Oh man the university ptsd as an engineer. I once asked a physics prof at what width does the split slot experiment break down, she couldn't understand the question. All the other engineering students were nodding their heads in agreement with the question and tried to explain the question in a different way, still no idea what we were asking.
It's a good question, but asking it shows that the experiment was explained poorly.
The slits aren't the reason you see an interference pattern. The slits function as two lenses, similar to a pinhole camera. That's something that usually doesn't get explained very well, you can use all sorts of lenses for this, but slits are the most basic (and crucially, glass lenses would cause an interference pattern even if light weren't a wave).
The double slit experiment is basically "if light is a wave, a slit would behave like a lens, similar to a pinhole camera. If light is a particle, it will simply be a hole without any lensing. Two slits show multiple bars, due to interference from the lenses, which means light is a wave"
Which means this works at any scale. All you need is some light in the same frequency, and something to bend it. That can be two slits, some glass, or an entire galaxy.
There are local limits of course, where the effect still applies, but things become too blurry and diffuse to make out. But that's more of a limit to your sensor than the experiment.
That's when considering the slits as a lens though, which they will act as at any diameter however there's going to be a width at which the angle of approach and wavelength of the light are insignificant enough that you practically can't tell that the slits were even there right?
The interference patter gets closer and closer to a set of independent peaks when you spread the slits away. There is no single point it breaks down, and the wave behavior predicts exactly the "particle behavior" you get when the slits are too far away.
Engineers: let's work through this optimization problem to test and categorize the limits of materials for resistance to heat or vibration forces or fuels for energy density to choose the right materials for a rocket
Physicists: let's work through these multidimensional equations of velocity and distance so we can map the stars and build trajectories for getting from any system to another in the galaxy
Mathematicians: You're lost in a forest and you don't know where the boundaries are or which direction you're facing, let's try to calculate how hard it is to leave
I don't think bugs can be in a set. Bugs are physical and sets arent. Sets don't occupy physical space. I mean they cannot be seen or touched or observed by any experiments so we can conclude that they are not part of our world and bugs need physical space therefore they cannot be part of a set.
Defined don't equals existent I can be wrong but I am rather not part of your set because I am physical so it doesent exist or it contains object that is not me =( When you draw for example square its not really a square its physicala representation of it. And your object in your singleton is actually only mathematical representation of me.
Yeah it's a managerial function involving skill and time and therefore money, but if it doesn't directly translate into profits for the corporation, then who has interest in that kind of investment these days?
Plenty of money exists yes, but there is no "will" to use it in this manner - and those who would, get fired or passed over for promotion by those who move fast & break things. Stock dividends rather than programmer salaries - see e.g. all of the tech sector doing multiple rounds of layoffs rather than make documentation or do anything close to proper maintenance for the things that were just built. However, those are (always) problems for the next CEO to have to worry about.
