SpheresOfBalance wrote:
I have a question Ginko, I've seen you around quit a bit, and we've exchanged comments on several occasions. I have always valued your abilities, and most importantly, your demeanor.
What do you know about the slit experiment? What was the material used to house the slits? How thick was it? Wasn't it in fact two slits side by side? What were the dimensions of all the geometric aspects of this, slit containing plate, including tolerances? What were it's properties with respect to electrons striking it? What type of electron gun was used? Was the trajectory of the electrons, precisely perpendicular to the slit containing material? Was the gun such, that it fired all electrons across the surface of the plate, simultaneously? If so, what was the pitch between the streams? If not, was the electron source articulated to achieve 100% coverage? If so, in what way? Etc, etc etc! My point being, do you know and understand all measurements and considerations that are required to ensure that the answer given is absolutely true, despite all other possibilities, or did you just read a source, and take their word for it? In other words, do you know the experiment well enough, to know for 'yourself,' that it's 100% infallible? A simple yes or no answer to the last question shall surely generate a plethora of specific questions additional to the others above, until all is satisfied. I'm just saying, in order for you to know, they would be required, if you claim so.
I don't know the answer to the majority of your questions, so I cannot guarantee anything in relation to quantum mechanics, let alone 100 percent of anything. In exactly the same way as I cannot guarantee the 100 percent accuracy of what has traditionally been regarded as scientific realism. I don't think anyone can. With this in mind I would say that regardless of the type of science, we can only ever give a representation of the nature of phenomena we observe. We usually end up putting this into the form of a theory that best fits the observations. This will always give us less than 100 percent guarantee that our theory is correct. As you point out there will always be lingering questions.
The double-slit experiment is not the only experiment to demonstrate 'quantum weirdness', there are several. Nonetheless, these would also be subject to the type of questions you pose. In a similar fashion we can call into question any and every scientific experiment we do.I think it was Lawrence Krauss who said that the best part of being a physicist is going to work each morning with the hope of proving other physicists wrong.
So yes, science does generate a plethora of questions and hopefully will continue to do so. If it doesn't then we are not doing science, we must be doing something else. I would be the last person to claim 100 percent accuracy of any science. At the risk of being less than 100 percent correct I would say that there is no such thing.
