Double Slit Experiment

[Geo Kaplan]

Like I said, the diagram covers many topics, but I never realized De Broglie discussed or used quantum tunneling or mentioned the double slit experiment.

Please review the preceding posts. Among others, you may wish to review #50 and #51 for questions and issues that remain unaddressed.

It may also be valuable for you to study mainstream physics first, before asserting that you have something new/different/better. Your background is far too weak for you to assert such things with the confidence you affect. If you are beginning with the DSE, you should familiarize yourself with the relevant experiments that have been performed (with photons, electrons and atoms, at minimum). Study those carefully, and then see whether your theory is as solid as you presently seem to believe.

[Terry Giblin]

Dear Ladies and Gentlemen,

As I have said from the beginning, this thread is not against the mainstream.

I am not asking for your approval I am simply informing you of my discovery.

You're not meant to mention how long you have been working on a particular problem, but it is fair to say that I have been studying the DSE since passing my degree.

As I have also said previously, my 'solution' came, when I realized the only unknown in the DSE is the 'electron' itself.

Once I removed the 'electron' all the problems and difficulties disappeared and it allowed me to see everything completely differently.

Einstein genius, again I know you are not meant to mention Einstein....10 more points against me, was to take accepted theories and concepts and apply them together to get new results.

"Nothing can travel faster than the speed of light" - it was only when Einstein accepted this statement and tried to work out its implications that Special Relativity was born.

"If you remove the only unknown, the 'electron', you do not change the experiment" - Once I realized this fact everything else I knew or understand about physics started to make sense.

I am not asking for anyone's approval or support, I have already met and spoken to, or corresponded with, most of the leading Mathematicians and Physicists in the world, especially in every major University in Europe, to many to mention plus I would only get wrong for name dropping.

I was invited and attended Loops 05, at the Albert Einstein Institute, in Potsdam, Berlin.

I was invited and attended the Isaac Newton Institute, in Cambridge.

I was invited and attended CERN to discuss my experiment, we discussed the technical issues, the estimated costs and the time to schedule the experiment.

Following my meeting at CERN I was speaking to a leading expert in the field, when I was reminded (told) that in order for an 'electron' to be emitted from a 'wire' or element/filament - it is assumed that the 'electron' quantum tunnels out of the wire.

So any experiment using an electrical filament, by definition involves quantum tunneling - my experiment takes it to its logical conclusion.

The standard double slit experiment, shows the duality of the electron.

But as soon as you remove the 'particle electron' the duality immediately disappears, but you dont change the experiment, you still get an interference pattern, depending on the 'source'.

You can take a camel to water but you can't make it drink.

I am sorry if I am not making myself clear or you don't see the significant, that's my problem for which I apologize, everyone I have sat down with and spoken to understands and see's what I am trying to say, hence my constant requests to talk on skype ......







I do not mean to offend, but I always think it is easier to discuss ideas using pictures rather than words.

I have spent my entire IT professional career looking at and designing computer, SAN and network diagrams. I can look at a computer diagram and immediately tell if it will work or not.

If anyone would like to sit down and discuss my experiment on skype they can write what we discuss.

Kind Regards

Terry Giblin

[PetersCreek]

Dear Ladies and Gentlemen,

As I have said from the beginning, this thread is not against the mainstream.

I am not asking for your approval I am simply informing you of my discovery.

You're "discovery" was determined to be against the mainstream, so this thread was moved to the ATM forum. Your continued participation in this discussion made you subject to ATM rules. Since it seems that you are declining to follow them, this thread is closed. If you reconsider your position and decide to defend your idea, PM a moderator or report this post.

Additional moderator note: There is no good reason I can see for you to post the same image over and over again. In fact, I consider it disruptive. If you really need to refer back to it later, post it as a link.

[PetersCreek]

Thread reopened with the understanding that the OP agrees to comply with ATM rules.

[Terry Giblin]

Thread reopened with the understanding that the OP agrees to comply with ATM rules.

Dear PetersCreek,

Thank you.

Terry Giblin

[macaw]

Dear PetersCreek,

Thank you.

Terry Giblin

Please answer the questions from post 77

[Geo Kaplan]

Dear PetersCreek,

Thank you.

Terry Giblin

And after you answer macaw's questions, please answer mine from Post #51, at least. And preferably without reference to your IT prowess and mentions of CERN, etc. Just physics, please.

[NorthernBoy]

I am not asking for your approval I am simply informing you of my discovery.

Can you please explain what your discovery is?

So far, you seem to have repeatedly mentioned an experiment, but I see no evidence that it has been done yet, although you seem to be claiming in advance that you know what the results will be.

Can you please explain how you know this if you have not yet run it?

These two are direct questions, which you are required to answer.

[Terry Giblin]

Dear Gentlemen,

I shall try to answer all your questions in one go if I can, the easiest way I can do that is by explaining what I am trying say in a clear concise manor, there is always a first time.

In order to do that we must all be discussing and thinking of the same 'problem'.

My understanding and interpretation of the currently accepted Double Slit Experiment, is simple.

Starting with a 'particle' electron, which is allowed to pass through two slits (or more) will over time, form an interference pattern. Demonstrating the particle-wave duality of the electron!

An 'electron', which is considered to be a particle, can sometimes under certain conditions show wave type behavior.

In my 'thought' experiment involving the Double Slit Experiment, I simply realized that I can remove the 'particle' electron without changing the experiment. - It is as simple as that.

In my 'thought' experiment involving the Double Slit Experiment, there is no 'particle' electron, only a probability density distribution.

Convinced of the validity of my thought experiment, I went to CERN and discussed the possibility of actually performing the experiment for real.

I was then told, that it is assumed that an electron which is ejected from a wire filament or element, first has to quantum tunnel out of the wire. Which in my option confirmed what I was trying to say and demonstrate, from the begging, QED.

I am not trying to change or adjust the experiment or the outcome of the experiment, as most people try to do.

I am trying to change input of the experiment, forcing the observer to replace the 'particle' with a wave or probability density distribution, from the beginning.

In my diagram I am simply trying to demonstrate or force the observer only to see the probability density distribution. Anything from a black hole to an electron can be outside the experiment, representing the source, but inside the experiment there is only a probability density distribution.

In my version of the double slit experiment, the 'electrons' or 'black hole', are outside of the experiment - behind the quantum barrier, a probability density distribution quantum tunnels through the barrier, which then passes through the double slits and forms an interference pattern, as expected and predicted.

The question marks in my diagram represent the probability density distribution.

In my diagram I use mc^2 to simply represent the imaginary real 'particle' and -mc^2 to represent the real 'imaginary' probability density distribution, nothing else.

I hope this makes everything clear and I apologise for any confusion or offense caused, it was never intended.

It works, you cannot argue with a diagram, I can't.

Kind Regards

Terry Giblin

[NorthernBoy]

In my 'thought' experiment involving the Double Slit Experiment

You mention a thought experiment, then talk about a real experiment.

Which one is it?

And since you have not explained your thought experiment yet, in any way even close to adequately, can you please do so?

I was then told, that it is assumed that an electron which is ejected from a wire filament or element, first has to quantum tunnel out of the wire.

I can only assume from this that you spoke to someone from catering, as that is horribly wrong. To be clear, the electrons do not need to tunnel out of a cathode, they can leave quite normally.

Please, answer the questions which have been put to you. Your refusal to do so is quite pathetic now.

[Geo Kaplan]

Dear Gentlemen,

I shall try to answer all your questions in one go if I can, the easiest way I can do that is by explaining what I am trying say in a clear concise manor, there is always a first time.

In order to do that we must all be discussing and thinking of the same 'problem'.

Your stubborn insistence on mere repetition of material you have already posted several times shows a lack of sincerity. You have been asked direct questions. Just answer them. Stop referencing your diagrams, stop delaying. Just answer our questions. The thread was closed because you refused even to acknowledge that to answer questions was a rule of the ATM forum. You apparently promised the mods to alter your behavior. So, answer our questions.

[PetersCreek]

Dear Gentlemen,

I shall try to answer all your questions in one go if I can, the easiest way I can do that is by explaining what I am trying say in a clear concise manor, there is always a first time.

Okay, you've taken a stab at explaining the experiment but that's no easy way out of answering questions. Please start doing so in your next post. If you don't know the answer, please say so. If you need more time to consider an answer, please say so.

[Terry Giblin]

Dear NorthernBoy,

Everyone is familiar with the standard Double Slit experiment, I thought what would happen if you inserted a quantum barrier, between the source and the double slit, hence a 'thought' experiment.

I then went to CERN and discussed turning my thought experiment into a real experiment.

Does that answer your question?

I can only assume from this that you spoke to someone from catering

Next time I see him I will pass your comments on.

I accept that electrons can escape from the surface of the filament, when heated, but it is also natural to assume that electrons can escape from within side the element, via quantum tunneling. - I believed him when he said it, but I would - it agrees with my experiment.

Following your advice, I shall try to answer the other questions as well.

Kind Regards

Terry Giblin

[macaw]

I hope this makes everything clear

No, it doesn't. Please answer Q1-3 from post 77.

[Geo Kaplan]

I accept that electrons can escape from the surface of the filament, when heated, but it is also natural to assume that electrons can escape from within side the element, via quantum tunneling. - I believed him when he said it, but I would - it agrees with my experiment.

Rather than trusting the opinions of random people, and accepting such verbal "confirmations" when they happen to agree (or at least seem to agree) with certain of your predictions, why don't you do some calculations (you know, the kind that scientists put in their papers to convince other scientists that they're not just blowing smoke)?

Compute the ratio of emission due to tunneling, to the thermionic component. Make reasonable assumptions (state them explicitly, though). Feel free to assume emission-limited flow, rather than space-charge limited flow. Show your work, and then conclude from that what you can (or cannot) say about quantum effects in your experiment.

[Terry Giblin]

Q1: please show the formalism for your experiment (the equations)
Q2: your picture shows E=-mc^2. What do you mean by the "minus" sign?
Q3: How is the above different from the one that filled nearly 300 pages here?

Answer to;

Q1: Its a physics experiment, I designed the experiment, not the mathematics. I was hoping someone better at maths, than me, would do it for me, or is that to much to ask?

Q2: The minus sign was to indicate that it was imaginary 'electron'.

Q3: I have not followed that particular thread, so I cannot comment.
However as already discovered if you place a measuring device inside the experiment, regardless of when you read the results, by definition you have already changed the experiment.

Kind Regards

Terry Giblin

[Terry Giblin]

OK, to try to bring this back on-track, if you remove the electron to infinity, it never passes through either slit, so you get no interference pattern.

- Not true, in an idealized world of mathematics, it just takes a long time and is very very unlikely. "Even black holes evaporate over time......"

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.

True, but again I was talking about an idealized world of mathematics.

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.

- I did, sorry to disappoint you.

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).

- Agreed, but I think if you check I was simply trying to point out that both the electron and photon are both waves and are both quantized.....that's all.

Kind Regards

Terry Giblin

[pzkpfw]

Why will the electrons (in whatever form, "probability density distribution" or not) go through your quantum barrier?

How will you prevent different sources from affecting your result?

[Terry Giblin]

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!

Dear Geo Kaplan,

When I said,

"I have solved the DSE problem."

I meant that I have removed the problem of the particle-wave duality of the electron in the Double Slit Experiment.

I have replaced the 'particle' with a probability density distribution, removing the source of the confusion.

Kind Regards

Terry Giblin

[Geo Kaplan]

I meant that I have removed the problem of the particle-wave duality of the electron in the Double Slit Experiment.

I have replaced the 'particle' with a probability density distribution, removing the source of the confusion.

Why is duality a "problem", and how has what you have done "solved" it? Physicists seem to be able to predict the outcome of experiments pretty darn well without your formulation, so you need to be specific about your definition of a "problem" and how your solution makes falsifiable, quantitative predictions that differ from those of the mainstream. It is still very unclear to me precisely what your claim is. Can you state it in unambiguous language? No more pdfs, letters to CERN, diagrams, conversations with Hawking, etc.

[Terry Giblin]

Why will the electrons (in whatever form, "probability density distribution" or not) go through your quantum barrier?

How will you prevent different sources from affecting your result?

Dear pzkpfw,

For exactly the same reason why any normal 'electron' would go through any quantum barrier or double slit, due to the applied, potential gradient - voltage....

Every experiment has its own background or unwanted interference.

As with any experiment you try to reduce any unwanted interference or background noise to a minimum, but you can never remove all errors in an experiment, plus or minus.....

Kind Regards

Terry Giblin

[Strange]

I have replaced the 'particle' with a probability density distribution, removing the source of the confusion

But isn't that (crudely) what a "particle" is; the probability distribution represented by the wave equation?

[Terry Giblin]

Why is duality a "problem", and how has what you have done "solved" it? Physicists seem to be able to predict the outcome of experiments pretty darn well without your formulation, so you need to be specific about your definition of a "problem" and how your solution makes falsifiable, quantitative predictions that differ from those of the mainstream. It is still very unclear to me precisely what your claim is. Can you state it in unambiguous language? No more pdfs, letters to CERN, diagrams, conversations with Hawking, etc.

Is this a real question?

Have you studied the Double Slit Experiment?

Why is the duality a 'problem'. - Can you please tell me how can a 'solid marble' go through both slits at the same time and still appear as a marble.

If that is not a problem for you, it was for me.

But not any more, because as demonstrated there is no such thing as a solid marble, a 'particle electron' or a 'black hole'.

As Ken G said at the beginning of this thread, "The way I like to think of it is, the electron is a particle, but the mechanics of waves "tell it where to go." That generally works."

Where as I say "The way I like to think of it is, the electron is a probability density distribution, and the mechanics of waves "tell it where to go." It works for me.

Remove the duality and the confusion disappears.

I accept sometimes an electron behalves as a particle, but that does not mean it is a particle, it just shows similar properties as particles if such a thing exists.

Have you ever been hit by a 20 foot wave, it's a wave but it feels like a brick wall, hitting you... is it a wave or a particle ... its still a wave.

Kind Regards

Terry Giblin

[Geo Kaplan]

Is this a real question?

It certainly is a real question. Indeed, it is the question. Please stop ducking it.

You certainly have not answered my questions, which I apparently must repeat here:

1) State what your actual ATM claim is. You have not articulated a problem with mainstream physics. Instead, what you have said seems fully equivalent to "I, TG, do not understand what the mainstream says. I just don't like it. Therefore it is a problem." If you disagree with that characterization, please explain why, using language that is not the equivalent of that characterization. It is important, before any progress can be made, to understand where the problem lies -- with physics, or with your understanding of it.

2) State how your "solution" allows for a falsifiable, quantitative prediction that differs from the "problematic" mainstream formulation. If there is no difference in their predictions, then what does that mean for your theory?

[Terry Giblin]

But isn't that (crudely) what a "particle" is; the probability distribution represented by the wave equation?

Hello Henna,

I am happy you could join us, welcome to BAUD.

You have it hit the problem on the head.

What is a particle?

Great minds think alike.

You get my vote.

Kind Regards

Terry Giblin

[Geo Kaplan]

Hello Henna,

I am happy you could join us, welcome to BAUD.

You have it hit the problem on the head.

What is a particle?

Great minds think alike.

You'd be well-advised against self-congratulation, TG: Henna is describing a mainstream view! Had you really studied the DSE (have you?), you'd have encountered related explanations in textbooks.

And when you get through patting yourself on the back, please remember that you have several unanswered questions waiting for your reply.

[macaw]

Answer to;

Q1: Its a physics experiment, I designed the experiment, not the mathematics. I was hoping someone better at maths, than me, would do it for me, or is that to much to ask?

It doesn't work this way in science, whoever develps an experiment also develops the formalism. Without a valid formalism you have nothing.

Q4: Other than having two slits open instead of one, what does your "experiment" bring to the table?

Q2: The minus sign was to indicate that it was imaginary 'electron'.

There is no such thing as negative energy, you didn't know that?

Q3: I have not followed that particular thread, so I cannot comment.

How so? You "contributted" the same word salad there.

However as already discovered if you place a measuring device inside the experiment, regardless of when you read the results, by definition you have already changed the experiment.

This was already discovered long ago by others, so you haven't discovered anything new.

[slang]

I am happy you could join us, welcome to BAUD.

You just dated yourself as an IT professional BAUT, tyvm! Welcome, Henna Oji-san!

[mike alexander]

Terry, let me know if I have understood the essence of your experiment as I read it. Are you saying that by putting a potential barrier between the electron emitter and the slits that, since the electron has to tunnel through the barrier in a wave-probabilistic fashion, the barrier acts as a filter to remove the particle character of the electron and preserve just the wave character?

[NorthernBoy]

Dear NorthernBoy,

Everyone is familiar with the standard Double Slit experiment, I thought what would happen if you inserted a quantum barrier, between the source and the double slit, hence a 'thought' experiment.

No, that is not what a thought experiment is. You are proposing a real experiment, although your description of how it should be set up and what your expected results are is unintelligible, which is pretty poor, given how many attempts you've made. What, exactly, do you expect to see if you decolimate the beam, as you are proposing?

I accept that electrons can escape from the surface of the filament, when heated, but it is also natural to assume that electrons can escape from within side the element, via quantum tunneling. - I believed him when he said it, but I would - it agrees with my experiment.

No, this is not what quantum tunneling is.

It's quite strange, isn't it, that the person you think you saw at CERN has his physics as messed up as you have yours? Most bizarre that you'd pick someone there with no understanding of the basics.

I'll tell you what, why not humour me and tell me what stage the extensive roadworks outside the main entrance have reached now. If you've truly just passed through, you should have no problem with this...