Re: Logic behind wave from single electron's double slit experiment ?
- From: "guskz@xxxxxxxxxxx" <guskz@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 14 Apr 2007 12:42:06 -0700
On Apr 14, 1:15 pm, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <d...@xxxxxxx>
wrote:
Dear guskz:
<g...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1176561460.874834.291610@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Apr 12, 10:02 pm, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)"
<d...@xxxxxxx>
wrote:
Dear guskz:
...<g...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
In #2, don't electrons generate an EM field, even
in a vacuum chamber instead of a wire?
Only if they are accelerated, are photons emitted.
I can't believe an electron whom perpetually has a
charge doesn't perpetually have some sort of less
denser field then it, surrounding it?
Charge. Not EM per se. You are so busy using standard words in
non-standard ways, I am hoping to see the difficulties you create
for your self.
Doesn't Maxwell's equations begin with a charge(2D) then this same
equation's deriviatives lead to fields(3d Volume)???
A charge is basically an electric force in one direction, that
direction cannot be gained unless INITIALY the acting party is casting
his web(field) in all directions.
Gravity(field) is in all directions until a relation between a 2nd
entity(mass) is established which then becomes a Force(charge) between
both parties(both masses) involved?
Are they still non-standard ways?
3. If so then could it be its EM field(same as a
light wave) is generating the interference pattern
(using two slits) instead of the electron....or would
that form a much weaker (less intense) pattern
then that of the electron??
Neutrons have no net charge,
Is that a play on words "net"....
No, it means they are comprised of three charged quarks, that net
to zero macroscopic charge. No charge field for you to worry
about.
How about any other possible field around the Neutron (other then
charge)??
ok but they must have some sort of field surrounding
them during any circumstance (even if it be due to
it's quarks, gluons?)
They have:
- continuous behavior like waves
Could any of those waves be split by the two slits into two replica
waves?
- discrete behavior like particleshmmm
- mass
- spin
- contents (the quarks).
Mass lets them affect other masses and spacetime.
and form a diffraction pattern based
can't the diffraction be from the Neutron's field...
No, the diffraction comes from the experiment where we enhance /
invoke the continuous nature of everything.
FIRSTLY: in the slit experiment not all emitted single
Neutron's pass through the slit some hit the walls and
DO NOT PASS THROUGH
But more pass through two slits, than 2x the number that pass
through 1 slit. Same for n slits.
That seems to be contradicting because I just read that ***MOST*** of
the single emitted neutrons hit the wall instead of going through any
slit, therefore most comprehensibly more would pass through one slit
then two slits.
Since as you say (are you positive??) more pass through 2 slits then
only 1 slit, conclusive logic would prevail that there is "very
little" chance that it wouldn't pass through a slit (yet I just read
"most" neutrons hit the wall and don't pass through any slit).
THERE MUST BE A LAW OF LOGIC, which is if a
neutron doesn't always pass through a slit, how can it
***always*** pass two slits simultaneously....
Simple, the neutron is also continuous.
If it where continuous then it wouldn't be hitting the wall more often
then passing through a slit. Clearly you see something's wrong here,
for your explanation is incorrect?
Because you want to ignore this demonstrable fact, doesn't mean
that Nature cares what you want. "It must be one or the other"
carries no weight. The categories you seek to impress don't come
from Nature, they are a contrivance of Man... Man who is the
"contained", not the "container". Perhaps our logic is not big
enough yet?
Does the saying "When the only tool you have is a hammer,
everthing starts to look like a nail" have any similarity, if you
substitute "particle detector" for hammer, and "particle" for
nail?
I think you mean a "wave" for a nail? (photons(hammer) cause electrons
to vibrate = wave and thus emit a NEW EM_field about them?)
Ok but by saying this, your acknowledging that the hammer could be
turning it into a wave.
------------------------------------
Also it's a LOCALISED wave where as the EM_field is not as
localised(as dense)...my approach is that you are permitting an
electron to not always have a field (thus this wave (this EM_Field) is
"permitted" to disappear(no fields when the electron goes through the
slits) into nothingness(as soon as the electron stops vibrating/
accelerating) thus non-localised) where as the electron itself(the
localised wave must be Annihilated (thus more particle then wave) in
order to dissapear).
I'm not saying the electron is not always a wave (core of enery), I'm
saying it's more localised in the "fashion" as to be more of a
particle then wave and in so much that it cannot be at two places
(beyond it's core diameter...hence the two slits) at once.
David A. Smith
"God doesn't play dice" for there is no Uncertainty.
If this Princip..al told you to jump over the bridge, why would you or
anybody BELIEVE IN IT...for itself is Uncertain?
.
- Follow-Ups:
- References:
- Logic behind wave from single electron's double slit experiment ?
- From: guskz@xxxxxxxxxxx
- Re: Logic behind wave from single electron's double slit experiment ?
- From: N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)
- Re: Logic behind wave from single electron's double slit experiment ?
- From: guskz@xxxxxxxxxxx
- Re: Logic behind wave from single electron's double slit experiment ?
- From: N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)
- Logic behind wave from single electron's double slit experiment ?
- Prev by Date: Re: Gisse's EM Equilibrium
- Next by Date: Re: Logic behind wave from single electron's double slit experiment ?
- Previous by thread: Re: Logic behind wave from single electron's double slit experiment ?
- Next by thread: Re: Logic behind wave from single electron's double slit experiment ?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
