The Heisenberg uncertainty principle was originally very much like not having the tools to measure. If you measured with the tools you have, it changes, and you can't get an accurate measurement. I say you don't have the tools to measure because there are no tools you can measure with that won't in some way affect the outcome of the measurement, and that was the whole point of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. Of course, quantum physics took it one step further, and said that it's not merely that you can't measure accurately, it's actually that the parameter you are trying to measure is not defined until you measure it. That's the part Einstein had a problem with, and it's the part I have a problem with.
I'll grant you that a buckyball is different from a single particle, and might be expected to behave differently in a two slit experiment. A single particle has a field that possesses a given flux. The particles stick together because the flux of their fields is complementary. In other words, their fields become more neutral when you put them together. With a larger group of particles, you are dealing with a more neutral field, and a larger mass. At some degree of greater size, the field that you are dealing with is only a gravitaional field, and that of course is very neutral and very weak. So if it goes thru a two slit apparatus, the surrounding field (which I regard as part of the wave) is not going to have much impact on the diffraction of the particles. In the case of a single particle, there is more flux per unit of mass, so you can expect different behavior.
I don't know that you can say that a photon goes only thru one slit or the other. You might be able to say that the detectible part of the photon goes thru one slit or the other. But that does not necessarily mean that there is not a part of the wave front that also goes thru the other slit and alters the path of the photon.
Well, it's been an interesting discussion. I don't think you're going to persuade me, nor am I going to persuade you. Just out of curiosity, are you a physicist, or perhaps an engineer?
No matter how peachy the tools you have, you can still only determine precisely either the frequency or location of a particle, but not both. Tools are irrelevant.
I'll grant you that a buckyball is different from a single particle, and might be expected to behave differently in a two slit experiment.
And yet does not, respecting the behaviors in question.
A single particle has a field that possesses a given flux. The particles stick together because the flux of their fields is complementary. In other words, their fields become more neutral when you put them together. With a larger group of particles, you are dealing with a more neutral field, and a larger mass. At some degree of greater size, the field that you are dealing with is only a gravitaional field, and that of course is very neutral and very weak. So if it goes thru a two slit apparatus, the surrounding field (which I regard as part of the wave) is not going to have much impact on the diffraction of the particles. In the case of a single particle, there is more flux per unit of mass, so you can expect different behavior.
But my point was that you don't get different behavior, relevant to the discussion. Photons and buckyballs both create the same sort of equilateral diffraction patterns.
I don't know that you can say that a photon goes only thru one slit or the other. You might be able to say that the detectible part of the photon goes thru one slit or the other. But that does not necessarily mean that there is not a part of the wave front that also goes thru the other slit and alters the path of the photon.
Well, than you must say the same thing about a 60 atom buckyball. Some part of it, which you can't detect, of so much invisible presence that it has a gravitas equal to or greater than the part you can see. Since the diffraction effects are symmetric. This sounds to me very much like one of the original 8 common attempts to try to understand quantum physics in more intuitive terms. Regardless, I don't see how your invisible elephants are any better than anyone else's invisible elephants.
Well, it's been an interesting discussion. I don't think you're going to persuade me, nor am I going to persuade you. Just out of curiosity, are you a physicist, or perhaps an engineer?
Engineer, if I have to choose.