Re: Double Slit Puzzle Explained (?)


"Benj" <bjacoby@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:ef0cdfc6-ed2d-4f21-a39e-9f2eda84818f@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Jun 1, 10:28 am, maxwell <s...@xxxxxxx> wrote:

OK, Benj, just for you, since you do seem to want to know.

OK, just a couple of comments although explained this way it's not as
bad as it seemed before.

1. The screen consists of trillions of electrons: the SINGLE slit is
our human way of simplifying this enormously complex (& dynamic)
'object'.

Yes. clearly our idea of the "slit" is actually a turbulent electron
(atom) sea of seething activity. Trillions of electrons are involved
in making up that matter.

2. All electrons interact, according to Coulomb, with every other
electron in the universe, albeit with an inverse square reduction with
spatial separation.

So we have then two things. One is the turbulent sea of the matter
clearly has the ability to create "randomness" in electron
trajectories which can only be assessed by statistics because of our
(current) inability to exactly determine what is going on in that atom
sea at any given moment as the electron goes through. Fine.

But point number two is that inverse square relationship. This is the
crux of Bill's theory. That fall off of influence means that although
our electron (mathematically) interacts with every other charged
particle in the universe, in a practical sense the interaction is not
large enough to change the trajectory sufficient to explain any build
up of "diffraction' patterns even in the single slit, let alone in the
much more distant double slit.

Hence Coulomb interactions can explain randomness but not the wave-
properties of "particles".

3. The electron is moving through a space with finite geometry in
finite time, so FFT's can be defined even if WE cannot evaluate them.

Yes, but if we cannot evaluate them, what have we gained?

4. The timing is critical because at the microscale of the traversing
electron variations in distance & time will always occur as we cannot
control the initial conditions of each real electron; so different
screen electrons will play a differential role in their interaction
with the traversing electron giving a statistical spread of the
results that after very many repetitions will accumulate to the same
results as wave optics.

We agree on the idea of indeterminate micro variations that cannot be
measured (Einstein's hidden variables) creating the apparently random
paths of each individual electron fired, but the catchy-poo is that
these trajectories when averaged long enough emulate wave properties
which cannot be explained by the same interactions causing the random
trajectories. A statistical spread is not the same as a diffraction
pattern. This is where Bill's theory is interesting in that he uses an
EM parasitic antenna coupling to explain the wave phenomena that the
statistical spread cannot.

5. Reality is periodic in this experiment, not chaotic. It is our
inability to 'observe' the actual micro-reality that prevents us
performing deterministic calculations (predictions); we are left with
only statistical methods i.e. quantum mechanics.

Actually the actions of the electron "orbitals" of the material of the
slit probably are BOTH periodic (atomic crystal structures) and
chaotic (actual motion of myriad electrons in the material). And the
inability to perform deterministic measurement on this sub-structure
does indeed mean we are only left with quantum mechanics. But it
really doesn't answer the fundamental questions of wave-particle
duality.

As I said, not conceptually difficult (if you change your focus), just
mathematically impossible. Always remember, in terms of atoms we are
clumsy giants.

OK, I see what you are saying here outlining the "big picture" and
it's not wrong, but it still is not any "explanation" of the
phenomena. The real crux here is to define a mechanism of some kind
that can "explain" how individual electrons fired at a double slit can
follow trajectories that on average are a double slit diffraction
pattern (mathematically speaking...of course, giving that pattern does
NOT mean that diffraction is actually taking place only that it
happens to give the same result as a wave diffraction experiment).

You've nicely explained why each electron follows a random path unlike
the one that just came before it and the one after it even if initial
velocities etc. are the same, but you've not provided a mechanism
(mathematical or otherwise) that can explain how these particle
trajectories end up on average defining a wave diffraction pattern for
a double slit when there is no way that any given electron can sense
the presence of the second slit because of the inverse square drop
off. As I see it, other than a theory like Bill's the only other
possible explanation would be some kind of multi-body, fractal chaos
theory where extremely tiny changes in initial conditions are able to
"amplified" in a sense up to a degree where major changes in final
landing spots can be grossly changed by extremely tiny changes in
initial conditions. But such a theory seems difficult if not
impossible to define at best.

Benj and Maxwell...

Not much I can add here. Maxwell may have provided a nice description of
what is going on, but not an understanding of *why.* And that seems to be
where all currently accepted "explanations" end up.

It goes a little bit different, however, when we realize that maxwell's
explanation does not seem to deal with the issues of double slit patterns
associated with bigger particles, nor with photons.

PS I don't think gravity enters into this experiment, either.

Jefimenko's theory makes no restrictions as to the absolete size of the
items being analyzed. The only requirements in the reference I cited are
that the mass of the stationary object be >> the mass of the moving oject
AND that the moving object must be going very fast (relatavistically
speaking).

If those conditions are met (as they are in the double slit with particles
case) then the result will be as I suggested in my "second hanging."

So, who would like to step forward and identify the flaw in Jefimenko's
reasoning? AFTER that is done, then we can also examine my reasoning, but
that is irrelevant until /unless Jefimenko has been dealt with.

All the best...

Bill


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Two-slit experiment
    ... electron) at a wall that contains two slits will result in an interference ... pattern on the wall beyond the holes. ... A double slit pattern is not the sum of two single slit patterns. ...
    (sci.physics.research)
  • Re: Two-slit experiment
    ... Quick review of what I believe I know: Shooting a single photon (or ... A series of single photons will build up a pattern similar to that seen ... detecting which of the two holes the electron passes through ... in the case where one determines through which slit each ...
    (sci.physics.research)
  • Re: Double Slit Puzzle Explained (?)
    ... It is entirely possible that an electron may be a particle. ... reasonable explanation for the double slit puzzle. ... it is NOT any radiation that is interacting at ... the detector to form the pattern. ...
    (sci.physics.electromag)
  • Re: Is a fact something that has been proven?
    ... There's nothing there at all about a double slit experiment ... A single electron is not entangled with another, ... 1.TURN OFF THE ELECTRON DETECTORS AT THE SLITS. ... An individual photon passing ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Double Slit Puzzle Explained (?)
    ... Normally, when only one slit is open, the pattern on the plate is a ... let's look at where that radiation might come from. ... I believe the way an electron experiment is done is ... An electron is also a wave. ...
    (sci.physics.electromag)