"Autymn D. C." <lysde... at (no spam) sbcglobal.net> wrote in messagenews:458af98e-87fe-479d-98dd-79d9a22a1c6f at (no spam) u12g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
The elèctròn is a mote, and has waves in fotòns.

This may be true, but not relevant to solving the double slit puzzle.

Unless one of the properties of the mote is sentience.

"Autymn D. C." <lysde... at (no spam) sbcglobal.net> wrote in messagenews:458af98e-87fe-479d-98dd-79d9a22a1c6f at (no spam) u12g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
The elèctròn is a mote, and has waves in fotòns.

This may be true, but not relevant to solving the double slit puzzle.

Unless one of the properties of the mote is sentience.

"Benj" <bjac... at (no spam) iwaynet.net> wrote in message

news:d78e32e2-3848-4fae-aa8c-9cdfa41784e7 at (no spam) t54g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...> On May 22, 3:35 pm, "Bill Miller" <billmillerkt... at (no spam) worldnet.att.net
wrote:

snip

Here's a short segnent that highlights the question of how particles and
waves can provede similar/same results, even if the particles have no charge
with wich they accelerate electrons:

WRT the other items, like atoms, molecules (and neutrons?) I can't help
but
wonder how those get accelerated without accumulating some kind of
charge???

Atoms and the like can be ionized for acceleration and then
neutralized before ejected into the neutral beam. Also neutrons are
often ejected from radioactive substances with some considerable
velocities.

**********************************
What follows is Bill once again climbing the scaffold, seizing a fresh
noose, standing on the trapdoor,..grabbing the handle again and...
************************************

A major question arising from my "slits are slots" concept is how a
non-charged particle moving through a slit can excite electrons. After all,
there is no known mechanism for this!

Or is there?

Jefimenko tells us, in his ground-breaking book (Gravitation and
Cogravitation, Chapter 13)  that if a low-mass, high Velocity (WRT c) item
moves past a high mass, stationary object, that a high-intensity,
short-duration Cogravitational field will act to "yank" material in the
high-mass object toward the low mass object.

This is highly controversial because there is -- as yet -- no experimental
evidence to back it up. (Until now?)

In all materials, whether they are conductors, semiconductors or insulators,
there are always large quantities of unbound electrons.These electrons are
MUCH less massive that any passing particle.

So what would happen IF Jefimenko's Cogravitational theory is accurate, and
if neutrally charged, but high velocity particles are shot through a slit?

As the particle passes through the slit, its Cogravitational field will act
an the unbound electrons to pull them towards the passing particle. And
these suddenly accelerated electrons will radiate. And this radiation will
excite the slit=slot antenna. And this will generate the same pattern as has
already been seen with light waves and charged particles passing through the
same slit.

*************************
Bill's hand closes on the trapdoor handle and he yanks it again!

On May 22, 3:35 pm, "Bill Miller" <billmillerkt... at (no spam) worldnet.att.net
wrote:
snip

WRT the other items, like atoms, molecules (and neutrons?) I can't help
but
wonder how those get accelerated without accumulating some kind of
charge???

Atoms and the like can be ionized for acceleration and then
neutralized before ejected into the neutral beam. Also neutrons are
often ejected from radioactive substances with some considerable
velocities.

*************************
Bill's hand closes on the trapdoor handle and he yanks it again!

Please, Bill, stop climbing up this scaffold; we'd all miss you if
your miraculous survival were ever to fail.  For what it's worth here
is my 'two-penneth'.

This experiment is always a many-body problem.  The electrons in the
material in the screen interact with the source/target system. If the
source is a single electron it will progress through the screen at
slightly varying times & distances as the slot is finite enough for us
to see (but massive on the scale of the electron).  The existence of
the second slot alters the nature of the experiment, removing
trillions of possible electrons from the single-slot setup.  All the
electrons in the screen are involved in reaching the final result.
This is approximated mathematically by the use of Fourier transforms
but this does NOT mean there are any physical waves anywhere in this
whole experiment.  If 'light' is the excitation, then the source
consists of trillions of electrons that are excited together and they
too collectively interact with the screen and those in the final
detector.  Like all many-body problems were timing is critical (and
the averaging approximation doesn't work) this is a tough problem
mathematically but not conceptually.

On May 31, 8:00 pm, maxwell <s... at (no spam) shaw.ca> wrote:





*************************
Bill's hand closes on the trapdoor handle and he yanks it again!

Please, Bill, stop climbing up this scaffold; we'd all miss you if
your miraculous survival were ever to fail.  For what it's worth here
is my 'two-penneth'.
This experiment is always a many-body problem.  The electrons in the
material in the screen interact with the source/target system. If the
source is a single electron it will progress through the screen at
slightly varying times & distances as the slot is finite enough for us
to see (but massive on the scale of the electron).  The existence of
the second slot alters the nature of the experiment, removing
trillions of possible electrons from the single-slot setup.  All the
electrons in the screen are involved in reaching the final result.
This is approximated mathematically by the use of Fourier transforms
but this does NOT mean there are any physical waves anywhere in this
whole experiment.  If 'light' is the excitation, then the source
consists of trillions of electrons that are excited together and they
too collectively interact with the screen and those in the final
detector.  Like all many-body problems were timing is critical (and
the averaging approximation doesn't work) this is a tough problem
mathematically but not conceptually.

Not a tough conceptual problem?  Puhleese!

Your paragraph makes no sense to me at all!

Lessee.  We are shooting only ONE electron but the experiment is a
"many body problem". The slit is small enough to create diffraction,
yet it is "massive" compared to the size and reach of the electron
which has no "reasonable" means of sensing the boundaries of the
single slit let alone the second slit miles away!  Even though we are
shooting ONE electron you decide to count the "trillions" of electrons
that were NOT sent!  I'm rich because I'm counting the trillions of
dollars I never made!  And given that there are NO "waves" here of ANY
type (nor can there be EVER because the medium (aether) does not
exist, you STILL decide to Fourier mathematics to find the wave
effects.  But having done that you still admit that while the answer
for wave effects are valid, there are no waves "anywhere in this whole
experiment".  And although the experiment works just fine for any
timing, you say timing is critical (as with many-body problems) which
I presume means that the whole experiment is chaos and totally
unpredictable, and yet somehow always gives the same well-defined
result!

Please, "Maxwell", explain to us again how your "explanation" makes
sense!

As for Bill invoking cograviation! Oh my! Now he actually HAS pulled
the trap lever!  But I DO like the idea of replacing Bills EM antenna
array with cogravitational antennas! The only slight problem with that
is that photons are massless.  Oops!

Yeah, physics is so advanced that they really can explain light and
how the double slit experiment works...NOT!
OK, Benj, just for you, since you do seem to want to know.

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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

Bill strides manfully up the scaffold steps. He grabs the rope, slides it
over his head, positions his feet squarely over the trapdoor, grabs the
hanle and pulls hard...
**************************************************


But it DOES demonstrate, using well-established principles, that there is
a
reasonable explanation for the double slit puzzle. And that explanation
has
nothing to do with statistics nor with quantum mechanics.


Many/most CRTs have a perforated metal screen that corresponds with screen

Many/most CRTs have a perforated metal screen that corresponds with screen
pixels.  Electrons pass through the holes to their target, though some hit
the metal instead.  I imagine there would be some research into various
observed effects relative to their engineering that could shed some light on
this question.
Just a thought,
Vince

"Bill Miller" <billmillerkt4ye at (no spam) worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:vjGYj.2159$we7.1305 at (no spam) bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Bill strides manfully up the scaffold steps. He grabs the rope, slides it
over his head, positions his feet squarely over the trapdoor, grabs the
hanle and pulls hard...
**************************************************


But it DOES demonstrate, using well-established principles, that there is
a
reasonable explanation for the double slit puzzle. And that explanation
has
nothing to do with statistics nor with quantum mechanics.


Many/most CRTs have a perforated metal screen that corresponds with screen
pixels. Electrons pass through the holes to their target, though some hit
the metal instead. I imagine there would be some research into various
observed effects relative to their engineering that could shed some light
on
this question.
Just a thought,
Vince

Yes, a VERY interesting idea!

"Vince Morgan" <vinharAtHereoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:4850d1e0$0$1021$afc38c87 at (no spam) news.optusnet.com.au...
Part of MY problem in solving this puzzle beyond the blue sky/scaffolding
level is my lack of access to details of how the experiments were don.
Specifically, how big are the slits, how are they physically placed, what
is
the thickness and composition of the material holding the slits,
velocities
of the particles, dimensions of the apparatus etc.

For example, in your idea, I know (or can readily find) information on the
approximate speed of the electron beam. We also know that it is relatively
slow -- otherwise the impacting electrons would X-Ray everyone in the TV
room. How does THAT speed compare with particle speeds in the double-slit
experiment?

Thanks for the idea!

Bill


If a particular suitable CRT happened to also be a computer monitor.

Many/most CRTs have a perforated metal screen that corresponds with screen
pixels. Electrons pass through the holes to their target, though some hit
the metal instead. I imagine there would be some research into various
observed effects relative to their engineering that could shed some light
on
this question.
Just a thought,
Vince