From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!convex!mips.mitek.com!spssig.spss.com!markrose Tue Apr  7 23:24:19 EDT 1992
Article 4938 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!convex!mips.mitek.com!spssig.spss.com!markrose
>From: markrose@spss.com (Mark Rosenfelder)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: lookup tables again... oops, no, we're back on QM again
Message-ID: <1992Apr06.164012.38641@spss.com>
Date: 6 Apr 92 16:40:12 GMT
References: <1992Apr3.092019.27965@ccu.umanitoba.ca> <1992Apr03.170149.39582@spss.com> <1992Apr4.173208.16061@math.okstate.edu>
Organization: SPSS Inc.
Lines: 18
Nntp-Posting-Host: spssrs7.spss.com

In article <1992Apr4.173208.16061@math.okstate.edu> gindrup@math.okstate.edu 
(Eric `'d'kidd' G..) writes:
>Well, if one performs the two-slit experiment in such a way that only one
>electron is emitted at a time, it STILL won't end up in one place.  "The"
>electron is smeared out over the screen and all your left with is a 
>distributed electron.  I.e. The electron is observed all over the card where
>its interference amplitudes are real and positive.  Film which is exposed
>in this manner does not get made up of a single point, but instead is made
>up of the expected interference banding - from one electron interfering
>with itself.

You're mistaken.  The single electron is observed in one place only, and
there is no way to predict precisely where it will show up.  What can be
predicted is the probability that it will be observed in any one place.
And this probability does behave as a wave, suffering interference effects.
To make the interference pattern visible on the plate, however, you must
either fire single electrons repeatedly, or fire a mess of electrons all
at once.


