuitively using a continuous wave explanation.

 

Go ahead and explain them.

[slehar]

how do you explain the photoelectric effect? why is there a threshold frequency if there are no discrete photons?

 

Because lower frequencies cannot launch the electron up to the next discrete orbital level.

 

Imagine a buoy shaped like a life-saver, threaded on a vertical pole in shallow water. As waves pass by, the life-saver floats up and down on its pole. If it slides without friction on the pole, then it subtracts no energy from the wave, which passes through undiminished. If you attach an electrical generator that generates electricity from the buoy's vertical travel, then exactly that same amount of energy is subtracted from the passing wave.

 

Now imagine that the buoy has a discrete pop-up pop-down mechanism, like a light switch which resists a vertical force until it exceeds a certain threshold, then snaps abruptly up or down. At the moment the buoy snaps up or down, it will immediately subtract one quantum of energy from the passing wave, equal to the energy required to perform the snap.

 

The frequency dependence is due to the fact that electron absorption is a resonance effect, it has to resonate at the right frequency in order to be absorbed.

 

how do you explain the photoelectric effect? why is there a threshold frequency if there are no discrete photons?

 

Because lower frequencies cannot launch the electron up to the next discrete orbital level.

 

Imagine a buoy shaped like a life-saver, threaded on a vertical pole in shallow water. As waves pass by, the life-saver floats up and down on its pole. If it slides without friction on the pole, then it subtracts no energy from the wave, which passes through undiminished. If you attach an electrical generator that generates electricity from the buoy's vertical travel, then exactly that same amount of energy is subtracted from the passing wave.

 

Now imagine that the buoy has a discrete pop-up pop-down mechanism, like a light switch which resists a vertical force until it exceeds a certain threshold, then snaps abruptly up or down. At the moment the buoy snaps up or down, it will immediately subtract one quantum of energy from the passing wave, equal to the energy required to perform the snap.

 

The frequency dependence is due to the fact that electron absorption is a resonance effect, it has to resonate at the right frequency in order to be absorbed.

 

That quantum of energy can later interact in a particular location; it is not spread out. Do you have experimental evidence to back this up?

 

I am not proposing new evidence to support a new theory. I am proposing a new (not really, others have proposed this before and also been ignored) explanation to account for the same old data.

 

This would be inconsistent with observing low-intensity, localized signals from an atomic or molecular source emitting EM quanta.

 

No it is not!

 

 

But what happens when you reduce the intensity below the multiple-quanta level? Why do we still get interference, and signals at the detector?

 

The only way we know about the intensity of emitted light is by our recordings of that light on the detector. When you reduce the level low enough, then the detector detects either very few, or no hits. The "classical" explanation is that individual photons are emitted one by one. But this is an artifact of our discrete detector. The actual explanation is that most of the analog radiation remains below threshold, and only occasionally do enough crests align by constructive interference to trigger the detector.

 

Because if there were indeed individual photons that pass through the slits one by one, then how on earth would they ever interfere? The "classical" explanation is paradoxical, it does not make sense.

 

You cannot say "they are spooky paradoxical" and then say they can be explained using your continuous wave idea, if they they can be explained. Explain them!

 

What do you want explained? I'll explain it!

[Klaynos]

Originally Posted by swansont View Post

 

There are single-photon interference experiments.

 

There are weird spooky paradoxical single-photon explanations for phenomena which can be explained very simply and intuitively using a continuous wave explanation.

 

I want a rigorous theoretical (therefore using lots of shiney maths) explanation.

 

I would also like you to explain how the bucky ball can be observed to have an interference pattern when used in the two slit experiment sending individual bucky balls at a time, if they are infact not duality objects?

 

||Edit: We are not ignoring you, we're asking for mathematical predictions and supporting evidence, whist ensuring all past experimental evidence is accounted for. This is how science works.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Because lower frequencies cannot launch the electron up to the next discrete orbital level.

 

Imagine a buoy shaped like a life-saver, threaded on a vertical pole in shallow water. As waves pass by, the life-saver floats up and down on its pole. If it slides without friction on the pole, then it subtracts no energy from the wave, which passes through undiminished. If you attach an electrical generator that generates electricity from the buoy's vertical travel, then exactly that same amount of energy is subtracted from the passing wave.

 

Now imagine that the buoy has a discrete pop-up pop-down mechanism, like a light switch which resists a vertical force until it exceeds a certain threshold, then snaps abruptly up or down. At the moment the buoy snaps up or down, it will immediately subtract one quantum of energy from the passing wave, equal to the energy required to perform the snap.

 

The frequency dependence is due to the fact that electron absorption is a resonance effect, it has to resonate at the right frequency in order to be absorbed.

 

But if I take a frequency that is too low and turn up the amplitude high enough, you don't think that would excite the electron? You'll have to explain your mechanism behind that.

[slehar]

I want a rigorous theoretical (therefore using lots of shiney maths) explanation.

 

There is a time and place for shiny math. This is a simple straightforward argument that does not require math. Sometimes all that shiny math serves more to obsfucate than to elucidate, and this whole wave/particle duality nonsense is a perfect example.

 

I would also like you to explain how the bucky ball can be observed to have an interference pattern when used in the two slit experiment sending individual bucky balls at a time, if they are infact not duality objects?

 

The explanation for the bucky balls is the same as the explanation for any other particle. If you observe interference between bucky balls passing through the twin slits, then bucky balls are obviously not the discrete ball-and-stick constructions you see in your text books, but rather, every carbon atom with its surrounding field of electron orbitals, is like an extended field-like wrinkle in the fabric of reality that extends outward in space and time, and when collections of these fuzzy extended structures clump together into a bucky ball, the ball is itself an extended field-like structure, every component atom of which appears more like the fuzzy standing wave functions of the electron orbitals than a ball-and-stick model, so as to pass through both slits at the same time. Otherwise it would not exhibit interference effects!

 

There is a distinction between existential discreteness (there is either an electron in this orbital, or there is not; there is either an atom present here, or there is not; there is either a buckyball present, or there is not) and spatiotemporal discreteness (an electron / atom / buckyball is either a discrete point or ball-and-stick structure, or a fuzzy extended wave function). All I am saying is that evidence for existential discreteness is NOT evidence for spatiotemporal discreteness, it is merely a resonance effect. And the evidence for interference effects IS evidence for spatiotemporal extendedness and wave-like nature of electrons, atoms, and buckyballs.

 

||Edit: We are not ignoring you, we're asking for mathematical predictions and supporting evidence, whist ensuring all past experimental evidence is accounted for. This is how science works.

 

The mathematical prediction is that the phenomena that have already been observed should be expected to continue to be observed. The supporting evidence is all the evidence that has already been gathered. This is NOT an argument about new evidence for a new theory. This is an argument about the interpretation of existing evidence which is not in dispute. This is also how science works!

 

The onus is on YOU to cite me any past evidence that you believe demonstrates that particles are ever discrete in space and time, rather than fuzzy wave functions, because all the evidence cited to date merely demonstrate a discreteness in emission and absorption, a resonance effect with the atom's electrons, which are known to be standing wave orbitals, not discrete particles.

 

My principal objection is to that whole spooky cat-in-the-box notion of things existing in a fuzzy indeterminate state until mere observation mysteriously collapses the wave function, like popping a bubble with a pin. That is a highly misleading and erroneous explanation, because all of the existing evidence can be re-interpreted in very much simpler non-paradoxical terms, by saying that all particles, even buckyballs, are extended wave functions, and observation does not change them in any way, it merely subtracts a quantum of energy from the wave function when it is detected, which is an existentially discrete event (it either happens, or it doesn't), but neither of the participants of that event (the particle detected, and the elevating electron that does the detection) are discrete or point-like in any way, they are wave functions, because everything is wave functions!

 

It is a simpler, more parsimonious, Occam-friendlier alternative explanation to account for the data, that does NOT resort to mysterious spooky collapses of wave functions just because someone (or something?) "observes" it.

[swansont]

I am not proposing new evidence to support a new theory. I am proposing a new (not really, others have proposed this before and also been ignored) explanation to account for the same old data.

 

That makes it a new theory.

 

No it is not!

 

How can you have light from a single de-excitation both spread out according to the 1/r² law, and yet still be localized enough to cause another excitation?

 

 

The only way we know about the intensity of emitted light is by our recordings of that light on the detector. When you reduce the level low enough, then the detector detects either very few, or no hits. The "classical" explanation is that individual photons are emitted one by one. But this is an artifact of our discrete detector. The actual explanation is that most of the analog radiation remains below threshold, and only occasionally do enough crests align by constructive interference to trigger the detector.

 

If you can't detect something, how do you know it is there?

 

 

edit to add: How is this below-threshold (i.e. undetectable) radiation "Occam-friendly" ?

 

Because if there were indeed individual photons that pass through the slits one by one, then how on earth would they ever interfere? The "classical" explanation is paradoxical, it does not make sense.

 

"It does not make sense" is not sufficient to falsify. Never has been, never will be.

[slehar]

Here is a perfect example of the spooky quantum wave/particle NONSENSE that pervades our scientific culture unchallenged, to which I vehement object. In the May 2007 Scientific American, Hillmer & Kwiat's article "A Do-It-Yourself Quantum Eraser"

 

quantum mechanics reveals a fundamental weirdness in the way the world works. Commonsense notions at the very heart of our everyday perceptions of reality turn out to be violated. ... we will show you how to set up an experiment [with a laser pointer, some tin foil, and a wire] that illustrates ... quantum erasure ... one of the oddest features of quantum mechanics, the ability to take actions that change our basic interpretation of what happened in past events.

 

Woah! I can just hear the weird spooky sci-fi background music!

 

But first (to their credit) Hillmer & Kwiat warn:

 

we do have to emphasize one caveat in the interest of truth in advertising. The light patterns that you will see if you conduct the experiment successfully can be accounted for by considering light to be a classical wave, with no quantum mechanics involved. So in this respect the experiment is a cheat and falls short of fully demonstrating the quantum nature of the effect.

 

No kidding, Einstein! Ever consider the possibility that light is in fact a continuous analog wave phenomenon?

 

Nevertheless the individual photons ... are indeed doing the full quantum dance with all its weirdness intact, although you could only truly prove that by sending the photons through ... and detecting them one at a time

 

and (I must add) mis-interpreting the discrete detection of that light as a detection of discrete particles flying through one by one, instead of the real situation which is a discrete detection of a continuum of waves of light by discrete electrons that pop between discrete energy levels, as would be expected of a standing wave resonance effect.

 

Why does this kind of nonsense go unchallenged?

[swansont]

Here is a perfect example of the spooky quantum wave/particle NONSENSE that pervades our scientific culture unchallenged, to which I vehement object. In the May 2007 Scientific American, Hillmer & Kwiat's article "A Do-It-Yourself Quantum Eraser"

 

 

 

Woah! I can just hear the weird spooky sci-fi background music!

 

But first (to their credit) Hillmer & Kwiat warn:

 

 

 

No kidding, Einstein! Ever consider the possibility that light is in fact a continuous analog wave phenomenon?

 

 

 

and (I must add) mis-interpreting the discrete detection of that light as a detection of discrete particles flying through one by one, instead of the real situation which is a discrete detection of a continuum of waves of light by discrete electrons that pop between discrete energy levels, as would be expected of a standing wave resonance effect.

 

Why does this kind of nonsense go unchallenged?

 

 

A popular-magazine (i.e. not peer-reviewed) do-it-yourself experiment (using a laser pointer and tin foil, no less) is your example?

[Klaynos]

There is a time and place for shiny math. This is a simple straightforward argument that does not require math. Sometimes all that shiny math serves more to obsfucate than to elucidate, and this whole wave/particle duality nonsense is a perfect example..

 

We have mathematical theories that work, if you want to propose a new idea you're going to have to match them. It is very rarely not the time and place for maths.

 

The explanation for the bucky balls is the same as the explanation for any other particle. If you observe interference between bucky balls passing through the twin slits, then bucky balls are obviously not the discrete ball-and-stick constructions you see in your text books, but rather, every carbon atom with its surrounding field of electron orbitals, is like an extended field-like wrinkle in the fabric of reality that extends outward in space and time, and when collections of these fuzzy extended structures clump together into a bucky ball, the ball is itself an extended field-like structure, every component atom of which appears more like the fuzzy standing wave functions of the electron orbitals than a ball-and-stick model, so as to pass through both slits at the same time. Otherwise it would not exhibit interference effects!..

 

Bucky balls are not really fuzzy wavey things, they're nearly macroscopic

 

Your comments here need some mathematical bassis, what is a "wrinkle in the fabric of reality"?

 

There is a distinction between existential discreteness (there is either an electron in this orbital, or there is not; there is either an atom present here, or there is not; there is either a buckyball present, or there is not) and spatiotemporal discreteness (an electron / atom / buckyball is either a discrete point or ball-and-stick structure, or a fuzzy extended wave function). All I am saying is that evidence for existential discreteness is NOT evidence for spatiotemporal discreteness, it is merely a resonance effect. And the evidence for interference effects IS evidence for spatiotemporal extendedness and wave-like nature of electrons, atoms, and buckyballs...

 

Actually what duality is telling us is that electrons etc... are not particles and waves, they are infact neither, something different...

 

The mathematical prediction is that the phenomena that have already been observed should be expected to continue to be observed. The supporting evidence is all the evidence that has already been gathered. This is NOT an argument about new evidence for a new theory. This is an argument about the interpretation of existing evidence which is not in dispute. This is also how science works!

..

 

Doesn't look much like a mathematical prediction to me... Tehre is evidence against your idea, read the 1905 photoelectric effect paper by einstein.

 

The onus is on YOU to cite me any past evidence that you believe demonstrates that particles are ever discrete in space and time, rather than fuzzy wave functions, because all the evidence cited to date merely demonstrate a discreteness in emission and absorption, a resonance effect with the atom's electrons, which are known to be standing wave orbitals, not discrete particles. ..

 

Wrong I'm afraid, we've got mathematical formations, and evidence, you have anicdote.

 

My principal objection is to that whole spooky cat-in-the-box notion of things existing in a fuzzy indeterminate state until mere observation mysteriously collapses the wave function, like popping a bubble with a pin...

 

TBH science doesn't care what your objection is, it is what it is whether people like it nor not...

 

That is a highly misleading and erroneous explanation, because all of the existing evidence can be re-interpreted in very much simpler non-paradoxical terms, by saying that all particles, even buckyballs, are extended wave functions, and observation does not change them in any way, it merely subtracts a quantum of energy from the wave function when it is detected, which is an existentially discrete event (it either happens, or it doesn't), but neither of the participants of that event (the particle detected, and the elevating electron that does the detection) are discrete or point-like in any way, they are wave functions, because everything is wave functions!

 

It is a simpler, more parsimonious, Occam-friendlier alternative explanation to account for the data, that does NOT resort to mysterious spooky collapses of wave functions just because someone (or something?) "observes" it.

 

*sigh*

[lucaspa]

No, there is NO experimental evidence supporting light travelling as discrete photons,

 

The two slit experiment was done with electrons. Electrons are also both particles and waves. You seem to be restricting yourself to photons.

 

You and I are both particles and waves. It's just that the wavelength is much less than the diameter of an atom due to our size.

 

there is ONLY evidence for light being emmitted and absorbed in discrete quanta,

 

Doesn't quanta = photon?

 

because emmission and absorption are discrete phenomena due to the discrete nature of the standing waves of electron orbitals.

 

Can you give us the mathematical treatment of how the quanta moves from one atom to another? The physicists who do wave-particle duality do.

 

Also, have you done a google search on Bose-Einstein condensates?

 

You might also want to read these webites

http://web.phys.ksu.edu/vqmorig/tutorials/online/wave_part/

http://theory.uwinnipeg.ca/mod_tech/node154.html

 

In particular, please explain the photoelectric effect as particles.

 

The mathematical prediction is that the phenomena that have already been observed should be expected to continue to be observed. The supporting evidence is all the evidence that has already been gathered. This is NOT an argument about new evidence for a new theory. This is an argument about the interpretation of existing evidence which is not in dispute. This is also how science works!

 

No, it's not. What science does is use existing evidence to falsify theories. And the evidence from numerous 2-slit experiments and the photoelectric effect falsified that light or particles were only waves or particles. The particles have wave properties and the waves have particle properties.

 

In the classic two slit experiment, the electrons were not in orbit, but were directed, one-by-one, by the electromagnetic fields in a cathode ray tube. Remember, electons have discrete negative charges. The pattern that emerged, as electrons, one by one, were shot thru one of two slits, was that of an interference pattern of waves. Particles could not have done this. And waves cannot hold discrete electrical charges, can they?

 

What you are trying to do is not "reinterpret", but simply deny the data that falsified the wave alone and particle alone theories.

 

The onus is on YOU to cite me any past evidence that you believe demonstrates that particles are ever discrete in space and time, rather than fuzzy wave functions, because all the evidence cited to date merely demonstrate a discreteness in emission and absorption, a resonance effect with the atom's electrons, which are known to be standing wave orbitals, not discrete particles.

 

First, you are using the Shifting the Burden of Proof fallacy. What we are showing you are the experiments that falsified that particles are particles alone and waves are waves along.

 

How about electrons that are NOT in orbitals? These electrons alone were what was shot down the cathode ray tubes thru the two slits. Each was shot only thru one or the other slit. Each electron gave a single dot on the detector. Exactly what you would expect from a particle. It is the overall effect of the dots that gives an interference pattern.

 

My principal objection is to that whole spooky cat-in-the-box notion of things existing in a fuzzy indeterminate state until mere observation mysteriously collapses the wave function, like popping a bubble with a pin.

 

That's a personal objection and has no place in science. The universe doesn't have to be as we would like it to be. The universe is what it is. As it turns out, that is not the case. As has been discussed in several threads, recent data has shown that the "indeterminant" state (superposition) collapses on its own without observation. What's more, the time an object can stay in superposition is inversely related to size. The cat can't stay in an indeterminant state long. It essentially collapses instantaneously whether anyone looks or not.

 

Now, if you really want something that is indeterminant but real, consider that scientists took an atom that was in the superposition of spin up and spin down and separated the two forms. The atom existed in 2 places at the same time. The distance was equivalent to you standing over 10 feet away from you.

[bombus]

What's more, the time an object can stay in superposition is inversely related to size.

 

How does one actually define how big an object is? If it is touching another object, does that object include the object it is touching? How does one define touching?

 

I'm just interested...