Gaining forbidden knowledge

Most any explanation of the quantum theory begins with the double slit
experiment. Even Richard Feynman says of the phenomena described by the
results of the double slit experimant to "contain the only mystery". In
order to explain the double slit experiment and hence the results derived
from this, Feynman first describes the single slit experiment. He devotes a
scant few lines to this but only as a special case of closing one of the two
slits. Considering he is correct when he states all of quantum physics is
embodied in this single most important experiment, it is really more than an
intellectual oversight to devote such small intellectual thought to quantum
behaviour where only one slit exsts. A plebian reason would be that with
only one slit to worry about, the experimant can be simpified to the point
where more people can understand what is going on. An more important reason
is that perhaps more information can be gathered about a quantum system
where there exists the superposition of only two variables - we can know
more about quantum particle interaction, which can then be applied to more
complex experiments.

A simple case in point is when an electron has an equal probability of
either impacting the slit material or the traget material. This is an
either - or proposition,. One would not expect the sensor at the target to
register a impact when the sensor at the slit has already registered an
impact. But, before an observation has been made, there is no way of knowing
what the electron has done. It is in a superposition of both states, and can
be considered to both have impacted the slit and have traveled to and
impacted with the target. Both are equally real outcomes, which the act of
observation should sort out nicely. But this does not (nicely) happen all
the time. Sometimes, an electron can register on both sensors. Physicist
call this a garbage result and throw out the results. They shouldn't. This
effect becomes more pronounced when there are more slits all aimed at the
same target. If there are two or more electron emitters sending electrons
through more seperate slits, but where they will all impact the same target
sensor if they pass through their respective slits, the incidence of double
registers increases. I guess garbage multiplies proportionately.

In my own expriments performed in the late 1980's, I proved the double hits
were indeed caused by the same electron by carefully measuring the timing
of the hits, using long wavelength, cold, electrons. The hits at the target
always came after the hits occuring at the slit by the correct propagation
time interval within a 25 percentile error margin. Others have done much
the same experiment as I have, but usually throw out their results because
they can't explain them. This is a shame. The ultimate usefulness of single
slit propagation of quantum operators through space yields many useful
things concerning the operation of the quantum microworld, and makes the
physics of quantum mechanics more potent and useful. Most importantly, if as
Richard Feynman correctly believed, the whole of quantum physics rests upon
the bedrock of this type of experiment, then it behoovs us to know the most
we can about these simple special cases of the theory or our house will be
built on loose ground which may give way under the heavy edifice of further
intellectual meanderings.

Greysky

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

"Greysky" wrote in message
. com...
Most any explanation of the quantum theory begins with the double slit
experiment. Even Richard Feynman says of the phenomena described by the
results of the double slit experimant to "contain the only mystery". In
order to explain the double slit experiment and hence the results derived
from this, Feynman first describes the single slit experiment. He devotes
a
scant few lines to this but only as a special case of closing one of the
two
slits. Considering he is correct when he states all of quantum physics is
embodied in this single most important experiment, it is really more than
an
intellectual oversight to devote such small intellectual thought to
quantum
behaviour where only one slit exsts. A plebian reason would be that with
only one slit to worry about, the experimant can be simpified to the point
where more people can understand what is going on. An more important
reason
is that perhaps more information can be gathered about a quantum system
where there exists the superposition of only two variables - we can know
more about quantum particle interaction, which can then be applied to more
complex experiments.

A simple case in point is when an electron has an equal probability of
either impacting the slit material or the traget material. This is an
either - or proposition,. One would not expect the sensor at the target to
register a impact when the sensor at the slit has already registered an
impact. But, before an observation has been made, there is no way of
knowing
what the electron has done. It is in a superposition of both states, and
can
be considered to both have impacted the slit and have traveled to and
impacted with the target. Both are equally real outcomes, which the act of
observation should sort out nicely. But this does not (nicely) happen all
the time. Sometimes, an electron can register on both sensors. Physicist
call this a garbage result and throw out the results. They shouldn't. This
effect becomes more pronounced when there are more slits all aimed at the
same target. If there are two or more electron emitters sending electrons
through more seperate slits, but where they will all impact the same
target
sensor if they pass through their respective slits, the incidence of
double
registers increases. I guess garbage multiplies proportionately.

In my own expriments performed in the late 1980's, I proved the double
hits
were indeed caused by the same electron by carefully measuring the timing
of the hits, using long wavelength, cold, electrons. The hits at the
target
always came after the hits occuring at the slit by the correct propagation
time interval within a 25 percentile error margin.

Would it be possible to detail the response from the journals you submitted
your findings to?

Thanks
Bill

Others have done much
the same experiment as I have, but usually throw out their results because
they can't explain them. This is a shame. The ultimate usefulness of
single
slit propagation of quantum operators through space yields many useful
things concerning the operation of the quantum microworld, and makes the
physics of quantum mechanics more potent and useful. Most importantly, if
as
Richard Feynman correctly believed, the whole of quantum physics rests
upon
the bedrock of this type of experiment, then it behoovs us to know the
most
we can about these simple special cases of the theory or our house will be
built on loose ground which may give way under the heavy edifice of
further
intellectual meanderings.

Greysky

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

"Greysky" wrote in message
. com...

[snip]

In my own expriments performed in the late 1980's, I proved the
double hits
were indeed caused by the same electron by carefully measuring the
timing
of the hits, using long wavelength, cold, electrons. The hits at the
target
always came after the hits occuring at the slit by the correct
propagation
time interval within a 25 percentile error margin.

Could you please give a reference to where the results of this
remarkable experiment were published?
And I have not seen your name in any of the Nobel prize lists yet.
What is causing the delay?

Franz

"Greysky" wrote in message
. com...
Most any explanation of the quantum theory begins with the double slit
experiment. Even Richard Feynman says of the phenomena described by the
results of the double slit experimant to "contain the only mystery". In
order to explain the double slit experiment and hence the results derived
from this, Feynman first describes the single slit experiment. He devotes
a
scant few lines to this but only as a special case of closing one of the
two
slits. Considering he is correct when he states all of quantum physics is
embodied in this single most important experiment, it is really more than
an
intellectual oversight to devote such small intellectual thought to
quantum
behaviour where only one slit exsts. A plebian reason would be that with
only one slit to worry about, the experimant can be simpified to the point
where more people can understand what is going on. An more important
reason
is that perhaps more information can be gathered about a quantum system
where there exists the superposition of only two variables - we can know
more about quantum particle interaction, which can then be applied to more
complex experiments.

A simple case in point is when an electron has an equal probability of
either impacting the slit material or the traget material. This is an
either - or proposition,. One would not expect the sensor at the target to
register a impact when the sensor at the slit has already registered an
impact. But, before an observation has been made, there is no way of
knowing
what the electron has done. It is in a superposition of both states, and
can
be considered to both have impacted the slit and have traveled to and
impacted with the target. Both are equally real outcomes, which the act of
observation should sort out nicely. But this does not (nicely) happen all
the time. Sometimes, an electron can register on both sensors. Physicist
call this a garbage result and throw out the results. They shouldn't. This
effect becomes more pronounced when there are more slits all aimed at the
same target. If there are two or more electron emitters sending electrons
through more seperate slits, but where they will all impact the same
target
sensor if they pass through their respective slits, the incidence of
double
registers increases. I guess garbage multiplies proportionately.

In my own expriments performed in the late 1980's, I proved the double
hits
were indeed caused by the same electron by carefully measuring the timing
of the hits, using long wavelength, cold, electrons. The hits at the
target
always came after the hits occuring at the slit by the correct propagation
time interval within a 25 percentile error margin. Others have done much


energy = mv^2

So if you have 25% slower speed then about 50% energy. In other words,
your electron collided and created free eletron. It is like shooting ball
in side pocket and cue ball going in corner pocket.

"onegod" wrote in message
. ..

"Greysky" wrote in message
. com...
Most any explanation of the quantum theory begins with the double slit
experiment. Even Richard Feynman says of the phenomena described by the
results of the double slit experimant to "contain the only mystery". In
order to explain the double slit experiment and hence the results
derived
from this, Feynman first describes the single slit experiment. He
devotes
a
scant few lines to this but only as a special case of closing one of the
two
slits. Considering he is correct when he states all of quantum physics
is
embodied in this single most important experiment, it is really more
than
an
intellectual oversight to devote such small intellectual thought to
quantum
behaviour where only one slit exsts. A plebian reason would be that with
only one slit to worry about, the experimant can be simpified to the
point
where more people can understand what is going on. An more important
reason
is that perhaps more information can be gathered about a quantum system
where there exists the superposition of only two variables - we can know
more about quantum particle interaction, which can then be applied to
more
complex experiments.

A simple case in point is when an electron has an equal probability of
either impacting the slit material or the traget material. This is an
either - or proposition,. One would not expect the sensor at the target
to
register a impact when the sensor at the slit has already registered an
impact. But, before an observation has been made, there is no way of
knowing
what the electron has done. It is in a superposition of both states, and
can
be considered to both have impacted the slit and have traveled to and
impacted with the target. Both are equally real outcomes, which the act
of
observation should sort out nicely. But this does not (nicely) happen
all
the time. Sometimes, an electron can register on both sensors.
Physicist
call this a garbage result and throw out the results. They shouldn't.
This
effect becomes more pronounced when there are more slits all aimed at
the
same target. If there are two or more electron emitters sending
electrons
through more seperate slits, but where they will all impact the same
target
sensor if they pass through their respective slits, the incidence of
double
registers increases. I guess garbage multiplies proportionately.

In my own expriments performed in the late 1980's, I proved the double
hits
were indeed caused by the same electron by carefully measuring the
timing
of the hits, using long wavelength, cold, electrons. The hits at the
target
always came after the hits occuring at the slit by the correct
propagation
time interval within a 25 percentile error margin. Others have done
much


energy = mv^2

So if you have 25% slower speed then about 50% energy. In other words,
your electron collided and created free eletron. It is like shooting
ball
in side pocket and cue ball going in corner pocket.


Yes. This was a real bear to do with the equipment available in the 1980's.
Producing cold cathode electrons, delivering to them proper kinetic energies
and then controling path using magnetic fields meant the error bars never
could be tightened. Measuring the hit energy always produced a guassian
distribution around both target sensor arrays. Errors due to secondary
emission such as you describe could be discounted because the energy
distribution would be skewed. In the case I refer to, dual hits always
produced the same energy curve. But, as I said, the 80's were literally the
stone age for the kind of stuff I was into - we recorded our information
onto VHS tape! I have gone far beyond this methodology since then, and am
recounting ancient history for those who have asked for a 'history' that led
to the breakthroughs I made several years later. Today, this would probably
be an almost trivial setup to do - SQUIDs, Hall effect sensor arrays,
Neodymium magnetics, and new low emission cathode materials really make
things almost easy. Not to mention todays computers - we used a TRS - 80
from Radio shack (and felt blessed ;O )

Greysky

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

"Greysky" wrote in message
m...

"onegod" wrote in message
. ..

"Greysky" wrote in message
. com...
Most any explanation of the quantum theory begins with the double slit
experiment. Even Richard Feynman says of the phenomena described by
the
results of the double slit experimant to "contain the only mystery".
In
order to explain the double slit experiment and hence the results
derived
from this, Feynman first describes the single slit experiment. He
devotes
a
scant few lines to this but only as a special case of closing one of
the
two
slits. Considering he is correct when he states all of quantum
physics
is
embodied in this single most important experiment, it is really more
than
an
intellectual oversight to devote such small intellectual thought to
quantum
behaviour where only one slit exsts. A plebian reason would be that
with
only one slit to worry about, the experimant can be simpified to the
point
where more people can understand what is going on. An more important
reason
is that perhaps more information can be gathered about a quantum
system
where there exists the superposition of only two variables - we can
know
more about quantum particle interaction, which can then be applied to
more
complex experiments.

A simple case in point is when an electron has an equal probability of
either impacting the slit material or the traget material. This is an
either - or proposition,. One would not expect the sensor at the
target
to
register a impact when the sensor at the slit has already registered
an
impact. But, before an observation has been made, there is no way of
knowing
what the electron has done. It is in a superposition of both states,
and
can
be considered to both have impacted the slit and have traveled to and
impacted with the target. Both are equally real outcomes, which the
act
of
observation should sort out nicely. But this does not (nicely) happen
all
the time. Sometimes, an electron can register on both sensors.
Physicist
call this a garbage result and throw out the results. They shouldn't.
This
effect becomes more pronounced when there are more slits all aimed at
the
same target. If there are two or more electron emitters sending
electrons
through more seperate slits, but where they will all impact the same
target
sensor if they pass through their respective slits, the incidence of
double
registers increases. I guess garbage multiplies proportionately.

In my own expriments performed in the late 1980's, I proved the double
hits
were indeed caused by the same electron by carefully measuring the
timing
of the hits, using long wavelength, cold, electrons. The hits at the
target
always came after the hits occuring at the slit by the correct
propagation
time interval within a 25 percentile error margin. Others have done
much


energy = mv^2

So if you have 25% slower speed then about 50% energy. In other words,
your electron collided and created free eletron. It is like shooting
ball
in side pocket and cue ball going in corner pocket.


Yes. This was a real bear to do with the equipment available in the
1980's.
Producing cold cathode electrons, delivering to them proper kinetic
energies
and then controling path using magnetic fields meant the error bars never
could be tightened. Measuring the hit energy always produced a guassian
distribution around both target sensor arrays. Errors due to secondary
emission such as you describe could be discounted because the energy
distribution would be skewed. In the case I refer to, dual hits always
produced the same energy curve. But, as I said, the 80's were literally
the
stone age for the kind of stuff I was into - we recorded our information
onto VHS tape! I have gone far beyond this methodology since then, and am
recounting ancient history for those who have asked for a 'history' that
led
to the breakthroughs I made several years later. Today, this would
probably
be an almost trivial setup to do - SQUIDs, Hall effect sensor arrays,
Neodymium magnetics, and new low emission cathode materials really make
things almost easy. Not to mention todays computers - we used a TRS - 80
from Radio shack (and felt blessed ;O )

Greysky

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

FTL, if true, it is a breakthrough of momentous proportions, truly mind
boggling. Your Nobel prize is assured. Just what plans have you to get
your results independently verified and written up in a journal?

Thanks
Bill

"Bill Hobba" wrote in message
...

"Greysky" wrote in message
m...

"onegod" wrote in message
. ..

"Greysky" wrote in message
. com...
Most any explanation of the quantum theory begins with the double
slit
experiment. Even Richard Feynman says of the phenomena described by
always came after the hits occuring at the slit by the correct
propagation
time interval within a 25 percentile error margin. Others have done
much



Snip

energy = mv^2

So if you have 25% slower speed then about 50% energy. In other
words,
your electron collided and created free eletron. It is like shooting
ball
in side pocket and cue ball going in corner pocket.


Yes. This was a real bear to do with the equipment available in the
1980's.
Producing cold cathode electrons, delivering to them proper kinetic
energies
and then controling path using magnetic fields meant the error bars
never
could be tightened. Measuring the hit energy always produced a guassian
distribution around both target sensor arrays. Errors due to secondary
emission such as you describe could be discounted because the energy
distribution would be skewed. In the case I refer to, dual hits always
produced the same energy curve. But, as I said, the 80's were literally
the
stone age for the kind of stuff I was into - we recorded our information
onto VHS tape! I have gone far beyond this methodology since then, and
am
recounting ancient history for those who have asked for a 'history' that
led
to the breakthroughs I made several years later. Today, this would
probably
be an almost trivial setup to do - SQUIDs, Hall effect sensor arrays,
Neodymium magnetics, and new low emission cathode materials really make
things almost easy. Not to mention todays computers - we used a TRS - 80
from Radio shack (and felt blessed ;O )

Greysky



FTL, if true, it is a breakthrough of momentous proportions, truly mind
boggling. Your Nobel prize is assured. Just what plans have you to get
your results independently verified and written up in a journal?

Thanks Bill


At this point in my life I am not really thinking about prizes, and let's
face it, anybody can write up a crazy paper. Besides, geting a Nobel, or
even anything published would not even happen - I have fun on a regular
basis watching .gov servers rip my site. I've been told if anyone of any
importance at all thought I was for real, my site would be pulled down
instantly. Don't get me wrong - I wouldn't mind government uses for my
technology, but I also want you to be able to get one of these units at
radio shack for your kids to play with too. But I am a bit of a historian
concerning the early days of radio, and the fact is more than interesting to
me to read how the military actually tried unsuccessfully to take over radio
for itself - and it wasn't even a secret technology. I shudder when I think
what this world would now be if that had happened - we'd still be using
crystal sets and galena crystals. The only reason this didn't happen is
because of a grass roots movement of amateur radio operators lobbying
congress to keep their hobby free. Right now that doesn't exist for FTL
communication. Even less, for there seems to be a blind spot inside the
science itself for accepting superluminal information transfer. Some have
even said if what I am doing is real, both relativity and QM will be
destroyed - this isn't true, of course. But the fear is also an inhibiting
factor. Lots of grassroot work needs to be done first. That's what the FTL
Working Group is all about. So, if I do get a Noble prize, it will be long
after I am dead. That's why I chose to use the net. I am giving it away.
There is enough information on my site to enable anyone who takes the effort
to create a superluminal transmitter of their own to play with.

But I am not totally altruisitc.... the transmitter is the easiest part to
build. Once I knew what I was doing, I came up with a working design in only
months....the reciever is another story. It took almost 2 decades for me to
make one that really worked in a half assed way. August, 2001 is when it
went on line. Now I am up to my 6th generation prototype, and although it
works much better (and safer) that those early devices, I still don't know
fully what is going on But hey, your right about the momentous
proportions - imagine those two silly mars robots being controlled from
Earth in real time... but I would have included my quantum device only as a
back up to regular radio just in case Another area is good old ham
radio - considering how the government is pulling frequencies...


Greysky

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

Greysky:
Most any explanation of the quantum theory begins with the double slit
experiment. Even Richard Feynman says of the phenomena described by the
results of the double slit experimant to "contain the only mystery". In
order to explain the double slit experiment and hence the results derived
from this, Feynman first describes the single slit experiment. He devotes a
scant few lines to this but only as a special case of closing one of the two
slits. Considering he is correct when he states all of quantum physics is
embodied in this single most important experiment, it is really more than an
intellectual oversight to devote such small intellectual thought to quantum
behaviour where only one slit exsts.A plebian reason would be that with
only one slit to worry about, the experimant can be simpified to the point
where more people can understand what is going on.

Except that the single slit doesn't contain anything that would
lead to what feynman is talking about.

An more important reason
is that perhaps more information can be gathered about a quantum system
where there exists the superposition of only two variables - we can know
more about quantum particle interaction, which can then be applied to more
complex experiments.

That doesn't make sense.


A simple case in point is when an electron has an equal probability of
either impacting the slit material or the traget material. This is an
either - or proposition,.

It most certainly is not. Solve the schroedinger equation for
a wavepacket incident on a potential barrier.

[...]
observation should sort out nicely. But this does not (nicely) happen all
the time. Sometimes, an electron can register on both sensors.

That is nonsense.

[...]
In my own expriments performed in the late 1980's, I proved the double hits
were indeed caused by the same electron by carefully measuring the timing
of the hits, using long wavelength, cold, electrons.

In other words, you measured one charge bifurcating into two charges,
proving charge is not conserved. If you didn't, then you could not have
identified electrons on two detectors where only one electron was supposed
to be present. If you did, you should have immediately sent an article
to prl with the results about charge not being conserved.

The hits at the target
always came after the hits occuring at the slit by the correct propagation
time interval within a 25 percentile error margin. Others have done much
the same experiment as I have, but usually throw out their results because
they can't explain them. This is a shame. The ultimate usefulness of single
slit propagation of quantum operators through space yields many useful
things concerning the operation of the quantum microworld, and makes the
physics of quantum mechanics more potent and useful.

Mostly, it seems you think of quantum mechanics as classical mechanics
plus random weirdness, rather than as quantum mechanics.

Most importantly, if as
Richard Feynman correctly believed, the whole of quantum physics rests upon
the bedrock of this type of experiment, then it behoovs us to know the most
we can about these simple special cases of the theory or our house will be
built on loose ground which may give way under the heavy edifice of further
intellectual meanderings.

Quantum mechanics rests upon zillions of experiments. What feynman was
attempting to point out was the simplest experiment that contains the
essence of quantum mechanics, not an experiment which can be understood
in terms of simpler experiments or that zillions of other experiments
could be understood classically if it weren't for the double slit.

Greysky:

Yes. This was a real bear to do with the equipment available in the 1980's.
Producing cold cathode electrons, delivering to them proper kinetic energies
and then controling path using magnetic fields meant the error bars never
could be tightened.

Color television sets have been around for a long time and since the
electrons from three different sources have to be steered rather precisely
through the same holes in the shadow mask (which are quite small), there
is nothing very technologically demanding about steering electrons through
a slit. Cold cathode emission only improves this steering. However, the
``cold cathode'' part of this is irrelevant, as the source is irrelevant.
If you want a beam which has a small velocity distribution, you simply
cut down the phase space acceptance of the beam transport system, which
is simple to do and doesn't require any modern technology or anything
beyond what you claim to have used.


[...]
to the breakthroughs I made several years later. Today, this would probably
be an almost trivial setup to do - SQUIDs, Hall effect sensor arrays,
Neodymium magnetics, and new low emission cathode materials really make
things almost easy. Not to mention todays computers - we used a TRS - 80
from Radio shack (and felt blessed ;O )

You seem to have a fascination for jargon. The difficulty of steering
a charged particle beam of any sort through tiny holes is not that
big a deal.

the double slit experiment is one of the most misinterperted , as well
as the single slit one, in physics...

the problem is the falacy that something has to interact in empty space
to have a wave pattern result... it does not. there is no intereaction
in vacuum space of photons..

i have checked all literature and even looked into laser
technology...but again there is no direct evidence of any inerference
pattern pertaining to something happening between photons in a vacuum..

so i redid the young's double and single slit experimnets using not just
one detection material by a number of varieties ...and I switched to
inivisble to the naked eye light frequences as the control..

and then i quickly solved the problem.

all of the interference observed is not in the medium but on the
detection material surface...

its just that simple... i then re did all sort of defraction and
refraction experiments that are related and found more conclusive proof
that the interference is an interplay in the detetion medium surface of
observation and nowhere in empty space or between photons...

your quantum measurements and the regularity of the patern disapear if
you have a detection surface with variable atomic features on the
surface... eurika and change the official text books.

so the light wave notion always was no more than an analogy...


what causes the effect? well you have one or more radiating sources of
light or the double slits to only allow certain angular components of a
somewhat basic point of origin to pass...

what happens then is that they strike what ever surface at what ever
distance you have it at beyond the slits, do it in a vaccum by the way
to keep the air out of the way...


so what then happens is surface atoms and molecules and particularly
their outer most electrons interact with the photons coming from the
slits... now if you move the interference pattern generating suface you
will see that the pattern changes...thats because excited electrons in
atoms and molecules are causing kinetic interactions within the surface
so the apparent shadows bands then have a perfectly different
explantion other than interference as there is a shadow highlighted
between the two slits... you can draw a picture of the angle of light
exiting the slits, ignore the defreaction at the edges of your paper
cuts angles and see that the interference is specific to the material
surface its visible on and not to anything mysterious in the nothing in
between point of origin and effect visible.

I found an even more amazing proof of this using multiple sources of
light and a single line defraction siluette and shadow...

The Thermodynamic Cause of Gravity:
Site Below is due for update and removal of mistakes:

http://www.webspawner.com/users/gravity/index.html