| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Greysky" |
| Date: |
08 May 2004 04:12:25 PM |
| Object: |
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.
.
|
|
| User: "Bilge" |
|
| Title: Re: Gaining forbidden knowledge |
10 May 2004 03:24:35 AM |
|
|
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.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Fergerson" |
|
| Title: Re: Gaining forbidden knowledge |
10 May 2004 03:11:23 PM |
|
|
Bilge wrote:
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.
If you do it one electron at a time it does.
<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.
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.
Hm. Does he mean "long wavelength" parallel or
perpendicular to the slits? ;>)
<snip>
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.
Yup. But the single-slit, one electron at a time version
is the unambiguous essence of quantum weirdness.
Mark L. Fergerson
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bilge" |
|
| Title: Re: Gaining forbidden knowledge |
11 May 2004 06:37:04 AM |
|
|
Mark Fergerson:
Bilge wrote:
Except that the single slit doesn't contain anything that would
lead to what feynman is talking about.
If you do it one electron at a time it does.
Why would that be? The feature present in the double slit is the
self-interference of a single particle going through two slits.
The fact that the electron has wave-like properties does not itself
imply the inseparability of a quantum state.
[...]
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.
Hm. Does he mean "long wavelength" parallel or perpendicular to
the slits? ;>)
You'll have to ask him. I based my comment on my understanding of what
he wrote.
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.
Yup. But the single-slit, one electron at a time version
is the unambiguous essence of quantum weirdness.
How so? The feature to which feynman refers is the inability to
pin down the path to one or the other slit without destroying the
double slit interverence. In other words, the double slit pattern
is not merely the sum of two single slits, when the pattern is built
up one particle at a time.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Fergerson" |
|
| Title: Re: Gaining forbidden knowledge |
12 May 2004 12:09:10 PM |
|
|
Bilge wrote:
Mark Fergerson:
Bilge wrote:
Except that the single slit doesn't contain anything that would
lead to what feynman is talking about.
If you do it one electron at a time it does.
Why would that be? The feature present in the double slit is the
self-interference of a single particle going through two slits.
Yup. But the single-slit, one-particle-at-a-time
(hereinafter referred to as SS/SP) version has the particle
interfering with what, just the slit? I have enormous
trouble with that (which may just be evidence of my
feeble-mindedness). Thing is, each particle seems to
interfere with previous/successive particles, else we
wouldn't see an interference pattern. I lean toward the
"there's only one electron" camp, so it sure sounds like
temporal (as opposed to spatial) self-interference.
Okay, that was vague, so vague critique is expected. More
precise would be nice though.
The fact that the electron has wave-like properties does not itself
imply the inseparability of a quantum state.
[...]
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.
Hm. Does he mean "long wavelength" parallel or perpendicular to
the slits? ;>)
You'll have to ask him. I based my comment on my understanding of what
he wrote.
Apparently we'll have to wait for clarification. Hey
Greysky, how about it?
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.
Yup. But the single-slit, one electron at a time version
is the unambiguous essence of quantum weirdness.
How so? The feature to which feynman refers is the inability to
pin down the path to one or the other slit without destroying the
double slit interverence. In other words, the double slit pattern
is not merely the sum of two single slits, when the pattern is built
up one particle at a time.
So what is the SS/SP pattern the "sum" of?
Mark L. Fergerson
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Hobba" |
|
| Title: Re: Gaining forbidden knowledge |
12 May 2004 05:49:50 PM |
|
|
"Mark Fergerson" <nunya@biz.ness> wrote in message
news:cTsoc.17869$k24.1612@fed1read01...
Bilge wrote:
Mark Fergerson:
Bilge wrote:
Except that the single slit doesn't contain anything that would
lead to what feynman is talking about.
If you do it one electron at a time it does.
Why would that be? The feature present in the double slit is the
self-interference of a single particle going through two slits.
Yup. But the single-slit, one-particle-at-a-time
(hereinafter referred to as SS/SP) version has the particle
interfering with what, just the slit? I have enormous
trouble with that (which may just be evidence of my
feeble-mindedness). Thing is, each particle seems to
interfere with previous/successive particles, else we
wouldn't see an interference pattern.
I don't follow that one. The idea of the probabilistic interpretation is
that the probability of where the electron lands is independent of where
previous ones have landed.
Thanks
Bill
I lean toward the
"there's only one electron" camp, so it sure sounds like
temporal (as opposed to spatial) self-interference.
Okay, that was vague, so vague critique is expected. More
precise would be nice though.
The fact that the electron has wave-like properties does not itself
imply the inseparability of a quantum state.
[...]
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.
Hm. Does he mean "long wavelength" parallel or perpendicular to
the slits? ;>)
You'll have to ask him. I based my comment on my understanding of what
he wrote.
Apparently we'll have to wait for clarification. Hey
Greysky, how about it?
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.
Yup. But the single-slit, one electron at a time version
is the unambiguous essence of quantum weirdness.
How so? The feature to which feynman refers is the inability to
pin down the path to one or the other slit without destroying the
double slit interverence. In other words, the double slit pattern
is not merely the sum of two single slits, when the pattern is built
up one particle at a time.
So what is the SS/SP pattern the "sum" of?
Mark L. Fergerson
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Hobba" |
|
| Title: Re: Gaining forbidden knowledge |
08 May 2004 05:10:08 PM |
|
|
"Greysky" <greyskynospam@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:Z2cnc.46303$yp3.29050@newssvr29.news.prodigy.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.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "onegod" |
|
| Title: Re: Gaining forbidden knowledge |
09 May 2004 06:56:26 PM |
|
|
"Greysky" <greyskynospam@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:Z2cnc.46303$yp3.29050@newssvr29.news.prodigy.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.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Greysky" |
|
| Title: Re: Gaining forbidden knowledge |
09 May 2004 11:48:51 PM |
|
|
"onegod" <reportspam@msn.net> wrote in message
news:Kyznc.181862$L31.165272@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
"Greysky" <greyskynospam@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:Z2cnc.46303$yp3.29050@newssvr29.news.prodigy.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.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bilge" |
|
| Title: Re: Gaining forbidden knowledge |
10 May 2004 03:43:46 AM |
|
|
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.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Greysky" |
|
| Title: Re: Gaining forbidden knowledge |
10 May 2004 08:28:51 AM |
|
|
"Bilge" <dubious@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> wrote in message
news:slrnc9uhra.8el.dubious@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net...
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.
It is when noise becomes a critical factor. Using the lowest velocity
electrons does improve control, but after running through an electromagnet,
the noise factors overlayed on the electron makes it useless for information
transmission. It is more than just geting the electron through a slit. The
thing gets even more difficult when you use solid state devies to control
the electron -production, emission, and modulation- all must be balanced
against generating too much circuit noise, because circuit noise can also be
considered a modulation form. To give an idea, the effect will not even
occure when internal circuit noise goes higher than -105 DBc. If you have no
idea just how miserable making the modulator section of even a normal radio
is when you have to guard against noise at his level, even most military and
'sensitive' devices do not even come close to this level of 'quiet'. A
simple ground plane will not do. I don't know about now, but the few years
back when I needed crystal oscillators capable of this kind of operation I
found they were classified as
'munitions' - gads! That is still the one area where I consider myself to
have failed- finding a cheap alternitive to expensive and bulky OCXO units.
On the other hand, I think it is a miracle that I can even do what I do at
room temperature at all - it is akin to having stumbled across a room
temperature superconductor with a cutoff of 75 degrees. Others may have
missed it because they kept their workplaces at 76.
Greysky
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bilge" |
|
| Title: Re: Gaining forbidden knowledge |
11 May 2004 06:29:35 AM |
|
|
Greysky:
"Bilge" <dubious@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> wrote in message
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.
It is when noise becomes a critical factor. Using the lowest velocity
electrons does improve control, but after running through an electro-
magnet, the noise factors overlayed on the electron makes it useless
for information transmission.
Again, a load of meaningless jargon - so meaningless, I hardly
know where to begin.
It is more than just geting the electron through a slit. The
thing gets even more difficult when you use solid state devies to control
the electron -production, emission, and modulation- all must be balanced
against generating too much circuit noise, because circuit noise can also be
considered a modulation form. To give an idea, the effect will not even
occure when internal circuit noise goes higher than -105 DBc.
I have news for you. Electron diffraction has been done for a long time.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Hobba" |
|
| Title: Re: Gaining forbidden knowledge |
10 May 2004 01:32:18 AM |
|
|
"Greysky" <greyskynospam@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:TQDnc.6839$1a7.2374@newssvr27.news.prodigy.com...
"onegod" <reportspam@msn.net> wrote in message
news:Kyznc.181862$L31.165272@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
"Greysky" <greyskynospam@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:Z2cnc.46303$yp3.29050@newssvr29.news.prodigy.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
.
|
|
|
| User: "Greysky" |
|
| Title: Re: Gaining forbidden knowledge |
10 May 2004 02:42:56 AM |
|
|
"Bill Hobba" <bhobba@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:SlFnc.30504$TT.20900@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
"Greysky" <greyskynospam@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:TQDnc.6839$1a7.2374@newssvr27.news.prodigy.com...
"onegod" <reportspam@msn.net> wrote in message
news:Kyznc.181862$L31.165272@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
"Greysky" <greyskynospam@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:Z2cnc.46303$yp3.29050@newssvr29.news.prodigy.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.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "nightbat" |
|
| Title: Re: Gaining forbidden knowledge |
10 May 2004 04:52:37 AM |
|
|
nightbat wrote
Bill Hobba wrote:
"Greysky" <greyskynospam@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:TQDnc.6839$1a7.2374@newssvr27.news.prodigy.com...
"onegod" <reportspam@msn.net> wrote in message
news:Kyznc.181862$L31.165272@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
"Greysky" <greyskynospam@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:Z2cnc.46303$yp3.29050@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com...
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
nightbat
When our good but very controversial fellow Greyski can post the
answers to our questions, including Darla's, before they have been
posted, it will be time for all of us to stand up and take notice. Until
then I'll see if Radio Shack can speed up that many years back order of
Greysky's radio FTL decoder rings that Darla too has been holding back
apparently figuring how to deliver them to nightbat without being silver
saucer spotted and causing a big fuss.
the nightbat
.
|
|
|
| User: "Greysky" |
|
| Title: Re: Gaining forbidden knowledge |
10 May 2004 08:38:40 AM |
|
|
----- Original Message -----
From: "nightbat" <nightbat@home.ffni.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.astronomy,sci.physics.relativity
Sent: Monday, May 10, 2004 2:52 AM
Subject: Re: Gaining forbidden knowledge
nightbat wrote
Bill Hobba wrote:
"Greysky" <greyskynospam@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:TQDnc.6839$1a7.2374@newssvr27.news.prodigy.com...
"onegod" <reportspam@msn.net> wrote in message
news:Kyznc.181862$L31.165272@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
"Greysky" <greyskynospam@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:Z2cnc.46303$yp3.29050@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com...
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
nightbat
When our good but very controversial fellow Greyski can post the
answers to our questions, including Darla's, before they have been
posted, it will be time for all of us to stand up and take notice. Until
then I'll see if Radio Shack can speed up that many years back order of
Greysky's radio FTL decoder rings that Darla too has been holding back
apparently figuring how to deliver them to nightbat without being silver
saucer spotted and causing a big fuss.
You know, The Nicean read my website. The questions he asked were highly
informed - he knew exactly what he was talking about. But then, he *is* the
ships computer... ;-) He also knows properly constructed decoder rings
exhibit no time reversal effects.
I just wish he could have given me a hint on how I can replace my 4 thousand
dollar oscillators with a Corn Flake chip and still keep the darn thing
working... sigh.
Greysky
.
|
|
|
| User: "nightbat" |
|
| Title: Re: Gaining forbidden knowledge |
11 May 2004 09:06:06 AM |
|
|
nightbat wrote
Greysky wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: "nightbat" <nightbat@home.ffni.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.astronomy,sci.physics.relativity
Sent: Monday, May 10, 2004 2:52 AM
Subject: Re: Gaining forbidden knowledge
nightbat wrote
Bill Hobba wrote:
"Greysky" <greyskynospam@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:TQDnc.6839$1a7.2374@newssvr27.news.prodigy.com...
"onegod" <reportspam@msn.net> wrote in message
news:Kyznc.181862$L31.165272@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
"Greysky" <greyskynospam@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:Z2cnc.46303$yp3.29050@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com...
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
nightbat
When our good but very controversial fellow Greyski can post the
answers to our questions, including Darla's, before they have been
posted, it will be time for all of us to stand up and take notice. Until
then I'll see if Radio Shack can speed up that many years back order of
Greysky's radio FTL decoder rings that Darla too has been holding back
apparently figuring how to deliver them to nightbat without being silver
saucer spotted and causing a big fuss.
Greysky
You know, The Nicean read my website. The questions he asked were highly
informed - he knew exactly what he was talking about. But then, he *is* the
ships computer... ;-) He also knows properly constructed decoder rings
exhibit no time reversal effects.
nightbat
Computers, Nicean alien or otherwise, can't handle original
separate frame referencing or deducments and implications because they
never were or are human or admitted alien intelligent life forms. The
computers only handle what has been preprogrammed or inputted to the
processors chip(s) mathematical handling potential.
Greysky
I just wish he could have given me a hint on how I can replace my 4 thousand
dollar oscillators with a Corn Flake chip and still keep the darn thing
working... sigh.
Greysky
nightbat
Perhaps we can charm cosmos star cruising Darla into letting us
have some of those futuristic Intel 1000 alien composite chips and
periphery buffer FTL processing equipment with the still in process
planned nightbat radio decoder ring drop. What about your using a yoke
to direct all those photons and getting FCC permission for very high
research amplification particular security cleared restricted crystal
focused frequency utilization for high speed inter galactic sound info
transfer. If unrestricted Tesla said he accomplished it, who are we to
doubt what you have been secretly doing with Earth Radio Shack
components? Oh, that's right, the FCC boys would have zeroed in on your
secret stepped up amplified transmissions before you could time warp
future galactic info into this present Earth time period and known about
before anyone the ever present shooting-up $2 dollar plus a gallon gas
prices or the future President Hillary Rodham Clinton 30 dollar colored
pink Federal Reserve paper notes printed in the lady's elected first
woman President's honor.
the nightbat
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Y.Porat" |
|
| Title: Re: Gaining forbidden knowledge |
10 May 2004 04:58:59 AM |
|
|
"onegod" <reportspam@msn.net> wrote in message news:<Kyznc.181862$L31.165272@nwrddc01.gnilink.net>...
"Greysky" <greyskynospam@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:Z2cnc.46303$yp3.29050@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com...
Most any explanation of the quantum theory begins with the double slit
In my own expriments performed in the late 1980's, I proved the double
hits
were indeed caused by the same electron by carefully measuring the timing
of the hits, using long wavelength, cold, electrons. The hits at the
target
always came after the hits occuring at the slit by the correct propagation
time interval within a 25 percentile error margin. Others have done much
energy = mv^2
So if you have 25% slower speed then about 50% energy. In other words,
your electron collided and created free eletron. It is like shooting ball
in side pocket and cue ball going in corner pocket.
-----------------
just a question of a lazy lineman:
are those experiments include measurments of the *energy* of the
electrons that
hit the target (as compaired to the original energy of the
tested electrons?
TIA
Y.Porat
-----------------------
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Franz Heymann" |
|
| Title: Re: Gaining forbidden knowledge |
09 May 2004 06:22:40 AM |
|
|
"Greysky" <greyskynospam@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:Z2cnc.46303$yp3.29050@newssvr29.news.prodigy.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
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "CLT not@thisaddress" |
|
| Title: Re: Gaining forbidden knowledge |
13 May 2004 11:49:33 AM |
|
|
My first thought when I read the subject was the similarity with forbidden
lines in spectroscopy. For those not familiar with the subject, forbidden
lines only occur when the relevant atoms have a lengthy time for the
electron to sit there before dropping and emitting. Since most environments
guarantee a wealth of collisions before sufficient time has passed, the
forbidden lines are only seen in the vacuums of space, so they only take
place in a nearly perfect vacuum.
My second thought was to wonder if the "forbidden knowledge" thread was
likewise started in a vacuum of actual knowledge, and an abundance of
virtual (imaginary) knowledge.
or our house will be
built on loose ground which may give way under the heavy edifice of
further
intellectual meanderings.
Looks like that is the case (or it is just old trolling)
Clear Skies
Chuck Taylor
Do you observe the moon?
Try http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lunar-observing/
And the Lunar Picture of the Day http://www.lpod.org/
************************************
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
