Terry Giblin Double Split Experiment

[Terry Giblin]

“Can the Young's Double Split Experiment, be improved?”

"The Uncertainty Principle says that such a better experiment does not exist."

Einstein tried in vain, to devise a better measurement.

"Many good men have tried"

The problem is with the first statement, it implies that experiment itself is incomplete, and by doing so defend it's own uncertainty principle.

The Uncertainty Principle is just one of several deduced from the Schrodinger Equation.

From the Schrodinger equation, the wavefunction of the electron can be shown to be

L = h / (2 * m ( E - V ))^1/2

L is the wavelength and ( E – V ) is the kinetic energy of the particle.

Important to note

The wavelength increases as the kinetic energy decreases, and is infinite when the particle is at rest.

Or more importantly, at the moment an electron is at rest, its position is known but cannot be read, accept to say that with a probability of 1 it is within the infinitesimal volume element, defined by the experiment.

This equation also implies that an electron and a photon cannot, exist together.

Either an electron or photon, but not both!

Two electrons cannot occupy the space therefore neither can two photons.

As this theory predicted and has been experimentally verified and confirmed repeatedly by the YDSE, when an electron is allowed to come to rest, without external interference, all possible wavelengths must be superimposed.

A theory can stand up to many tests, but will eventual fail if proven wrong by one.

Change the probability of 1, of the electron being at rest mass by as much as the uncertainty principle value, and its kinetic energy (E-V) will always be greater than zero. - simply wait for the experiment to finish completely and analysis the results, objectively and truthly.

The path of the electron only comes into existence if we attempt to observe it.

Which immediately raises the question, "what is an electron?", "what is a photon?"

They say a picture paints a thousand words (small picture attachment).

Is duality a property of the electron or photon, or that of the observer.

Chaos may prevail but it is left to the electron or photon to decide, using a six dimensional dice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Terry Giblin Double Split Theory

TG = OCS

 

[Terry Giblin]

Remember - Don't shoot the Messenger

Ask the only question scientists was afraid to ask?

Which experiment did scientists, devoted a great deal of time trying to devise a better measurement, all attempts failed?

Which field of physics did scientists disagree with until there was no one left to argue with?

Which group of individuals, first coined the phase,

“The first rule is, “To join this club, your are not allow to ask, what an “electron” or “photon” is?”

“The second rule is, “To join this club, your not allow to ask what an “electron” or “photon” is?”

Did science eventually join the club or was he pushed or did he jump?

I would love to know which Physicist had the job to explain the rules of the club, to scientists?

Did scientists ask the question or was he afraid too?

Can your think of two identical but opposite experiments, involving the creation of one from the other and vice-verse, in which the experiments themselves, are also unique, in that they both avoid and defy the Uncertainty Principle, as predicted by the underlying harmonic theorem.

According to the current understanding and knowledge on the subject of quantum mechanics the only time the Uncertainty Principle can be avoided and therefore broken, is at the precise moment, when quantum mechanics makes physical contact and touches both general relativity and classical mechanics.

If you accept “The Uncertainty Principle”, without fully understanding and appreciating the true underlying theorems, from which it and quantum mechanics were derived.

If you also agree with the currently held belief, regarding the possibility of improving such an experiment, that Einstein has already attempted, in vain, is truly dead and buried – unfortunately along with all its secretes as well.

Then you have obviously joined the club……………

However if you’re not yet a member of the club,

Can you improve the accuracy of measurement for the YSDE, if you think it needs improving to begin with?

Or can you think of an identical experiment, but in the opposite direction?
(Light ==== > matter)

Can you improve the YDSE by removing the only unknown, in the whole experiment?

The identical experiment to the YDSE, involving single electrons, in reverse direction, is the Quantum Tunnelling affect. (Unless your one of the club and you really believe the electron went through the wall – unless you also believe in tachyons or not?)

The electron used in the current YDSE, is a known ‘particle’ from a metal target. Using the same basic theorem, electron’s created in Quantum Tunnelling, are by their very nature, true quantum electrons.

The Terry Giblin Double Split Experiment is therefore a very simply but cleaver modification to the original experiment.

Simply replace the electron ‘gun’ with an electron-tunnelling device, which by their concept and design generate, a single ‘quantum’ electron, as necessary for the next part of the experiment.

Instead of testing for an electron allow the quantum electron to pass through the double slits experiment, to see if an electron distribution or interference pattern is produced.

It would be the same experiment, as the YDSE, but using different flavoured electrons?

Would changing the flavour or colour, of the electrons, change the expected results?

The true theorem behind both the YDSE and Quantum Tunnelling and the whole of quantum mechanics, is Harmonics.

And how it relates to the true properties and understanding of the photons, electrons and possibly quarks and other dimensions?

The Answer:

The electron and photon are the only two possible outcome’s, of the singularity, as the specified of equations of ‘harmonics’, when the electron or particle comes to rest, as in the case of the YDSE.

As the mathematical theory on which quantum mechanics, general relativity, optics, electron magnetism, are all based on, predicts.

“Wavelengths increases as the kinetic energy decreases, and is infinite when a particle is at rest.” – (P.W. ATKINS Physical Chemistry Second Edition)


“In the limit of total localization at a precisely specified point, all possible wavelengths must be superimposed.” – (P.W. ATKINS Physical Chemistry Second Edition)

Especially when the ‘infinitesimal volume element’, as per its own definition, is satisfied by the simple constraints of the physical experiment, which exceeds the limits imposed, greater and more accurate, than that required of the uncertainty principle, if it applied. - As derived from the underlying, harmonic equations.

If someone, had only ask the question.

What is an electron?

What is a photon?

Answer:

Super Strings or Harmonics?

Is it so surprising that gravity and ‘gravity waves’ as predicted by General Relativity travels at the ‘speed of light’?

A knife in the GUT’s, for the past 80 years and counting.

Right idea wrong direction – and the good thing is that this theory can and has been tested many times before and in the near future in CERN. - I will see if my idea of the Standard Model is correct or not

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Terry Giblin Double Split Theory

TG = OCS

 

[Terry Giblin]

Flight Club - for scientists Quantum electron vs particle electron

“Physics now a day’s gives far more emphasis to calculational techniques -- how do you estimate the ionization energy of a Helium atom?

Second, a physicist is assumed to a fair amount of physical intuition, and works hard at developing the corresponding mathematical formalism to ensure we conform to the accepted rules.

Mathematicians, however, find this formalism quite easy -- leading some to say that QM is nothing more than Schur's Lemma and the spectral theorem!

However, relating this formalism to physical reality is, for mathematicians, very difficult.

Whilst Physicists spend effort developing the mathematical machinery, should learn to look backwards to see if we are moving in the right direction.

The basic "paradox" is whether an electron is a particle or a wave.

A physicist is taught to learn to accept, that an electron has both particle-like and wave-like properties, and slowly learns about wave packets, Fourier transforms, etc, as a means of modeling this bizarre fact.

And therefore never grasping the real truth, until it hits you like a tidal gravity wave.

A mathematician sees no paradox at all --- an electron's wave function is just an element of the familiar Hilbert space $L^2(R^n)$.

But that resolution is useless if he can't then relate particle-like and wave-like properties to an element of $L^2$."

Neither description is right or wrong, until we can truly define what an electron is.

But are all Physicist and Mathematicians appear to be deaf?

Does the quantitative results produced by the YDSE and Quantum Tunnelling, not prove and therefore point us in the right direction?

We measure light in wavelengths, sound in DB’s and mass in kilograms, similar to plasma, gases, liquids / solids.

In the end, they are all different forms of the same basic harmonics.

What would an Opera be without Opera Singers and an Orchestra?

Should we be surprised to discover gravity, travels at the speed of light?

Should we be surprised to learn about gravity waves?

Should we be surprised to learn that the speed of light is constant?

A particle with mass can never reach the speed of light, if acted apon by an external force.

“Matter cannot be create nor destroyed, only change form.”

However if no external force is applied, when a single quantum electron comes to rest, the wave-function wavelength of the particle is infinite and superimposed.

The YDSE, which is not restricted by the principles behind quantum mechanics and can therefore defy the uncertainty principle, by their own definition.

This is where quantum mechanics is connected and to general relativity and standard classical physics.

E = mc^2

As rest, m=c or c=m depending on your point of view.

E= c^3 or m^3

C = d/t

where d = 1/h (infinitesimal volume element) = 1

The equation therefore becomes,

E = 1/t^3

I find this result interesting in that it obviously implies a relationship between energy and the dimension of time.

Time cubed is the sum of all the energy in the universe?

However considering the reverse process, it also therefore implies that time can only begin when the universe is at rest, hence the big bang.

Apply the above equation the 3-D Time, within an infinitesimal volume element, (1/h^3), which is in equilibrium, and will continue to grow provided energy within the system continues to increase accordingly.

Or

The rate of growth of the quantum dimensional space-time in a 3-D universe is proportional to the total sum of all the energy in the whole system.

Is the word “time” not simply miss calculated and not another simple definition of Entropy?

In order to calculate the total entropy, in the universe, you must be able to calculate all the energy created, since time began.

Entropy would be the scientist’s first choice, but I strongly recommend we keep time and drop entropy (or tell students their not allowed to ask the question, if they want to join our flight club)

Join Fight Club – Don’t be afraid to ask what an electron is?

Until we get an answer, and before we try explaining everything, based on an electron or photon, from “quarks to quasars” – is this not the fundamental question?


An Opera is first heard in the composer’s head, before he writes down the equations

Or

Sometimes the music can be seen through the eyes of the musical harmonic equations, similar to the String Theories.

Singularities to mathematician’s, is music to musician.

I’m happy I live in the real world with quantum mechanics, where everything is possible. It’s only the single events which cannot be explain, and are therefore excluded by definition of the underlying principles of QM. Which are the domain of other harmonic solutions.

In the real world, sum’s to infinity do occur, no matter how many times I tell myself, you can half the distance between two points. They will eventually touch, but if they are already a wave-function and simply overlap or superimpose, will they even notice – like two p-branes surfaces touching to form a photon or electron.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Terry Giblin Double Split Theory

TG = OCS

 

[Terry Giblin]

Where did those curtains come from?

I have never seen or observed either the YDSE or quantum tunnelling experiment and unfortunately, I do not have access to a lab.

I always used the model of a tennis ball against a wall with two windows in and Mam shouting, "Where did those curtains come from?"

Another example of mind over matter, which raises the immediate question, so exactly...

"What is an electron and photon, that I have in my hand?"

- if not simple manifestations of the same thing. One with and one without harmonic impedance, alternative solutions to the same underlying harmonic mathematical physics"

Super-String or Super-Harmonics, in a 10 or 11 Dimensional Super Cloud of rains droplets?

Reality is more bizzar than fiction, true or false?

"I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it" - The Photon.

"The path of the electron only exists when we attempt to observe it"

So if anyone decides to perform the experiment I have described above.

I would appreciate it, if you could let me know.

Regards

Terry Giblin

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Terry Giblin Double Split Theory

TG = OCS

 

[Terry Giblin]

Here is a reply, I have sent to a question regarding converting light ==> matter.

What does the photon - electron phase diagram or cycle or process, look like?

How can I convert a bag of photons into electrons, directly or indirectly, without contaminating the experiment, by involve any other form of matter, ie using a target already containing 'particle' electrons?"

This would help greatly in my current discussions.

-------------------------------------------------------------
The Terry Giblin Double Split Theory

TG = OCS

 

[selfAdjoint]

Here is a reply, I have sent to a question regarding converting light ==> matter.

What does the photon - electron phase diagram or cycle or process, look like?

How can I convert a bag of photons into electrons, directly or indirectly, without contaminating the experiment, by involve any other form of matter, ie using a target already containing 'particle' electrons?"

This would help greatly in my current discussions.

-------------------------------------------------------------
The Terry Giblin Double Split Theory

TG = OCS

Well you can't literally do that. Photons won't enter into "pair production", by which they give up their energy and momentum to a particle and its antiparticle, without some interaction with other matter. This is what I was told by several knowledgeable folks when I wondered why photons coming to us from remote regions don't break down on the way.

 

[Terry Giblin]

In 1988 I wrote a maths paper, quoting various theories and processes by which electrons and photons could be produced.

Penrose 1969, Harrison 1976, Lovelace 1976, Blandford and Znajek 1977, Lovelace 1979, Kafatos 1980 and Phinney 1983. Discuss various theories of converting up to 29% of a rest-mass energy, into either electrons or photons, from various electrified, dynamo processes.

You might be surprised.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Terry Giblin Double Split Theory

TG = OCS

 

[Terry Giblin]

It has recently came to my attention a very good reason why I have never seen the wave intereference pattern produced by single electrons.

Therefore the concept of replacing the flavour the electron, from a "particle electron" to a "quantum electron" from the a single Quantum Tunnelling device.

Hence a good thought experiment, now with an even more improved experiment, with a predictable outcome.

But first we have to ask, "What is an electron?" and "What is a photon?"

"I do not suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it" - ask the photon, he said it first.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Terry Giblin Double Split Theory

TG = OCS

 

[Terry Giblin]

So who currently, own's the patient on the electron?

A personal theory is like your own professional reputation.

It can be proven correct many times over many years - but it only takes one valid example of proof, to be proven wrong.

Todate my professional reputation has never been questioned or challenged.

However this is my first venture into Physics in many years and I still have a lot to learn.

I would therefore appreciate any constructive advice, I too am willing to listen and learn.

If I'm wrong, can someone please simply explain why and simply tell me what is an electron?

Who currently own's the patient on the electron? - Physicist or Mathematicians - It would appear that, even this is debateable.

Regards

Terry Giblin


"I do not suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it" - ask the photon, he said it first.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Terry Giblin Double Split Theory

TG = OCS

 

[Terry Giblin]

Even Students need to earn a living

For my daughters birthday, I have promised, that I will not annoy her any more regarding the electron of shock wave formation, and will try to find an answer for her.

Which is why I would like to set the following Physics and Maths challenge.

Physics and Chess Challenge.

Anyone student working or living in Switzerland, how can answer anyone or all of the above questions, including "What is an electron?" and wins at chess, will receive a 500 CHF research grant.

Math's and Chess Challenge.

Anyone student working or living in Switzerland, how can answer anyone or all of the above questions, and including "How many corners?" must a shock wave travel round and wins at chess, will receive a 500 CHF research grant.

Anyone wishing to claim the prize has only until the 10th June, to apply and win.

Regards

Terry Giblin

 

[Terry Giblin]

A Theory can only be proven wrong

For my daughters birthday, I have promised, that I will not annoy her any more regarding the electron of shock wave formation, and will try to find an answer for her.

Which is why I would like to set the following Physics and Maths challenge.

Physics and Chess Challenge.

Anyone student working or living in Switzerland, how can answer anyone or all of the above questions, including "What is an electron?" and wins at chess, will receive a 500 CHF research grant.

Math's and Chess Challenge.

Anyone student working or living in Switzerland, how can answer anyone or all of the above questions, and including "How many corners?" must a shock wave travel round and wins at chess, will receive a 500 CHF research grant.

Anyone wishing to claim the prize has only until the 10th June, to apply and win.

Regards

Terry Giblin

As stated previously, a Math's or Physics theory can never be proven correct it can only be proven wrong, by anyone example.

 

[selfAdjoint]

As stated previously, a Math's or Physics theory can never be proven correct it can only be proven wrong, by anyone example.

That's true about physics but not about math.

 

[Terry Giblin]

Is Mathematics not under the same rule as Science

That's true about physics but not about math.

Newton's laws of motion, are mathematical equations and have been proved many times but Einstein, showed that they need to be modified under extreme conditions.

That is not to say Newton’s equations are wrong, but mathematical theorems are still only theorems, they can be independently verified many times but it only takes one example to prove they might or can be improved apon.

Depending on which field of Physics and Mathematics you are studying.

Regards

Terry Giblin

"I do not suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it" - ask the photon, he said it first.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Terry Giblin Double Split Theory

TG = OCS

 

[Terry Giblin]

What is Gravity?

Newton using his own imagination, physics and mathematical abilities, formulate and wrote down mathematical equations, to allow us to predict the path and motion of objects, under the influence of gravity.

Einstein wrote Special and General Relativity, which made for used us to modify our perception of the universe, re-writing or enhancing Newton’s original work.

The standard common physics model describes elementary particles physics to the Bang Bang.

Yet no one can simply explain how gravity actually works or what a graviton is?

If Gravity is the weakest, of the four forces, in nature,.

Which other of the three forces in nature, has the strength to control and affect a passing light photon?

Regards

Terry Giblin


"I do not suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it" - ask the photon, he said it first.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Terry Giblin Double Split Theory

TG = OCS

 

[Terry Giblin]

Working Class Hero - John Lennon

"As soon as your born they make you feel small
by giving you no time instead of it all
Till the pain is so big you feel nothing at all
Working Class Hero is something to be

They hurt you at home and they hit you at school
They hate you if you're clever and despise a fool
Till you're so f* crazy you can't follow their rules
Working Class Hero is something to be

When they've tortured and scared you for 20 odd years
then they expect you to pick a career
When you can't really function you're so full of fear
Working Class Hero is something to be

Keep you doped with religon, sex and T.V.
and you think you're so clever and classless and free
but you're still f* peasents as far as I can see
Working Class Hero is something to be

There's room at the top I'm telling you still
but first you must learn how to smile as you kill
if you want to be like the folks on the hill
Working Class Hero is something to be

Yes , A Working Class Hero is something to be
If you want to be a hero well just follow me
If you want to be a hero well just follow me"


I'm a scientist not a killer...ask MMD

Check Mate!

Regards

Terry Giblin


"I do not suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it" - ask the photon, he said it first.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Terry Giblin Double Split Theory

TG = OCS

 

[connect]

I have been trying to communicate a model or framework that I believe accounts for all forces in the universe. Check this thread, https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=33096 - I am looking for people to dis-credit it, I believe it accounts for all phenoma felt.

 

[Terry Giblin]

Physics Problems for the Next Millennium

Physics Problems for the Next Millennium - solved in one day!

Strings 2000 - David Gross - Physics Problems

"The ten most important unsolved problems in fundamental physics."

1 Are all the (measurable) dimensionless parameters that characterize the physical universe calculable in principle or are some merely determined by historical or quantum mechanical accident and uncalculable?
David Gross, Institute for Theoretical Physics, University of California, Santa Barbara

2 How can quantum gravity help explain the origin of the universe?
Edward Witten, California Institute of Technology and Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton

3 What is the lifetime of the proton and how do we understand it?
Steve Gubser, Princeton University and California Institute of Technology

4 Is Nature supersymmetric, and if so, how is supersymmetry broken?
Sergio Ferrara, CERN (European Laboratory of Particle Physics)
Gordon Kane, University of Michigan

5 Why does the universe appear to have one time and three space dimensions?
Shamit Kachru, University of California, Berkeley
Sunil Mukhi, Tata Institute of Fundamental Research
Hiroshi Ooguri, California Institute of Technology

6 Why does the cosmological constant have the value that it has, is it zero and is it really constant?
Andrew Chamblin, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Renata Kallosh, Stanford University

7 What are the fundamental degrees of freedom of M-theory (the theory whose low-energy limit is eleven-dimensional supergravity and which subsumes the five consistent superstring theories) and does the theory describe Nature?
Louise Dolan, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
Annamaria Sinkovics, Spinoza Institute
Billy & Linda Rose, San Antonio College

8 What is the resolution of the black hole information paradox?
Tibra Ali, Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics, Cambridge
Samir Mathur, Ohio State University

9 What physics explains the enormous disparity between the gravitational scale and the typical mass scale of the elementary particles?
Matt Strassler, Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton

10 Can we quantitatively understand quark and gluon confinement in Quantum Chromodynamics and the existence of a mass gap?
Igor Klebanov, Princeton University
Oyvind Tafjord, McGill University

Once the true and full understanding of the physics of nature and the universe are understood.

The above questions become trival and easy to understand and solve.

Regards

Terry Giblin

 

[selfAdjoint]

Once the true and full understanding of the physics of nature and the universe are understood.

The above questions become trival and easy to understand and solve.

Oh, very true, but nobody has that yet.

 

[Terry Giblin]

"wheel-barrow" or "Super Cloud"

Oh, very true, but nobody has that yet.

Assuming we did have the answers to these questions, what benefit would they bring to humanity?

I am not saying my version of a "wheel-barrow" or "Super Cloud" is the correct one, but it seems to help us see over far more walls than the current accepted visions.

With all the information and data regarding the properties of an electron, can someone simply explain what the currently excepted theory is involving the electron?

"What is an electron?"

Or at least give me an opportunity to discuss my ideas before going public.

Regards

Terry Giblin

 

[Terry Giblin]

So long and thanks for all the fish...

Here is one final test,

CH, UK, NZ, NL, AU, CSF, MC, DPP, INFORMATE, NG, AJILON, JWA, ADECCO, JB, MCKINSEY, RR, NEWCASTLE, ORANGE, JWW, IIMT, OFCOM, TCC...MMD

Regards

Terry Giblin


"I do not suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it" - ask the photon, he said it first.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Terry Giblin Double Split Theory

TG = OCS

 

[Terry Giblin]

The book with all the answers

Here is one final test,

CH, UK, NZ, NL, AU, CSF, MC, DPP, INFORMATE, NG, AJILON, JWA, ADECCO, JB, MCKINSEY, RR, NEWCASTLE, ORANGE, JWW, IIMT, OFCOM, TCC...MMD

Regards

Terry Giblin


"I do not suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it" - ask the photon, he said it first.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Terry Giblin Double Split Theory

TG = OCS

I have discovered that the question I set earlier has already been solved and implemented, they have even wrote a book about it.

ISBN 3-906428-27-3

But they have discovered, that it contained to many truths and important factual information, so they have withdraw the book, immediately.

Can anyone help me find a copy?

Regards

Terry Giblin


"I do not suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it" - ask the photon, he said it first.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Terry Giblin Double Split Theory

TG = OCS

 

[pallidin]

"I do not suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it"

Hmmm... you've convinced me! See ya.

 

[anti_crank]

First of all, let me welcome you here, a wondrous place where insanity runs free, groundless theories from deluded minds take centre stage, and people such as myself apply our own brand of "cures" towards the previous category, trying to have fun all the while. Since you've asked for some information, I'll try to offer it as best I can. Do note that I am not an absolute authority on these things, and if you are looking for more specific information, I point you towards our other forums, which are populated by people sane enough to keep away from this particular place. Those who usually do come here end up leaving to go to the drugstore for various painkillers, but a few simple rules tend to assist in keeping away from the extra-strength bottle that you know the drugstore is keeping just for physicists: question them all you wish, and do not feel obligated to accept the answers you may receive, however, any and all alternative theories go in this place and nowhere else. (Also note that for future reference, it is generally bad etiquette to post multiple times in one thread without getting any replies; it may be seen as an attempt to artificially keep the thread on top. Of course, there are exceptions such as exceeding the message length of a single post, but the rule generally applies.) As for your posts, though I did re-read them several times, I was unable to make heads or tails of the theories (if any) that were placed there. That being the case, either the theory was so innovative that it managed to go completely over my head, or nothing coherent existed in the first place, but that's speculation on my part.

In any case, the current view is that the things we observe as electrons and photons are quanta of fields. The matter fields, namely the quarks and electrons, are largely postulated based on the need to accommodate the particles we observe. This view of particles as being excitations of their respective fields above the vacuum state explains all observed phenomena, including the fact that all electrons have the same intrinsic properties, the existence and behaviour of their antiparticles, the laws that govern their propagation (ie NRQM), and in the case of fermions, the need for an exclusion principle. Boson fields, the photon among them, appear in theories as means to impose local gauge symmetries on the particles; these symmetries are selected so that the resulting theories reproduce the observed interactions between the fermions. You have correctly identified a number of questions physics is attempting to answer. Personally I would add some questions to them and remove others. If you're suggesting that the authors you mention have actually solved them, then you are at best misinformed. Perhaps they proposed their own answers/views/theories of those things, but as a graduate student who is required to keep up to date with any such developments, I can assure you that neither their nor competing explanations are currently accepted as correct, and that experimental validation is lacking for all of them.

One final note of caution: you've stated that your professional reputation has never been challenged before, and I extend my congratulations on being highly successful in your current area of endeavor. However, theoretical physics is a highly advanced and very difficult field of study, and expertise in any other area (including classical physics) carries no weight here. Should you choose to venture in without any exposure to it, no one can be held responsible if you'll find your audience constantly searching for, and finding, holes in your ideas.

 

[JoeWade]

what exactly are you pushing here?

 

[Terry Giblin]

Prove me wrong if you can?

First of all, let me welcome you here, a wondrous place where insanity runs free, groundless theories from deluded minds take centre stage, and people such as myself apply our own brand of "cures" towards the previous category, trying to have fun all the while. Since you've asked for some information, I'll try to offer it as best I can. Do note that I am not an absolute authority on these things, and if you are looking for more specific information, I point you towards our other forums, which are populated by people sane enough to keep away from this particular place. Those who usually do come here end up leaving to go to the drugstore for various painkillers, but a few simple rules tend to assist in keeping away from the extra-strength bottle that you know the drugstore is keeping just for physicists: question them all you wish, and do not feel obligated to accept the answers you may receive, however, any and all alternative theories go in this place and nowhere else. (Also note that for future reference, it is generally bad etiquette to post multiple times in one thread without getting any replies; it may be seen as an attempt to artificially keep the thread on top. Of course, there are exceptions such as exceeding the message length of a single post, but the rule generally applies.) As for your posts, though I did re-read them several times, I was unable to make heads or tails of the theories (if any) that were placed there. That being the case, either the theory was so innovative that it managed to go completely over my head, or nothing coherent existed in the first place, but that's speculation on my part.

In any case, the current view is that the things we observe as electrons and photons are quanta of fields. The matter fields, namely the quarks and electrons, are largely postulated based on the need to accommodate the particles we observe. This view of particles as being excitations of their respective fields above the vacuum state explains all observed phenomena, including the fact that all electrons have the same intrinsic properties, the existence and behaviour of their antiparticles, the laws that govern their propagation (ie NRQM), and in the case of fermions, the need for an exclusion principle. Boson fields, the photon among them, appear in theories as means to impose local gauge symmetries on the particles; these symmetries are selected so that the resulting theories reproduce the observed interactions between the fermions. You have correctly identified a number of questions physics is attempting to answer. Personally I would add some questions to them and remove others. If you're suggesting that the authors you mention have actually solved them, then you are at best misinformed. Perhaps they proposed their own answers/views/theories of those things, but as a graduate student who is required to keep up to date with any such developments, I can assure you that neither their nor competing explanations are currently accepted as correct, and that experimental validation is lacking for all of them.

One final note of caution: you've stated that your professional reputation has never been challenged before, and I extend my congratulations on being highly successful in your current area of endeavor. However, theoretical physics is a highly advanced and very difficult field of study, and expertise in any other area (including classical physics) carries no weight here. Should you choose to venture in without any exposure to it, no one can be held responsible if you'll find your audience constantly searching for, and finding, holes in your ideas.

Dear anti_crank,

By implication of the title you have chosen to use, can I assume that you think that I too am a crank?

You can disagree with my options, but until someone finds a single whole in my theory, I am willing to stand by the theory which I have put forward.

Finding a valid solution to the YDSE, was difficult, finding an suitable audience was simple, trying to find some with the knowledge I am looking for has proven to be the hardest of all.

Or anyone to prove me wrong.

However

"You should never mix business with pleasure"

But "cause and effect", can have very powerful benefits.

Theoretical Physics has always been my first pleasure, but I preferred to learn the principles rather than get bogged down in the detailed mathematics of the subject.

Mathematics or statistics and Physics are the titles to subjects we use to apply rules to the world we experience and live in.

Which came first, The Big Bang or Theoretical Physics?

Do I have to learn TP before trying to image how the big bang occurred?

Physics and Maths, were not my orginal career choice, but has been forced apon me, by MMD.

However now that I have opened pandora's I have no intention of closing it, until proven correct.

I do not wish to mis quote you simple to highlight your comments:

"Electrons and photons are quanta of fields"

"Electrons and quarks are matter fields"

"Excitations of their respective fields above the vacuum state"

"All electrons have the same intrinsic properties, the existence and behaviour of their antiparticles"

Therefore an electron is...

Photons, electrons, 6 quarks, space and time in a 11D Super Cloud - what could be simplier?

All other theories must lead from this statement.

Regards

Terry Giblin

 

[anti_crank]

"Know thy enemy"

I had thought I had established my intent in the first paragraph of my post:

Since you've asked for some information, I'll try to offer it as best I can...

As for your posts, though I did re-read them several times, I was unable to make heads or tails of the theories (if any) that were placed there

(later on)...If you're suggesting that the authors you mention have actually solved them, then you are at best misinformed...

I have not yet provided a proper definition of a crank, and I will soon rectify that. In the meantime, actions speak loudest: feel free to analyse my past history and try to discover the method to my madness if you wish, although for reasons that will soon become apparent, that will be superfluous.

I now see that, among the pages that you wrote, this is in fact what you wanted us to focus on:

The Terry Giblin Double Split Experiment is therefore a very simply but cleaver modification to the original experiment.

Simply replace the electron ‘gun’ with an electron-tunnelling device, which by their concept and design generate, a single ‘quantum’ electron, as necessary for the next part of the experiment.

Instead of testing for an electron allow the quantum electron to pass through the double slits experiment, to see if an electron distribution or interference pattern is produced.

It would be the same experiment, as the YDSE, but using different flavoured electrons?

I don't have access to the equipment to perform this. All I can tell you is that current science predicts that all electrons have the same intrinsic properties (I don't mean their position/momentum wavefunction, but rather their charge, spin, ability to annihilate with a positron, ability to interact with W boson, etc). Whether you send a collection of 'classical' electrons or 'quantum' electrons one by one should not affect the results of the DSE, assuming other conditions are equivalent. But experiment will rule: carry it out and if you find a difference from expected I can assure you that you will get it published (or at least get meaningful comments from reviewers)

While I take some blame for not seeing your main argument, please note that this is a physics site, not a personal blog. For example, I have nothing against John Lennon, but what purpose was served by posting those lyrics, other than throwing readers on a tangent? In fact I can think of some, but I will not engage in any further speculation, especially since I have no particular desire to be right in this instance. It would have been much clearer to post what I highlighted, and only that, as I wasn't the only person unsure where you're going. Since I cannot help you carry out the experiment and that is the best way to settle the issue, I will now withdraw my presence from this thread. Farewell for now.

 

[Chronos]

Physics Problems for the Next Millennium - solved in one day!

Strings 2000 - David Gross - Physics Problems

"The ten most important unsolved problems in fundamental physics."

1 Are all the (measurable) dimensionless parameters that characterize the physical universe calculable in principle or are some merely determined by historical or quantum mechanical accident and uncalculable?
David Gross, Institute for Theoretical Physics, University of California, Santa Barbara

There are no dimensionless parameters, merely best guesses.

2 How can quantum gravity help explain the origin of the universe?
Edward Witten, California Institute of Technology and Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton

It cannot.

3 What is the lifetime of the proton and how do we understand it?
Steve Gubser, Princeton University and California Institute of Technology[/QUOTE ]What is longer than current models predict, Alex?.

4 Is Nature supersymmetric, and if so, how is supersymmetry broken?
Sergio Ferrara, CERN (European Laboratory of Particle Physics)
Gordon Kane, University of Michigan

Nature is not supersymmetric.

5 Why does the universe appear to have one time and three space dimensions?
Shamit Kachru, University of California, Berkeley
Sunil Mukhi, Tata Institute of Fundamental Research
Hiroshi Ooguri, California Institute of Technology

Because it cannot be described or exist in fewer dimensions.

6 Why does the cosmological constant have the value that it has, is it zero and is it really constant?
Andrew Chamblin, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Renata Kallosh, Stanford University

Because we can only measure the value currently observable.

7 What are the fundamental degrees of freedom of M-theory (the theory whose low-energy limit is eleven-dimensional supergravity and which subsumes the five consistent superstring theories) and does the theory describe Nature?
Louise Dolan, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
Annamaria Sinkovics, Spinoza Institute
Billy & Linda Rose, San Antonio College

Discover how many degrees of freedom are allowed by nature and you will win a Nobel. Frankly, I am still waiting for a string or M theory that makes a testable prediction about anything.

8 What is the resolution of the black hole information paradox?
Tibra Ali, Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics, Cambridge
Samir Mathur, Ohio State University

Ask Hawking.

9 What physics explains the enormous disparity between the gravitational scale and the typical mass scale of the elementary particles?
Matt Strassler, Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton

Quantum physics

10 Can we quantitatively understand quark and gluon confinement in Quantum Chromodynamics and the existence of a mass gap?
Igor Klebanov, Princeton University
Oyvind Tafjord, McGill University

No. The mass gap apparently cannot be explained without a new particle.

Once the true and full understanding of the physics of nature and the universe are understood.

The above questions become trival and easy to understand and solve.

Regards

Terry Giblin

Anyone else care to get skewered?

 

[Saint of Eviscero]

For those who were too confused by the complex mathematics and physics, I can offer a brief summary:

1. John Lennon is God.
2. Electrons are "quanta of fields".
3. Therefore Terry Giblin's 11 Dimensional Super Cloud Theory is correct.