Your right, the DSE is a finite subject.
I used infinite to represent the 'quantum barrier'.
Your right, the DSE is a finite subject.
I used infinite to represent the 'quantum barrier'.
Your right, I could have expressed it better in a more humble way.
The point I was trying to make was that I spent 20 years trying to solve the DSE, when I did, to my own personal satisfaction, you can imagine how I felt when no one would listen or was interested in what I had to say.
My respect turned to anger and frustration, but as I said, as soon as I was told "if I switch on a light switch and the light appears, who cares where the electron comes from or what it is?"
I immediately realized it was true.
Perhaps I could rephase it and use it to my advantage for a change.
Can anyone on this forum please tell me who is or are, the leading expert(s) in the world on the DSE?
In 2005, I contacted Prof. Paul Davies and he recommended I contact Prof. Lee Smolin, which is why I went to loops 05 and spoke to as many people as I could.
I have been searching now for over 8 years to share and discuss my findings but to date I still have not found an expert on the DSE, who has been studying it as long as I have.
So I will ask again, can anyone on this forum please tell me who is or are, the leading expert(s) in the world on the DSE?
I would like to know if you have proven you can decide momentum/velocity and position of the electron simultaneously.
I would like to know specifically how you have changed the current view of the universe in terms of the electron and your model.
I would like to know if your solution is is logically decidable or is it some statistical solution.
As it was, well done, you posted a parody that looked like it came from a completely rabid ATM proponent. I doubt I could do better if I tried.
Maybe a bit more name dropping next time, and the claim that you understand a few more subjects better than anyone in the world.
What job does your web character have on the back of his earth-shattering intellect, is he wildly successful?
LOL yes, I was going to make a similar comment. It seems our resident genius hasn't spent too much time in school learning about grammarOriginally Posted by NorthernBoy
Originally Posted by Terry Giblin
An honest man, is always a child.
If you cannot attack the facts, attack the man instead. (Many good men have tried and failed)
Since, unfortunately I cannot discuss the DSE with Richard Feynman, may he rest in peace.
Can someone please suggest who else I can talk to, about the DSE?
But the most important and the most significant question of all, is;
Does any scientist, mathematician, physicist or chemist, disagree that my new version of the DSE, is a valid scientific experiment?
The only difference in my experiment, I do not collapse the wave function of the source, whether it be light, electrons, apples or black holes, they all produce the same interference pattern, to various degrees.
Welcome to the matrix.
Let there be light.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
But Mahatma Gandhi said it best,
"Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth."
"And I pray thee, loving Jesus, that as Thou hast graciously given me to drink in with delight the words of Thy knowledge, so Thou wouldst mercifully grant me to attain one day to Thee, the fountain of all wisdom and to appear forever before Thy face." - St Bede the Venerable, Jarrow.
(Attached below are four diagrams, "The hydrogen wave function, my new DSE, my extended DSE, and the photon/electron duality joke. If not, please contact and inform the moderator - Thank you)
He still has not answered my question as to what those two said in the discussion.Originally Posted by Terry Giblin
It was using the knowledge I had gained from solving the double slit experiment and applying to everything I had been taught or learnt previously, from quarks to quasars, that I realized that the big bang theory had to be wrong, which eventually lead to my discussion at Cambridge with Roger Penrose and Steven Hawking.
You'll have a better chance of some serious responses, though, if you don't start off with such a ridiculously over-inflated statement of your abilities.
The thing is, conflating that with such meagre knowledge of physics makes people laugh, rather than try to help you.
so the photon seems to have an identity crisis...and schizoid split is either high frequency xray/gamma waves or the lower frequency microwave/radio waves?
what do you think of this idea...I am not sure if it agrees with your theory or not.
What if it is the high or low 'frequencies' that dictate to particle which way to 'spin'.
We can apply this influence to either a proton or an electron?
'Frequency' imparts the spin on the particle.
A particle and its corresponding wave functions are similar to the yin/yang symbol?
As we see above, within the teardrop black wave, the white seed or the particle of its opposite wave function is found within and a perpetual black and white cosmic machine would suggest the reverse is true too?
Hello Terry what would happen if you replaced the barrier that contains the one/two slits, with an invisible barrier comprised of inaudible sound frequencies traveling perpendicular to the electron?
Is this feasible Terry?
Similar to Hans Jenny's experiments re: cymatics where he clearly showed he could use audible sound frequencies to move visible objects into certain geometric shapes....
thus could we use inaudible sounds to move invisible electrons and protons through space?
These images you posted remind me of those Hans Jenny cymatic experiments.
I have very fond memories of Wien.
If anyone is interested in visiting Wien, here is a very important traveling tip.
Please go to the Vienna Opera House.
All you have to do, is go to the small door on the left side of the building, around 2:00 PM and queue with the rest of the students and buy an Opera Ticket for 3 Euro's for the evening performance. (I digress)
And if I wish to form a quorum?
I need a prime number, greater than one?
Somebody up there likes me.
Mr Giblin seems sadly out of his depth in this conversation, so has retreated to trying to appear to be knowledgeable about an opera house, and to spouting cod philosophy instead.
It would be nice if just once an ATM proponent could take the intellectually honest route, and try to stick to the subject matter, but, of course, they never can, as it would very quickly shatter their bizarre belief that they have a superhuman intellect that has seen farther then all of the great minds of science.
Mr Giblin, is there any chance that you'll actually deign to have a sensible conversation about the science here, or did you just call by to try to bolster your ego?
You then go on to incorrectly state that interference pattern will exist so long as we do not try to measure its state. This is incorrect; there are plenty of ways to deny measureability yet also to cause decoherence, and thereby remove the interference pattern.
As I suggest to all ATM proponents who start of with such a muddled view of the mainstream, you would be well served by actually studying the subject at university.
If you are not willing to put in the effort to do that, then you'd be well served by asking direct questions here rather than by asserting, and blustering, as you have been doing thus far.
To correct some of your other errors, E=mc^2 does not apply to particles not at rest, and the word "electron" is NEVER the name given to a photon; these are utterly distinct entities, with very different characteristics (one is a lepton, and one is a Boson, for example).
I've been waiting for the OP to explain what he means by "I have solved the DSE problem." So far, he's only name-dropped unconvincingly while revealing a sadly typical weak command of the subject he's declared to have mastered beyond all but a handful of mortals.
TG: This is a direct question: What is your "solution"? For that matter, what problem is it that you are trying to solve?
Let there be light, indeed!
What is the DSE problem, anyway?
You run the experiment, and find that the results match the predictions.
As with people getting into a bit of a mess over the twins "paradox", some people just seem not to like the reality of the experiment, and try to "solve" their dislike by proposing something new, when it is not needed.
Hence the cavalcade of identikit "visionaries" trooping through these forums, virtually none of whom is willing to discuss their objections honestly, but who insist on obfuscation, on hit-and-run posting, and on redefining words to allow themselves wiggle room (such as the OP in this thread deciding to redefine an electron to be a photon, or vice-versa).
To be honest, I'm not sure why I indulge people who use the same old games. I was arguing patiently and logically with people like Jack Sarfatti and Earl Gordon Curley decades ago about this kind of thing, and facing exactly the same techniques on the other side. That today's ATM proponents go over the same objections is bad enough, but that they are unaware that they are not the first, and that they will not argue as adults, well, that's the bit that occasionally leads me to mild and oblique sarcasm, and away from trying to winkle out what they think in order to help them with it.
And, as it is really entry level stuff, and because this therefore means that pretty much anyone should be able to deal with it, I'm happy to step up and offer my take on things. Unfortunately Mr Giblin no longer seems to want to engage in discussion, but I'm sure that I'll still be around if he does want to formulate a question.
Mr Giblin, I'd just ask that you look over your posts before you submit them, as when you include sentence frangemnts such as "instead of thinking of a 'particle electron' you have to only imagine a 'quantum electron', that is, there is a finite probability that an 'electron' probability distribution exists somewhere in the experimental frame of reference.", you are not makingany sense.
These concepts probably mean something to you, but not to the rest of us. You seem to have just redefined the word quantum to mean something new, and once you start redefining words, you are a long way down the road to irredeemable obfuscation, which is not a good road to travel if you want to have a grown up debate.
It's not acceptable when Luce Irigaray or Gilles Deleuze corrupt (the correct word to use here is not allowed on this site, which is strange; we allow the propagation of parentless linguistics, but not the naming of such...) the language to try to make physics say something that it does not; it is even less so when you want to really discuss genuine science, as opposed to getting metaphysical and trying to claim that the square root of minus one represents the erect phallus, for example.
Could you please clearly explain what you are trying to say? Also, what you refer to as an "experiment"? I assume you are referring to a thought experiment. If so, this is insufficient. If you have been working 20 years on this problem, you can certainly provide us more than just a small sketch.