Are all models wrong?

[Terrapin Station]

Again, are you claiming that the slits are placed in a vacuum?

Yes. You?

I'm just asking you a clarification question. Now, insofar as the slits are placed in a vacuum, do we have a vacuum? Are they "slits made out of a vacuum"?

[Steve3007]

I'm just asking you a clarification question. Now, insofar as the slits are placed in a vacuum, do we have a vacuum? Are they "slits made out of a vacuum"?

Between the cathode and anode is a flat piece of metal (the thing that I referred to as a "barrier"). Into this piece of metal is cut two slits. Since the metal is in a vacuum, there is a vacuum where the slits are.

I wouldn't word that as the slits being "made out of a vacuum". But if you want to put it like that, fair enough.

[Terrapin Station]

I'm just asking you a clarification question. Now, insofar as the slits are placed in a vacuum, do we have a vacuum? Are they "slits made out of a vacuum"?

Between the cathode and anode is a flat piece of metal (the thing that I referred to as a "barrier"). Into this piece of metal is cut two slits. Since the metal is in a vacuum, there is a vacuum where the slits are.

I wouldn't word that as the slits being "made out of a vacuum". But if you want to put it like that, fair enough.

There isn't a vacuum where the slits are. Metal is not a vacuum. You might want to say that there's a vacuum immediately adjacent to the slits, where for one, you're pretending that there's a "hard boundary" between the surface of the metal and the vacuum.

The slits "made out of a vacuum" is mocking the fact that you're not thinking through what you're claiming in a philosophically/logically coherent manner.

[Terrapin Station]

We're also assuming that vacuums are really possible (in the way that we think of them as being circumscribed areas of essentially "nothing"). They might not be possible.

[Steve3007]

There isn't a vacuum where the slits are.

I have to ask at this point: Do you understand what I mean by the word "slit"? I mean a long thin hole in a piece of solid material.

[Steve3007]

We're also assuming that vacuums are really possible (in the way that we think of them as being circumscribed areas of essentially "nothing"). They might not be possible.

Do you understand why the inside of the tube needs to be evacuated? If so, do you think we need a "hard" vacuum? In an old-fashioned TV tube, do you think there is a hard vacuum? If we were manufacturing an old fashioned TV tube, by using a pump to remove as much of the air as possible, at what point do you think we would decide that we have removed enough air? Do you think it would be possible to literally remove every molecule of air?

[Steve3007]

At this point, we're diverging onto the subject of vacuum technology, which is a whole subject in itself.

[Terrapin Station]

There isn't a vacuum where the slits are.

I have to ask at this point: Do you understand what I mean by the word "slit"? I mean a long thin hole in a piece of solid material.

Two of them yes. Material isn't the same thing as a vacuum, is it? And the whole gist of the set up is that the particle(s) in question are passing through the slits in the material.

[Steve3007]

Just in case it turns out that we are, in fact, speaking completely different languages:

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictio ... glish/slit

A slit it a type of hole. If I have a solid object surrounded by air and I make a hole in that object, the hole fills with air. If I have a solid object surrounded by water and I make a hole in that object, the hole fills with water. If I have a solid object surrounded by extremely rarefied air and I make a hole in that object, the hole fills with extremely rarefied air. If I have a solid object surrounded by nothing and I make a hole in that object, the hole doesn't fill with anything.

If we want to discuss the interesting subject of vacuums, including concepts like mean-free-path and collision-less gases, then I guess we can. But since we've already digressed from the main subject of the topic, I suggest that this is a digression too far. Perhaps a separate topic on the philosophy of vacuums? (If there is such a thing).

[Steve3007]

Two of them yes. Material isn't the same thing as a vacuum, is it? And the whole gist of the set up is that the particle(s) in question are passing through the slits in the material.

So have we now established to our satisfaction what a slit is?

[Terrapin Station]

We're also assuming that vacuums are really possible (in the way that we think of them as being circumscribed areas of essentially "nothing"). They might not be possible.

Do you understand why the inside of the tube needs to be evacuated? If so, do you think we need a "hard" vacuum? In an old-fashioned TV tube, do you think there is a hard vacuum? If we were manufacturing an old fashioned TV tube, by using a pump to remove as much of the air as possible, at what point do you think we would decide that we have removed enough air? Do you think it would be possible to literally remove every molecule of air?

Wasn't your whole objection to wave propagation that there would be nothing for a wave to propagate through (where we're not bothering addressing that you're ignoring that particles could interact solely with each other in a wave pattern)?

If there's something in the tube and it's not literally a vacuum, then we can't claim that there's nothing for a wave to propagate through.

[Terrapin Station]

Two of them yes. Material isn't the same thing as a vacuum, is it? And the whole gist of the set up is that the particle(s) in question are passing through the slits in the material.

So have we now established to our satisfaction what a slit is?

Is the material being passed through the same thing as a vacuum?

[Steve3007]

Wasn't your whole objection to wave propagation that there would be nothing for a wave to propagate through

No. It wasn't. Please quote the specific part where you think that was my objection. (Note: not a block-quote an entire post consisting of several paragraphs.)

Just to double-check: you said you've read about the twin slit experiment involving electrons, yes? When they conclude that electrons propagate as waves, you realise that they're not talking about waves propagating through a medium, like air? You realise that they're talking about a wave which represents the probability of finding an electron at any given point?

Note: I'm not asking whether you agree with them. I'm just asking whether you've read the description of the experiment, the findings and the conclusions that have been drawn from those findings.

If not, no problem. But obviously it's not possible to discuss a proposition unless you know what the proposition says, right?

[Steve3007]

Is the material being passed through the same thing as a vacuum?

What material?

[Steve3007]

where we're not bothering addressing that you're ignoring that particles could interact solely with each other in a wave pattern

I didn't ignore this. I asked you what you meant by it. You wouldn't tell me.