Timeline for Does the double-slit experiment in itself imply 'spooky action at a distance'?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
4 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 28, 2023 at 23:51 | comment | added | WillO | The whole point of the question is that with coins, the actual outcome is not necessarily equal to the expected outcome, but with the detection screen, the actual outcome is always equal to the expected outcome. That difference is exactly why the OP sees something spooky about the detection screen. So you are saying that the screen is a lot like the coins, whereas the OP's entire point is that the screen is, in a crucial way, not at all like the coins. | |
| Feb 28, 2023 at 23:49 | comment | added | WillO | This answer seems to me to miss the point entirely. Suppose there are a thousand possible detection points on the screen. Think of each point as flipping an (unfair) coin to determine whether it will register an electron. Then the expected number of detections is exactly one, and so is the actual number of detections. Now flip the same unfair coin yourself a thousand times. The expected number of detections is still one, but the actual number can be zero, or two, or three, or .... | |
| S Feb 28, 2023 at 19:50 | review | First answers | |||
| Feb 28, 2023 at 19:52 | |||||
| S Feb 28, 2023 at 19:50 | history | answered | sps | CC BY-SA 4.0 |