Rethinking the Double Slit Experiment by Ke Xiao

Eric Reiter

I read enough. I think you did great with your math, but I disagree with your philosophy and how you used the math. I read enough to see you still use wave interference. I quote you: " This model clearly displays the particle-wave duality by particle scattering and wave-interference."

You say you do not use wave interference, then you say you do. Too confusing.

I know full well the paradox of the double slit experiment and there was no need to explain that. There is no sense of doing my experiment with visible light. I explained in my essay that the properties of the gamma are necessary to see through the photon illusion. I am not down converting hf to half frequency to make two-for-one. They are full-height pulses. After I show how to get two-for-one, I am fully justified to say there are no photons. Just to be clear: there are no photons.

A gamma ray is not like a cosmic ray (which is matter and can split). Gamma is light. If I kill the photon with gamma, photon is dead. "Shut up and calculate" are empty words in the face of an experiment that keeps working.

You have not addressed the more important issues I brought up. Are you calculating edge effects? How would you explain neutron interferometry? I can. Your arguments against me are read poor.

I like your math and it seems there is lots to learn from you about the fine structure constant. You are just hung-up on particles the way everyone else is. We can expect that.

Thank you

[deleted]

Je Xiao wrote "experimental reality". Hm. I do not refer to the special case. I would just like to remind of the experiments by Nimtz proving superluminal propagation of light signals and of the unexpected until now MMX. Errare humanum est. Nature is always right. Otto Gericke demonstrated that there is a space without air in it. It would be premature to infer that the space without electric fields in it is the same as the space outside Faraday's cage.

Eckard

Constantinos Ragazas

Dear Eckard,

... insightful comments, as always. Yes it is rather strange how our explanations of experimental outcomes become "experimental reality". Though I see this as "human nature", what I find difficult to accept is the twisting and distorting of that nature to explain Nature!

Cheers,

Constantinos

[deleted]

Dear Eric Stanley Reiter,

You still not yet understood my idea that is combined the particle-scattering and wave-interference in the double slit experiments. The paradox of double slit experiment need explanation, and so does the wave-particle duality. You said "there was need to explain that" then you are simply quitting from this topic.

How to explain your gamma-ray experiment is your job. How to approve "there is no photon" is also your problem. This essay only deal with the double slit experiment.

You said: "How would you explain neutron interferometry? I can." I like to hear that in detail.

Edwin Klingman

Dear Ke Xiao,

A very impressive essay. Thank you for contributing it.

I hope you can explain a few things for me. First, in your equation (2) you have two equal signs. The first equal sign is of course the definition of the fine structure constant. It is the second equal sign that I am confused about. Are you saying that (alpha)(h_bar) is *always* the value (p.r - Et) or are you specifically instead choosing a case where it is assumed to be true? If it is always true, then all wave functions would simply have the same constant phase, would they not?

My next question is whether this relation is actually used in the calculations? On page 3 you use alpha in the Compton wavelength, but it is not clear to me that it is related to (p.r - Et) as much as to the geometry of the double slit experiment. Perhaps I am confused.

My next question is whether the Compton scattering is with a bound electron in the slit edge?

I think your essay is very important and I would like to understand it. Perhaps after I understand these points I will be able to ask further questions.

Although the question of the value of the fine structure constant (and Boltzmann's constant) are very important, as they couple and/or scale the physics, I am most interested in understanding your explanation of the physics of the double slit.

Thank you for your response.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

[deleted]

Dear Edwin Eugene Klingman,

I am very glad to see somebody from NASA. I was a project leader for NASA and DOE program at 1980s. You also asked the good questions:

(1) In the equation (2), the first equal sign with and - are for the different charges e2/c, and importantly, the second equal sign link to the same dimensional pr and Et. However, The value of (p.r-Et) may be not "always" equal. If you understand the concept of Heisenberg S-matrix (scattering matrix), you will better understand this equation.

(2) The particle scattering is a very complicated process, depending the type of particles. Therefore, the free electron and bonding electron must calculated differently. I remember Feynman have calculated the bonding electron for the magnetic momentum, and claimed the Schwinger relation of free electron anomaly ae=alpha/2pi should also worked for the bonding electron. However, there are always small difference on the higher order calculations.

(3) My essay here is a shorten version of the original paper accepted for the Journal of theoretical physics. I did not rewrite it for the "Questioning the Foundations: Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?" Therefore, I did not claim the incorrectness of Huygens-Fresnel drawing in classical physics text book. In fact, we all taught wrong at high school, then confused in the rest of life. Many people think they know the double slit but in fact not. This is a central problem for the quantum theory as Feynman point out.

(4) My essay shows the real calculations for many different types of the double slit experiments. The most importantly, how the two slit are linked together in equation (6). I am trying to show how particle-scattering and wave-interference worked together as the space-time model. Please sent an email if you like to talk more (address in my essay)

Yours,

Ke Xiao

[deleted]

Hi, dear Ke,

I have seen your essay just now and immediately have decide give 10 ball for it(as per as I known your works already!) I hope you will find some time to study mine work and apprised it.

essay

Best wishes,

[deleted]

Dear George,

Thank you! and I will read your essay later.

Best wishes.

Sergey Fedosin

If you do not understand why your rating dropped down. As I found ratings in the contest are calculated in the next way. Suppose your rating is [math]R_1 [/math] and [math]N_1 [/math] was the quantity of people which gave you ratings. Then you have [math]S_1=R_1 N_1 [/math] of points. After it anyone give you [math]dS [/math] of points so you have [math]S_2=S_1+ dS [/math] of points and [math]N_2=N_1+1 [/math] is the common quantity of the people which gave you ratings. At the same time you will have [math]S_2=R_2 N_2 [/math] of points. From here, if you want to be R2 > R1 there must be: [math]S_2/ N_2>S_1/ N_1 [/math] or [math] (S_1+ dS) / (N_1+1) >S_1/ N_1 [/math] or [math] dS >S_1/ N_1 =R_1[/math] In other words if you want to increase rating of anyone you must give him more points [math]dS [/math] then the participant`s rating [math]R_1 [/math] was at the moment you rated him. From here it is seen that in the contest are special rules for ratings. And from here there are misunderstanding of some participants what is happened with their ratings. Moreover since community ratings are hided some participants do not sure how increase ratings of others and gives them maximum 10 points. But in the case the scale from 1 to 10 of points do not work, and some essays are overestimated and some essays are drop down. In my opinion it is a bad problem with this Contest rating process. I hope the FQXI community will change the rating process.

Sergey Fedosin

« Previous Page