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.


Makes perfect sense to me, which may, or may not be a good thing.

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...
**************************************************



The Puzzle



The following is from Wikipedia: "In the double-slit experiment, light
is shone at a solid thin plate that has two slits cut into it. A
photographic plate or some other detection screen is set up to record
what comes through those slits. One or the other slit may be open, or
both may be open.



Normally, when only one slit is open, the pattern on the plate is a
diffraction pattern, a fairly narrow central band with dimmer bands
parallel to it on each side. When both slits are open, the pattern
displayed becomes very much more detailed and at least four times as
wide."



Wikipedia continues with:



"The most baffling part of this experiment comes when only one photon
at a time is fired at the barrier with both slits open. The pattern of
interference remains the same as can be seen if many photons are
emitted one at a time and recorded on the same sheet of photographic
film. The clear implication is that something with a wavelike nature
passes simultaneously through both slits and interferes with itself -
even though there is only one photon present. (The experiment works
with electrons, atoms, and even some molecules too.)"

The clear implication of the above is that light, electrons, atoms and
some molecules are composed of waves, not particles. This has led many
researchers moving in many different directions, with results ranging
from the ridiculous to the divine. But no solid answers seem to have
appeared.

The Answer


The answer to this puzzle is, I believe, both straightforward and
non-quantum. In this note, I will deal solely with electrons. I
believe that the insights we may gain will be applicable to all
aspects of this little puzzle.



Since the mechanism for recording these "baffling" events is
photographic plates, and since the plates are sensitive to radiation,
let's look at where that radiation might come from.



The fundamental source for most, if not all radiation is the
acceleration of charges. And acceleration can take many forms. But
only one acceleration mechanism seems applicable to this particular
problem. That mechanism is called "Transition Radiation."



Quoting from Zolatarev and McDonald in "Classical Radiation Processes
in the Weizsacker-Williams Approximation," we read the following brief
description: "As a charged particle crosses, for example, a
vacuum/metal boundary, its interaction with charges in the material
results in their acceleration and hence radiation, commonly called
transition radiation."



It should be noted that this radiation is not coherent. Instead, it
will be wideband with spectra determined by the geometry of the slit,
the path of the electron(s) WRT the slit and the energy contained
therein. The radiation is in the Xray range.



The above explanation of Transition Radiation is what is going on at
each of the slits of a double slit experiment. The electron(s)
interact with the material at the boundary of the slit, causing
radiation to appear. It is this radiation that is captured on the
photographic plate.

Summary


This short note neither proves nor disproves the wave/particle duality
of the electron. It is entirely possible that an electron may be a
particle. Or it may be some form of wave function.

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.

Summary

This short note neither proves nor disproves the wave/particle duality of
the electron. It is entirely possible that an electron may be a particle. Or
it may be some form of wave function.

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.

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.

"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
handle and pulls hard...
**************************************************



The Puzzle



The following is from Wikipedia: "In the double-slit experiment, light is
shone at a solid thin plate that has two slits cut into it. A
photographic plate or some other detection screen is set up to record
what comes through those slits. One or the other slit may be open, or
both may be open.



Normally, when only one slit is open, the pattern on the plate is a
diffraction pattern, a fairly narrow central band with dimmer bands
parallel to it on each side. When both slits are open, the pattern
displayed becomes very much more detailed and at least four times as
wide."



Wikipedia continues with:



"The most baffling part of this experiment comes when only one photon at
a time is fired at the barrier with both slits open. The pattern of
interference remains the same as can be seen if many photons are emitted
one at a time and recorded on the same sheet of photographic film. The
clear implication is that something with a wavelike nature passes
simultaneously through both slits and interferes with itself - even
though there is only one photon present. (The experiment works with
electrons, atoms, and even some molecules too.)"

The clear implication of the above is that light, electrons, atoms and
some molecules are composed of waves, not particles. This has led many
researchers moving in many different directions, with results ranging
from the ridiculous to the divine. But no solid answers seem to have
appeared.

IMHO, it is a good assumption that there are real waves involved with
quantum objects.

Not to be confused with the "probability" waves of QM math. However, I
wouldn't rule out a particulate nature to quantum objects either since it
is needed for there to be real waves.

The Answer


The answer to this puzzle is, I believe, both straightforward and
non-quantum. In this note, I will deal solely with electrons. I believe
that the insights we may gain will be applicable to all aspects of this
little puzzle.



Since the mechanism for recording these "baffling" events is photographic
plates, and since the plates are sensitive to radiation, let's look at
where that radiation might come from.



The fundamental source for most, if not all radiation is the acceleration
of charges. And acceleration can take many forms. But only one
acceleration mechanism seems applicable to this particular problem. That
mechanism is called "Transition Radiation."



Quoting from Zolatarev and McDonald in "Classical Radiation Processes in
the Weizsacker-Williams Approximation," we read the following brief
description: "As a charged particle crosses, for example, a vacuum/metal
boundary, its interaction with charges in the material results in their
acceleration and hence radiation, commonly called transition radiation."



It should be noted that this radiation is not coherent. Instead, it will
be wideband with spectra determined by the geometry of the slit, the path
of the electron(s) WRT the slit and the energy contained therein. The
radiation is in the Xray range.



The above explanation of Transition Radiation is what is going on at each
of the slits of a double slit experiment. The electron(s) interact with
the material at the boundary of the slit, causing radiation to appear. It
is this radiation that is captured on the photographic plate.

I don't think so. I believe the way an electron experiment is done is
that it is actually an electron hitting the detection "plate" that is
recorded. And not radiation.

[snip radiation hypothesis]

Summary


This short note neither proves nor disproves the wave/particle duality of
the electron. It is entirely possible that an electron may be a particle.
Or it may be some form of wave function.

There is not much doubt in my mind that an electron has both particle and
wave properties. Why not just accept that it is both?

Why does it have to be one or the other? Neutrinos and relativistic
effects are the clue.

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.

Sorry, no it doesn't.

Best,

Fred Diether
Co-moderator sci.physics.foundations

It should be noted that this radiation is not coherent. Instead, it will
be wideband with spectra determined by the geometry of the slit, the path
of the electron(s) WRT the slit and the energy contained therein. The
radiation is in the Xray range.

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.

Bill Miller <billmillerkt4ye at (no spam) worldnet.att.net> wrote:
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.

So do the maths and give the functional form for the double-slit
interfernce-like pattern using your model. Compare it with the
standard form. Are they the same or different? Is there a
difference significant enough so that your theory could (at least
in principle) be validated?

I'm not going to hold my breath, mind.

Good. Holding your breath might deny us access to future insightful comments

--
All the best,

---------------------------------+---------------------------------
Dr. Paul Kinsler
Blackett Laboratory (QOLS) (ph) +44-20-759-47520 (fax) 47714
Imperial College London, Dr.Paul.Kinsler at (no spam) physics.org
SW7 2BW, United Kingdom. http://www.qols.ph.ic.ac.uk/~kinsle/

"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.


Makes perfect sense to me, which may, or may not be a good thing.
Thank you Bill!

Yeah. It's too simple and sensible.

"FrediFizzx" <fredifizzx at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:69i0mtF330e9eU1 at (no spam) mid.individual.net...
"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 handle and pulls hard...
**************************************************



The Puzzle



The following is from Wikipedia: "In the double-slit experiment,
light is shone at a solid thin plate that has two slits cut into it.
A photographic plate or some other detection screen is set up to
record what comes through those slits. One or the other slit may be
open, or both may be open.



Normally, when only one slit is open, the pattern on the plate is a
diffraction pattern, a fairly narrow central band with dimmer bands
parallel to it on each side. When both slits are open, the pattern
displayed becomes very much more detailed and at least four times as
wide."



Wikipedia continues with:



"The most baffling part of this experiment comes when only one
photon at a time is fired at the barrier with both slits open. The
pattern of interference remains the same as can be seen if many
photons are emitted one at a time and recorded on the same sheet of
photographic film. The clear implication is that something with a
wavelike nature passes simultaneously through both slits and
interferes with itself - even though there is only one photon
present. (The experiment works with electrons, atoms, and even some
molecules too.)"

The clear implication of the above is that light, electrons, atoms
and some molecules are composed of waves, not particles. This has
led many researchers moving in many different directions, with
results ranging from the ridiculous to the divine. But no solid
answers seem to have appeared.

IMHO, it is a good assumption that there are real waves involved with
quantum objects.

OK but it seems that the double slit experiment is valid for light,
photons (whatever THEY are!) electrons, atoms and some molecules.

Your contention holds for light, photons and (maybe) electrons. Are
you now maintaining that atoms are quantum objects? What about
molecules? At what point does an object cease (or start) to be
"quantum?"

Not to be confused with the "probability" waves of QM math. However,
I wouldn't rule out a particulate nature to quantum objects either
since it is needed for there to be real waves.



The Answer


The answer to this puzzle is, I believe, both straightforward and
non-quantum. In this note, I will deal solely with electrons. I
believe that the insights we may gain will be applicable to all
aspects of this little puzzle.



Since the mechanism for recording these "baffling" events is
photographic plates, and since the plates are sensitive to
radiation, let's look at where that radiation might come from.



The fundamental source for most, if not all radiation is the
acceleration of charges. And acceleration can take many forms. But
only one acceleration mechanism seems applicable to this particular
problem. That mechanism is called "Transition Radiation."



Quoting from Zolatarev and McDonald in "Classical Radiation
Processes in the Weizsacker-Williams Approximation," we read the
following brief description: "As a charged particle crosses, for
example, a vacuum/metal boundary, its interaction with charges in
the material results in their acceleration and hence radiation,
commonly called transition radiation."



It should be noted that this radiation is not coherent. Instead, it
will be wideband with spectra determined by the geometry of the
slit, the path of the electron(s) WRT the slit and the energy
contained therein. The radiation is in the Xray range.



The above explanation of Transition Radiation is what is going on at
each of the slits of a double slit experiment. The electron(s)
interact with the material at the boundary of the slit, causing
radiation to appear. It is this radiation that is captured on the
photographic plate.

I don't think so. I believe the way an electron experiment is done
is that it is actually an electron hitting the detection "plate" that
is recorded. And not radiation.

OK On what basis is this "belief" founded? Is there some sort of a
filter in front of the plate that filters out, say, Xrays? Or is the
plate only sensitive to electron impacts?

But wait... if an electron impacts, won't it just make a foggy little
spot?

Oh, I forgot. An electron is also a wave. So it will morph -- on
impact -- into a wave that just happens to have the exact pattern of
peaks and valleys as would have formed if another electron had
simultaneously gone through the other slit.

Yeah. That's a LOT more sensible than my idea.

[snip radiation hypothesis]

Summary


This short note neither proves nor disproves the wave/particle
duality of the electron. It is entirely possible that an electron
may be a particle. Or it may be some form of wave function.

There is not much doubt in my mind that an electron has both particle
and wave properties. Why not just accept that it is both?

I guess that I don't want to blindly accept something that does not
seem to SOLVE one of the biggest unsolved puzzles (that I can think
of) in EM today. That puzzle is: How can a single
photon/electron/atom/molecule "know" about the presence or absence of
the second slit?

Hint: Accepting that electrons have both properties does NOT answer
the above question. (Unless, along with the properties of a wave and a
particle, an electron ALSO has sentience.)

Why does it have to be one or the other? Neutrinos and relativistic
effects are the clue.

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.

Sorry, no it doesn't.

Because...?

Thanks for the reply, Fred.

"Bill Miller" <billmillerkt4ye at (no spam) worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:cMYYj.3488$j41.229 at (no spam) bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...

"FrediFizzx" <fredifizzx at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:69i0mtF330e9eU1 at (no spam) mid.individual.net...
"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 handle and pulls hard...
**************************************************



The Puzzle



The following is from Wikipedia: "In the double-slit experiment, light
is shone at a solid thin plate that has two slits cut into it. A
photographic plate or some other detection screen is set up to record
what comes through those slits. One or the other slit may be open, or
both may be open.



Normally, when only one slit is open, the pattern on the plate is a
diffraction pattern, a fairly narrow central band with dimmer bands
parallel to it on each side. When both slits are open, the pattern
displayed becomes very much more detailed and at least four times as
wide."



Wikipedia continues with:



"The most baffling part of this experiment comes when only one photon
at a time is fired at the barrier with both slits open. The pattern of
interference remains the same as can be seen if many photons are
emitted one at a time and recorded on the same sheet of photographic
film. The clear implication is that something with a wavelike nature
passes simultaneously through both slits and interferes with itself -
even though there is only one photon present. (The experiment works
with electrons, atoms, and even some molecules too.)"

The clear implication of the above is that light, electrons, atoms and
some molecules are composed of waves, not particles. This has led many
researchers moving in many different directions, with results ranging
from the ridiculous to the divine. But no solid answers seem to have
appeared.

IMHO, it is a good assumption that there are real waves involved with
quantum objects.

OK but it seems that the double slit experiment is valid for light,
photons (whatever THEY are!) electrons, atoms and some molecules.

Your contention holds for light, photons and (maybe) electrons. Are you
now maintaining that atoms are quantum objects? What about molecules? At
what point does an object cease (or start) to be "quantum?"

Sure, atoms are quantum objects as well as simple molecules. There is
really not a clear cut "point" at which an object is either quantum or
classical. It mostly depends on how they are being observed. But all
classical objects are composed of quantum objects, of course.

Not to be confused with the "probability" waves of QM math. However, I
wouldn't rule out a particulate nature to quantum objects either since it
is needed for there to be real waves.



The Answer


The answer to this puzzle is, I believe, both straightforward and
non-quantum. In this note, I will deal solely with electrons. I believe
that the insights we may gain will be applicable to all aspects of this
little puzzle.



Since the mechanism for recording these "baffling" events is
photographic plates, and since the plates are sensitive to radiation,
let's look at where that radiation might come from.



The fundamental source for most, if not all radiation is the
acceleration of charges. And acceleration can take many forms. But only
one acceleration mechanism seems applicable to this particular problem.
That mechanism is called "Transition Radiation."



Quoting from Zolatarev and McDonald in "Classical Radiation Processes
in the Weizsacker-Williams Approximation," we read the following brief
description: "As a charged particle crosses, for example, a
vacuum/metal boundary, its interaction with charges in the material
results in their acceleration and hence radiation, commonly called
transition radiation."



It should be noted that this radiation is not coherent. Instead, it
will be wideband with spectra determined by the geometry of the slit,
the path of the electron(s) WRT the slit and the energy contained
therein. The radiation is in the Xray range.



The above explanation of Transition Radiation is what is going on at
each of the slits of a double slit experiment. The electron(s) interact
with the material at the boundary of the slit, causing radiation to
appear. It is this radiation that is captured on the photographic
plate.

I don't think so. I believe the way an electron experiment is done is
that it is actually an electron hitting the detection "plate" that is
recorded. And not radiation.

OK On what basis is this "belief" founded? Is there some sort of a filter
in front of the plate that filters out, say, Xrays? Or is the plate only
sensitive to electron impacts?

But wait... if an electron impacts, won't it just make a foggy little
spot?

Oh, I forgot. An electron is also a wave. So it will morph -- on
impact -- into a wave that just happens to have the exact pattern of
peaks and valleys as would have formed if another electron had
simultaneously gone through the other slit.

I think you need to do more research on how the electron experiments are
done.

Yeah. That's a LOT more sensible than my idea.

[snip radiation hypothesis]

Summary


This short note neither proves nor disproves the wave/particle duality
of the electron. It is entirely possible that an electron may be a
particle. Or it may be some form of wave function.

There is not much doubt in my mind that an electron has both particle
and wave properties. Why not just accept that it is both?

I guess that I don't want to blindly accept something that does not seem
to SOLVE one of the biggest unsolved puzzles (that I can think of) in EM
today. That puzzle is: How can a single photon/electron/atom/molecule
"know" about the presence or absence of the second slit?

Hint: Accepting that electrons have both properties does NOT answer the
above question. (Unless, along with the properties of a wave and a
particle, an electron ALSO has sentience.)

If an electron has real wave properties it definitely explains the
phenomenon. No "sentience" is needed.

Yes, sentience is required. Remember, we are talking about one electron

Why does it have to be one or the other? Neutrinos and relativistic
effects are the clue.

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.

Sorry, no it doesn't.

Because...?

Because the detectors are detecting electrons and not radiation.

Thanks for the reply, Fred.

Your most welcome.

Best,

Fred Diether
Co-moderator sci.physics.foundations

On May 20, 4:15 pm, "Bill Miller" <billmillerkt... at (no spam) worldnet.att.net
wrote:

Summary

This short note neither proves nor disproves the wave/particle duality of
the electron. It is entirely possible that an electron may be a particle.
Or
it may be some form of wave function.

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.

Nice try Bill! Too bad your theory has a couple of holes in it.

Here's why. First off, it is NOT any radiation that is interacting at
the detector to form the pattern. The reason is that one can use
various detectors instead of film. The rate and transfer time of
energy in say the photoelectric effect is such that WAVES or radiation
CANNOT be the mechanism!

effect of some kind. In other words what is happening would be the
DEFLECTION of the electrons after they leave the slit.

your theory to conform to observations you have the electrons hurtling
toward the slits. They enter one of them and excite that "slot
antenna" as well as the second antenna as a "parasitic element". Then
the electron leaves it's slit and proceeds toward the detector. The
electron strikes the detector creating a flash at one point in space.

BUT, "somehow" the radiation it induced in the slits can cause the
trajectory of the electron to be altered after it leaves the slit in
such a way that on average they tend to be deflected into angles that
result in a pattern corresponding to the traditional double slit
diffraction pattern.

While the "slot antenna" idea is a good one, as is the idea of the
second slit being a parasitic element to the driven slit, there are I
believe two problems with that. One is that the characteristics of the
slot antenna depends on the material from which it is made. Metal or
plastic (conductor or insulator) makes a difference.

only need be opaque. Plus causality demands a time delay between the
driven element and the parasitic one. This means that the pattern
with an electron going through the right slit will be different from
the pattern with the electron going through the left slit.

Finally we have the problem of the experiment working not only with
electrons (which are traditionally used to drive antennas) but also
the experiment also works with molecules, neutrons and photons which
are electrically neutral. So this means one has to explain how
neutral currents can drive an aperture antenna.

But the bottom line, however, is that you've got the thinking started
in what I believe to be the correct direction. Namely, to say "Well,
just how COULD these experimental results arise from the physics we
know?" rather than the usual approach of just throwing up one's hands
and saying "It simply can never be known!".

Benj

"Bill Miller"

It should be noted that this radiation is not coherent. Instead, it will
be wideband with spectra determined by the geometry of the slit, the path
of the electron(s) WRT the slit and the energy contained therein. The
radiation is in the Xray range.

In the first experiment by Davison and Germer they used 75eV electrons.
There no Xray.

So I agree with FrediFizzx: "I believe the way an electron experiment is
done is that it is actually an electron hitting the detection "plate" that
is recorded. And not radiation."

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.

There MUST be " a reasonable explanation for the double slit puzzle." But
I see more chances in reflection from the atoms in the slit. Electrons
reflect not only from external atoms but also from deep ones. Such can
travel only in the directions between the external atoms. So a pattern
must appear.

S*

"FrediFizzx" <fredifizzx at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:69jgjjF328ntjU1 at (no spam) mid.individual.net...
"Bill Miller" <billmillerkt4ye at (no spam) worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:cMYYj.3488$j41.229 at (no spam) bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...

Hint: Accepting that electrons have both properties does NOT answer
the above question. (Unless, along with the properties of a wave and
a particle, an electron ALSO has sentience.)

If an electron has real wave properties it definitely explains the
phenomenon. No "sentience" is needed.

Yes, sentience is required. Remember, we are talking about one
electron going through one slit. When One slit is present we measure
wave pattern "A" When two slits are present, we measure wave pattern
B. A and B are not the same. With your hypothesis, there is no way
that the electron (or photon, or atom or molecule or BRICK) can know
anything about the presence of the second slit.

"Szczepan Bia³ek" <sz.bialek at (no spam) wp.pl> wrote in message
news:g11jbj$vcs$1 at (no spam) node1.news.atman.pl...

"Bill Miller"

It should be noted that this radiation is not coherent. Instead, it
will be wideband with spectra determined by the geometry of the
slit, the path of the electron(s) WRT the slit and the energy
contained therein. The radiation is in the Xray range.

In the first experiment by Davison and Germer they used 75eV
electrons. There no Xray.

Thanks for the nudge. I re-read Kirk's paper and realized that the
Xray reference was an UPPER LIMIT for this phenomenon. I've sent him
an Email to see if he can explain the expected spectrum. Also,
"typical" Xray generation involves electrons smashing into stationary
items. Transition Radiation is a different mechanism, and that MAY
allow Xray generation at lower eV levels. (Or it May not!)

So I agree with FrediFizzx: "I believe the way an electron experiment
is done is that it is actually an electron hitting the detection
"plate" that is recorded. And not radiation."

Belief is a wonderful thing. It can substitute for facts in almost any
environment! But don't forget that the SAME RESULTS are found with
light radiation.