Toward understanding the Double Slit Experiment, pt. 1

Greysky Treb is just like me he likes to kid around a lot. Let me also
correct myself I said photon for electron. I should start proof reading
my posts,but that is boring and time consuming. Bert

Double-A I don't believe in ghosts I believe in our parrel universe.
Bert

greysky wrote:
Begin Part One

In chapter one, book three, of "The Feynman Lectures On Physics", Professor
Richard Feynman had this to say about the double slit experiment:

"We choose to examine a phenomenon which is impossible, absolutely
impossible, to explain in any classical way, and which has in it the heart
of quantum mechanics. In reality, it contains the only mystery. We cannot
make the mystery go away by explaining how it works. We will just tell you
how it works. In telling you how it works we will have told you about the
basic peculiarities of all quantum mechanics."
Greysky

www.allocations.cc
Learn how to build a FTL radio.

Guys. There is a way to resolve this double slit mystery. We tend
to think that the electron is in two places at the same time (in the 2
slits or formally in the copenhagen interpretation its wave function
passing thru each and interfering) but what if the electron
is not in two places at the same time but in no space. That
is. Before decoherence sets in. Quantum objects is located not in
space. This concept ties in with the theoretical exploration that there
is something more fundamental than space and time meaning
there is some kind of energy that make up space-time itself and
matter. This energy is without space and time and not matter
yet its combination can create space/time and matter.
So in the double slit experiment. The electron as quantum
object is located not in space but exist as energy
form with wave characteristic and the physical world attribute
only occurs as a only of decohence when entanglement with
the environment creates the classical world. A physicist even
argues that perhaps electron and quantum objects are not
really located in space and time but particles themselves
create space and time although I tend to think there is a
third party involved in both the creation of space/time and
matter. What do you think guys? Pls. refer me to any arvix
articles that explore similar idea. Tnx.

dm

Felix of The North wrote:


I must object, strenuously - to the following.

Objection denied



Order in the court ! Bailff !



: )

| | Suppose that the electron is the minimum quantum of an
electron-wave.
| Would
| | that model accomodate observations?
|
|
| No.
| Cars are not waves. Electrons are not waves. Photons are not waves.
| Wave models are incorrect. Replace them with field models and particle
| models if you wish to understand.
| http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...lina/Drive.htm
| Androcles
|
|
| Katzebrude.
|
| The electron is a particle. The electron is a wave. It is both.


Ah... we have another Roberts, I see, another one stark staring mad.
Electrons are waves...
This is PHYSICS, not math or logic, and "proof" is completely
irrelevant.
Ref: om


|
| Fields are places where ones finds dogs mating.
|
| Wave-particle duality is the result of a continuous-discrete duality,
and
| this continuous-discrete duality is easily explained by allowing
| Plancklength graduations to be oriented arbitrarily, not fixed, but
sliding
| arbitrarily.

Humpty Roberts let out a great sigh.
" sigh", he said.
"The nuances of English. I was discussing the usage of words and
not the concepts they represent."
-- Tom Humpty Roberts
om

|
| Cars are indeed waves, electrons are waves, photons are waves, and
sometimes
| bull**** comes in waves like a tsunami.


You've got that right, and you've got plenty of it.


They'll be calling me the father of modern bull****. But you can just call
me dad. : )


| The universe has no geometric origin. There is no cosmic (0,0,0,0).
Planck
| length chunks of dimension are not numbered. Their configuration is
| arbitrary, and so is the location of the origin (as a corollary).
|
| I explained the whole thing already. For Pete's sakes -
|
| For any two points in the universe there is a path of zero distance
| connecting those points. It has zero length because it is composed of
| trivial points. Obviously, there are also points which are not trivial,
and
| so ........
|
|
| gotta run -------

Is that because the men in white coats have arrived?
Androcles


No, it's because my wife is a madwoman who has no appreciation for science,
and if she catches me on the computer her head will probably explode - so I
have to post on the sly.

"nightbat" wrote in message
...
nightbat wrote

Y.Porat wrote:
nightbat wrote:

nightbat wrote

Y.Porat wrote:


Felix of The North wrote:


| Suppose that the electron is the minimum quantum of an
electron-wave.
Would
| that model accomodate observations?


No.
Cars are not waves. Electrons are not waves. Photons are not waves.
Wave models are incorrect. Replace them with field models and
particle
models if you wish to understand.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...lina/Drive.htm
Androcles


Katzebrude.

The electron is a particle. The electron is a wave. It is both.

Fields are places where ones finds dogs mating.

Wave-particle duality is the result of a continuous-discrete duality,
and
this continuous-discrete duality is easily explained by allowing
Plancklength graduations to be oriented arbitrarily, not fixed, but
sliding
arbitrarily.

Cars are indeed waves, electrons are waves, photons are waves, and
sometimes
bull**** comes in waves like a tsunami.

The universe has no geometric origin. There is no cosmic (0,0,0,0).
Planck
length chunks of dimension are not numbered. Their configuration is
arbitrary, and so is the location of the origin (as a corollary).

I explained the whole thing already. For Pete's sakes -

For any two points in the universe there is a path of zero distance
connecting those points. It has zero length because it is composed of
trivial points. Obviously, there are also points which are not
trivial, and
so ........


gotta run -------

Y. Porat
----------------------
most probably
run to the pub --take his wives(or mothers ) money ---and buy some
bottles of whiskey !!
we can smell these guys as far as from the south pole

Y.Porat
---------------------------------


nightbat

Hello Porat why has it been so long since you posted to
alt.astronomy where I reside and how are things over in sci.physics the
home of mainstream profound scientists and researchers. How is your
family and work coming along? We touched on some many like thoughts and
still going after the clueless I see. Androcles however is a special
case very profound. Nice seeing you still posting and do please post
here more often for your misunderstood profoundness is well respected.

cheers,
the nightbat

Porat
---------------------------
i was responding to Felix

did you read his post ? did you understand him ??
(di dhe understood whah he wrote ???)

ATB
Y.Porat
------------------------------------


nightbat

Yes Porat, Felix is entertaining for he contradicts himself but
still entertaining. Tell him from point Earth to point Titan moon
tealeaf base it should according to him take zero time for him to get
there since there is purportedly zero distance between us, ha, ha. Don't
let the entertainers get to you they provide lighthardiness to the
seriousness of your own investigations. Come and post some here at
alt.astronomy and let your mind be respected as a honorary Earth Science
Team Officer friend.

cheers,
the nightbat



One can certainly explain nonlocality using trivial geometry.

In R3, you have a collection of points which are said to exist. Consider
chopping a point in half, it cannot be done, and so such "half points" may
be considered trivial. Their existence is arbitrary, because they are
trivial. R3 looks a little different now. You have a collection of points
(R3) which is said to exist, along with a kind of co-space which is
completely trivial and perhaps not really existent.

So, for any two points A and B in R3, draw a path from A to B using only
trivial points. It is clear that this path is not really existent, and so
the distance from A to B "via trivial geometry" is indeed zero.

Mathematicians dont like this because, WLOG, they dont like paradoxes in the
first place. However - we do know how to chop a point in half, |A-A|/2, so
trivial points are constructible. Trivial manifolds, spaces, etc etc.

So, yeah, the distance from Earth to Titan is several million miles as
measured in real points which exist along real paths. But all "trivial"
paths from Earth to Titan are indeed zero, and there are infinitely many of
them.

Cant believe that you guys dont get it. This is really simple stuff that
completely explains why whichway information exists, etc.

My Schmidt-Cassegrain's bigger than yours anyway. : P

nightbat wrote:
nightbat wrote

Y.Porat wrote:
nightbat wrote:

nightbat wrote

Y.Porat wrote:


Felix of The North wrote:


| Suppose that the electron is the minimum quantum of an electron-wave.
Would
| that model accomodate observations?


No.
Cars are not waves. Electrons are not waves. Photons are not waves.
Wave models are incorrect. Replace them with field models and particle
models if you wish to understand.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...lina/Drive.htm
Androcles


Katzebrude.

The electron is a particle. The electron is a wave. It is both.

Fields are places where ones finds dogs mating.

Wave-particle duality is the result ------------------------------------


nightbat

Yes Porat, Felix is entertaining for he contradicts himself but
still entertaining. Tell him from point Earth to point Titan moon
tealeaf base it should according to him take zero time for him to get
there since there is purportedly zero distance between us, ha, ha. Don't
let the entertainers get to you they provide lighthardiness to the
seriousness of your own investigations. Come and post some here at
alt.astronomy and let your mind be respected as a honorary Earth Science
Team Officer friend.

cheers,
the nightbat
---------------------------------
Hi Bert
you invite me to write in sci.Astronomy??
(i never invested on learning it seriously though it must be very
interesting
yet as you know our 'earth problems seem to be much more urgent!!
some people take sci.physics as sort of a nice game!
fo rme it is much more serious and urgent to solve vital urgent
problems )

i hardly know something about the structure of matter
the Atom and the nucleus
and you invite me to write about Astronomy??? (:-)

(though in a second thougth there is some connection between the two
but not all along the way !!)

Linux Utilisateur wrote:
Hi Bert
you invite me to write in sci.Astronomy??
(i never invested on learning it seriously though it must be very
interesting

Astronomy trolling? This is a new low. What's even worse that you're
trolling English grammar, which is an evolving language. If you were
trolling a so-called "dead" language like Latin it wouldn't be so bad,
but all English grammatical guidelines were composed by some guy saying
"Gee, this seems to happen a lot, let's make it a rule!" Now please
stop trying to hold back evolution, and unsubscribe while you're at it.
-------------------
just in case you dont know
this is a sci.physics ng not a literature ng

2 i am not a native English speaker
(unless you have secrete racist motivations in interveaning .)

3 i would like to see your Hebrew gramer speciality ...........
and the way you use it in a sci.physics ng ....... (:-)

4 please note the rate of my response it will give you an idea about
the rate
i type it ...... (without looking back too much if i dont give
much damn
for whom i respond .......)
5 for me the most important is that peoiple here will understand
what i want to say and not HOW IT LOOKS

ATB
Y.Porat
------------------

Y.Porat wrote:
Linux Utilisateur wrote:
Hi Bert
you invite me to write in sci.Astronomy??
(i never invested on learning it seriously though it must be very
interesting

Astronomy trolling? This is a new low. What's even worse that you're
trolling English grammar, which is an evolving language. If you were
trolling a so-called "dead" language like Latin it wouldn't be so bad,
but all English grammatical guidelines were composed by some guy saying
"Gee, this seems to happen a lot, let's make it a rule!" Now please
stop trying to hold back evolution, and unsubscribe while you're at it.
-------------------
just in case you dont know
this is a sci.physics ng not a literature ng

2 i am not a native English speaker
(unless you have secrete racist motivations in interveaning .)

3 i would like to see your Hebrew gramer speciality ...........
and the way you use it in a sci.physics ng ....... (:-)

4 please note the rate of my response it will give you an idea about
the rate
i type it ...... (without looking back too much if i dont give
much damn
for whom i respond .......)
5 for me the most important is that peoiple here will understand
what i want to say and not HOW IT LOOKS

ATB
Y.Porat
------------------]

now back to bussiness

how do you define a single photon ??

TIA
Y.Porat
------------------------------

"Felix of The North" wrote in message
. ..
|
| | | Suppose that the electron is the minimum quantum of an
| electron-wave.
| | Would
| | | that model accomodate observations?
| |
| |
| | No.
| | Cars are not waves. Electrons are not waves. Photons are not waves.
| | Wave models are incorrect. Replace them with field models and
particle
| | models if you wish to understand.
| | http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...lina/Drive.htm
| | Androcles
| |
| |
| | Katzebrude.
| |
| | The electron is a particle. The electron is a wave. It is both.
|
|
| Ah... we have another Roberts, I see, another one stark staring mad.
| Electrons are waves...
| This is PHYSICS, not math or logic, and "proof" is completely
| irrelevant.
| Ref: om
|
|
| |
| | Fields are places where ones finds dogs mating.
| |
| | Wave-particle duality is the result of a continuous-discrete duality,
| and
| | this continuous-discrete duality is easily explained by allowing
| | Plancklength graduations to be oriented arbitrarily, not fixed, but
| sliding
| | arbitrarily.
|
| Humpty Roberts let out a great sigh.
| " sigh", he said.
| "The nuances of English. I was discussing the usage of words and
| not the concepts they represent."
| -- Tom Humpty Roberts
| om
|
| |
| | Cars are indeed waves, electrons are waves, photons are waves, and
| sometimes
| | bull**** comes in waves like a tsunami.
|
|
| You've got that right, and you've got plenty of it.
|
|
| They'll be calling me the father of modern bull****. But you can just call
| me dad. : )

|
| | The universe has no geometric origin. There is no cosmic (0,0,0,0).
| Planck
| | length chunks of dimension are not numbered. Their configuration is
| | arbitrary, and so is the location of the origin (as a corollary).
| |
| | I explained the whole thing already. For Pete's sakes -
| |
| | For any two points in the universe there is a path of zero distance
| | connecting those points. It has zero length because it is composed of
| | trivial points. Obviously, there are also points which are not
trivial,
| and
| | so ........
| |
| |
| | gotta run -------
|
| Is that because the men in white coats have arrived?
| Androcles
|
|
| No, it's because my wife is a madwoman who has no appreciation for
science,
| and if she catches me on the computer her head will probably explode - so
I
| have to post on the sly.

Ah, you have a "wife". I prefer hookers, they are cheaper and I can do
as I please in my own home. Why any man should voluntarily become
a slave in the interests of sex and/or wealth is a poor man indeed. You
have my sympathy, which together with a couple of dollars will get you
a cup of coffee.
In the interest of science, experiment and explode the madwoman's head to
prove your conjecture. This should then release you from your commitment
and obligation "till my death do us part".
I believe monogamy to be a Jewish institution, isn't it? Whatever, it is as
unnatural as homosexuality.
Androcles.