| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
27 Jan 2005 03:33:08 AM |
| Object: |
Theory to resolve wave particle duality |
Hi,
Please consider the double slit experiment with electrons. Opening the
second slit causes less electrons to land on some parts of the screen.
Imagine that while an electron passes through one slit, a "shadow
electron" (I made up this term) also passes through the other slit, and
these two interfere when they meet on the screen.
The reason for this shadow electron to appear is.. think of a sliding
piece puzzle, with tiles and one open space. To move the open space
(normal electron), you need to slide a tile (shadow electron) into the
space. Any tile next to the space can be used, which makes the path of
the shadow electron somewhat random.
I hope I was able to explain clearly (I not a native english speaker)
What do you think? Thanks in advance.
.
|
|
| User: "Franz Heymann" |
|
| Title: Re: Theory to resolve wave particle duality |
27 Jan 2005 02:46:29 PM |
|
|
<wespe@operamail.com> wrote in message
news:1106818387.990600.82010@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Hi,
Please consider the double slit experiment with electrons. Opening
the
second slit causes less electrons to land on some parts of the
screen.
Imagine that while an electron passes through one slit, a "shadow
electron" (I made up this term) also passes through the other slit,
and
these two interfere when they meet on the screen.
There is an awful lot more than the two-slit experiment to contend
with when waffling about electron interference.
You would have to have hundreds of millions of your shadow electrons
sculling around to apply your arguments to electron diffraction by a
single crystal, just as one example.
The reason for this shadow electron to appear is.. think of a
sliding
piece puzzle, with tiles and one open space. To move the open space
(normal electron), you need to slide a tile (shadow electron) into
the
space. Any tile next to the space can be used, which makes the path
of
the shadow electron somewhat random.
You will get nowhere fast if you try to get to grips with quantum
mechanics via the route of classical concepts. QM really is
different. Very different.
I hope I was able to explain clearly (I not a native english
speaker)
What do you think? Thanks in advance.
Your command of the English is beyond reproach, but you really do not
know enough about the incompatibilities between the quantum behaviour
of sub-microscopic objects and the classical behaviour of macroscopic
objects to be able to make realistic interpretations of the vagaries
of QM.
Franz
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: Theory to resolve wave particle duality |
27 Jan 2005 10:28:01 AM |
|
|
wrote:
Hi,
Please consider the double slit experiment with electrons. Opening the
second slit causes less electrons to land on some parts of the screen.
Imagine that while an electron passes through one slit, a "shadow
electron" (I made up this term) also passes through the other slit, and
these two interfere when they meet on the screen.
You are an ignorant git who never made it out of first year physics.
[snip]
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
| User: "tj Frazir" |
|
| Title: Re: Theory to resolve wave particle duality |
27 Jan 2005 10:46:35 AM |
|
|
You suck at physics uncle dumbass.
Im ramming this page up your *****.
" YOU DONT KNOW ***** ABOUT GRAVITY"
Still your turn.
=A0=A0I said this.
=A0=A0=A0=A0In an energy slope the atom pushes it's self. 1/2 of evry
atom pushes the other 1/2 down the energy slope. =A0 Gravity is a push
to less energy . UP is a gain in mass and atoms change mass at C.
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0Gravity is push to less mass ... .......
As a mass is pushed up , it gains mass. Pushed up in an energy slope .
=A0=A0 =A0 1/2 of evry atom has more mass than the other half of evry
atom in the field of low.
=A0=A0=A0=A0More mass of evry atom is falling twards it"s own pit at the
center of the atom then the other.
=A0=A0Evry atom has the same energy diferance in the field. evry 1/2
atom pushes its other half as there is more mass on one side than the
other.
=A0=A0=A0=A0There is no pull. Its a push to LESS MASS =A0 How one atom
falls ..1/2 the atom has more mass and pushes it that way.
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 our turns SAM and AL.
=A0=A0tell all us dumbasses how gravity works.. Al and Sam are hiding
from me.
=A0=A0=A0=A0The subject of gravity is not one they like to deal with
because they have no clue.
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0As the universe expands a low forms around mass.
=A0 Gravity is a push to less .
=A0=A0Not a pull No attraction.
=A0The atom pushes its self.
=A0=A01/2 of evry atom is pushing its other 1/2. =A0 Its undeniable.
=A0=A0Bacause if you might notice the mass gain of evry atom and the
mass loss side of evry atom
is proportional and te driferance is F andd F--MA yet V is allways the
same.
=A0=A0F--MA is not suposed to work here.
=A0=A0I have combined GR and SR.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bjoern Feuerbacher" |
|
| Title: Re: Theory to resolve wave particle duality |
27 Jan 2005 05:02:24 AM |
|
|
wrote:
Hi,
Please consider the double slit experiment with electrons. Opening the
second slit causes less electrons to land on some parts of the screen.
Imagine that while an electron passes through one slit, a "shadow
electron" (I made up this term) also passes through the other slit, and
these two interfere when they meet on the screen.
And how, exactly, is this supposed to explain the exact
pattern which we can see on the screen?
BTW: ever heard of Feynman's "sum over paths"? Try looking
into the first chapters of the Feynman lectures, volume 3.
The reason for this shadow electron to appear is.. think of a sliding
piece puzzle, with tiles and one open space. To move the open space
(normal electron), you need to slide a tile (shadow electron) into the
space.
Notice that this picture would imply that the "shadow electron"
always moves in the direction directly opposite to the electron
motion. Hence this can't explain how the "shadow electron"
could pass through the other slit.
Any tile next to the space can be used, which makes the path of
the shadow electron somewhat random.
Also the path of the electron itself, if you did not notice.
I hope I was able to explain clearly (I not a native english speaker)
What do you think? Thanks in advance.
I think that you did not think this through enough.
Bye,
Bjoern
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Theory to resolve wave particle duality |
27 Jan 2005 04:03:32 PM |
|
|
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
wespe@operamail.com wrote:
Hi,
Please consider the double slit experiment with electrons. Opening
the
second slit causes less electrons to land on some parts of the
screen.
Imagine that while an electron passes through one slit, a "shadow
electron" (I made up this term) also passes through the other slit,
and
these two interfere when they meet on the screen.
And how, exactly, is this supposed to explain the exact
pattern which we can see on the screen?
BTW: ever heard of Feynman's "sum over paths"? Try looking
into the first chapters of the Feynman lectures, volume 3.
The reason for this shadow electron to appear is.. think of a
sliding
piece puzzle, with tiles and one open space. To move the open space
(normal electron), you need to slide a tile (shadow electron) into
the
space.
Notice that this picture would imply that the "shadow electron"
always moves in the direction directly opposite to the electron
motion. Hence this can't explain how the "shadow electron"
could pass through the other slit.
Any tile next to the space can be used, which makes the path of
the shadow electron somewhat random.
Also the path of the electron itself, if you did not notice.
I hope I was able to explain clearly (I not a native english
speaker)
What do you think? Thanks in advance.
I think that you did not think this through enough.
Bye,
Bjoern
Yes... I guess what I really had in mind was: a moving electron would
leave a "hole" behind it, and this hole would have to be filled by
nearby "material", creating a new hole, again gets filled, and this
goes on.. so that the hole would be moving. I don't have an explanation
how the hole would find its way to the other slit, or about the exact
pattern, though.. Anyway, it was just an idea. Thanks for the replies.
.
|
|
|
| User: "FrediFizzx" |
|
| Title: Re: Theory to resolve wave particle duality |
27 Jan 2005 07:38:56 PM |
|
|
<wespe@operamail.com> wrote in message
news:1106863412.502322.32990@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
[snip]
| Yes... I guess what I really had in mind was: a moving electron would
| leave a "hole" behind it, and this hole would have to be filled by
| nearby "material", creating a new hole, again gets filled, and this
| goes on.. so that the hole would be moving. I don't have an
explanation
| how the hole would find its way to the other slit, or about the exact
| pattern, though.. Anyway, it was just an idea. Thanks for the replies.
IMHO, you have it partially backward. An electron is already a partial
hole (1/2 hole?) relative to the quantum vacuum medium. The fact that
there is a partial hole sitting somewhere in space "tilts" the medium as
you go further away from it less and less. As an electron moves, so
does this "tilting" of the medium. Of course the tilting of the medium
goes thru both holes and all holes. In effect, the titling of the
medium is actually part of the reality of the electron.
FrediFizzx
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
