(3 of 5) Begins....

These free expressions of such unachievable ideas, as the modern version of Thomas Young's double-slit performed with single electrons initially is, can become monsters as people no longer in possession or respect of the thought experiment creator's original doubts, begin repeating what another person has previously built only in thought, but now free from all doubt that theory ever suffered. This is how unproven thought theories become popular fact. The doubt sufferer fades away safe in the knowledge their lingering wonders never proved critical. But from theory to reality, several times, single electrons have actually been fired, and occasionally even through the double-slits with as we described exactly these chaotic, wide-spreading results as the product, before an interference pattern was summoned to save the day.

From varying sources have results confirmed their version of events. Claus Jönsson of the University of Tübingen is thought to have first been able to run Young's double-slit test with electrons in 1961, leaving us the premier image-confirmation of the standard line space line interference pattern seen from an energy wave, but then coming from the firing of electrons. He produced five perfect lines of interference for his efforts, but it is now agreed; he never achieved a pure example of a single electron within the experiment's apparatus at any one time. His firing rates of a thousand electrons per second or more, left us the conclusion that he was creating an interference pattern through the mass-rushing stampede of electrons interfering with themselves beyond the plate's governance and not resulting from an actual energy wave. This test was just solids bouncing off of other solids. This evidences our first requirement for a legitimate test, as this instance cannot be considered a valid example for its lack of one electron fired at a time.

Next came the often unacknowledged 1974 Bologna experiment by Merli-Missiroli-Pozzi whom over time and several tests gave us moving pictures of astoundingly clear individual electron impacts and presumed buildup patterns that culminated in an interference pattern, resulting in a believed but unconfirmed proof of single electrons being achieved on anything but the earliest levels of the test. As well as, significant modern doubts about the purity of the electron impact measuring device remaining free of outside noise, as all such equipment of that time suffered when idle, let alone when flooded with electrons. "The Bologna group photographed the monitor of a sensitive TV camera as they changed the intensity of an electron beam. They observed that a few light flashes of electrons appeared at low intensities, and that interference fringes were formed at high intensities." ~ Physics World, May 2003

The next installment, a clarification of the previous test -- The Demonstration of Single-Electron Buildup of an Interference Pattern, by Tonomura-Endo-Matsuda-Kawasaki-Ezawa at Hitachi in 1989 -- the most spoken of, credible and like the last, completely incorrect experiment; delivered for the quantum pulpit a confirmed chapter and verse video of how to create an interference pattern with solid material, which may be a significant test in its own right but is not a double-slit experiment. Perhaps the first test that was entirely single electron firing, verified again initially, did not, like the Bologna experiment it sought to copy, strictly adhere to the simplicity Thomas Young left us with his double-slit plate. Instead, both favored an infinitely more complex electron biprism -- an arrangement of fields that splits a beam of electrons similar to light through a prism -- effectively discrediting their results for being an actual example of firing a single electron through a double-slit experiment for the inclusion of the active biprism in place of the inert double-slit plate. This evidences our last requirement for a legitimate test, as these two examples of this widely held standard can not be considered valid for their total lack of a double-slit.

Found in 2013 by Bach-Pope-Liou-Batelaan, working primarily out of the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, impacting roughly seven thousand electrons in less than two hours through a meter long apparatus of cumulative imagination. Adhering naively in spirit to Young's exact design, which consolidated light with a single slit plate, not previously mentioned in our examples -- before the double-slit plate. A mistake further compiled by adding the moving shutter plate of Richard Feynman's design -- some measurable distance after the double-slit plate. Not as function would follow that form take he one plate, but three -- Like two racquets on a tennis court with our double-slit plate as the net. And although closest to an ideal experiment, capable of performing exactly a double-slit experiment, with the objection that their slits were intolerably gigantic, instead failed further forward favoring Young's primitive energy wave oriented design, coupled to Feynman's energy wave searching bias. Young's simple light experiment was never meant to deal with physical subjects, was in fact meant to disprove such. Not to be manipulated into erasing Young's accomplishments in the field of disproving solid light, by placing physical platforms before and after the double-slits where genuinely physical bodies in transit could find governing interference.

It should be noted that the first single-electron capable experiment to use a double-slit was actually reported in 2008 by the Bologna group, Pozzi and unnamed colleagues. They, attempting to confirm what everyone already believes, performed the Feynman biased experiment -- where a moving shutter plate some distance after the double-slit plate, attempts to cover all slits, then one, then none, then the other, then all again -- by instead, filling the double-slit plate's holes with filters or plugs to further explore wave type, and perhaps avoid bounce back from the Feynman shutter. Unfortunately, for this often unacknowledged Bologna group, no further knowledge was available at the time of this article's publishing of their specifications or results. In 2012 they again tried, recording individual electron impacts through the double-slit. But I again found no mention of exact details, only secondhand speculation toward a clarifying elaboration of their interpretation of the Feynman bias with regard to waveform. Nor did Pozzi return direct requests for more specific information -- I expect they didn't find anything significant enough to be published in the face of such overwhelming confirmation of opinion which thrives to this day, namelessly.

The modern single electron version of this experiment, which stands centrally inside the foundation of Quantum Mechanics, remains the test with no name. This test is known as some arrangement of The Single Electron Double-Slit Experiment, because no one so far has ever run it purely, as its originator Thomas Young tried to do so for light. And with good reason, its own insignificance is too simple to be profitably named because it is quite simply a theory of nothing. This widely accepted, if not widely adhered to for fundamental-operation experiment, will not show the results they desire when run in a single electron per second form as we have been capable of doing so for decades. Because by all credible results even from these flawed, uncertain and excessively short-term, biased or naive, and nonconforming examples the early results of their efforts are negative.

Which for my theory, 81235cbe990d7593d8ad20d2e54fee3f's Interpretation of Thomas Young's Double-Slit Experiment with reference to the singular firing of electrons through the double-slit alone, is positive. The 1974 and 1989 test results both begin as widespread patterns showing no distinctive double-slit or interference pattern formation by any stretch of the imagination. But contrary to this widespread result we find only widespread belief in the absolute legitimacy of the only outcome possible for this experiment, in the face of which publishing any further results of unresolved chaos would be fruitless, half-baked efforts at best. Yet, credit seekers for the overcooked conclusion they summon suffer no such angst in their endeavors. A name engraved into this foundation brick of Quantum Mechanics is all their appeals to the contrary ask for, as they point out each experiment listed here confirmed the earlier findings of another. Each mass flooding of electrons, systemically believed to be singular, interfered with themselves. And here we agree one last time. It is my firm belief they all deserve credit for failing to strictly adhere to the most uncontroversial design classifiable as a single electron double-slit experiment, to be able to represent their findings as such.

(3 of 5) Complete. Continued below....