Double Slit Experiment Explained

Einstein believed a photon had to be a particle because it emitted electrons in the photoelectric effect experiment.

A burst traveling through the medium of space will emit electrons off of the metallic surface.

A molecule creating a wave in the medium of space is a much simpler explanation for the observed behaviors in the DSE.

A photon as a burst traveling through the medium of space is a much simpler explanation for the observed behaviors in both the photoelectric effect experiment and the DSE.

Why doesn't Occam's razor apply to Einstein?

And why does your interpretation of Einstein's theory lead you to believe Einstein thought space was a void?

Einstein quotes:

"More careful reflection teaches us, however, that the special theory of relativity does not compel us to deny ether." and "To deny the ether is ultimately to assume that empty space has no physical qualities whatever".

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Einstein understood a photon is a particle because of the photoelectric effect.
But it's a particle of momentum - it has no mass.
A "burst' traveling in a medium, is "of" the medium, like pressure waves in a liquid medium. A liquid's surface will transmit or carry waves, but they displace the medium vertically as they travel, unlike a pressure wave. What does a photon displace as it travels through nothing whatsoever?

So how does a massless particle displace anything? If it isn't traveling through empty space, but through an atmosphere what does it displace? If it travels through air and coincides with a metal's surface, what does it displace?

Then, if it travels through nothing at all, what does it displace?

Einstein was referring to the electric and magnetic fields (not particles), that a photon is a traveling displacement of, so in that sense electromagnetic fields are the medium. Where do these fields come from?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I don't understand why you insist a photon travels through nothing.

How else can I explain space is not nothing. It is something.

Would it make more sense to use the term ether?

Recapitulating, we may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an ether.

If you insist that space is nothing and I insist that space is something, than we are not going to make any progress with this discussion.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Einstein was wrong.

The whole point of this thread is to put forth the idea that a photon is not a particle, but a burst traveling through the medium of space.

 

But the idea just don't 'work'. A "burst of space" is vague, You need to tie it to something more logical, it doesn't really suggest what you might think it does.
Why not call it a "puff of nothingness"? Or a "blast of space"? What is it supposed to look like?

 

Can you imagine a tank of water with rubber sides and punching one side of the rubber tank and having the other side of the tank poke out?

Can you imagine an air gun without a pellet, and the air from the air gun knocking over a bottle?

It is much more logical than a "massless particle" moving through a void.

What does a "massless particle" moving through a void look like? And how does it go through both slits in the DSE?

And before you reply with the photon is more of a wave, wave's require a medium.

And what does a molecule look like that is going through both slits simultaneously in the DSE? How is the molecule able to propagate through the void of space, go through both slits simultaneously, and then recompose itself after it exists the slits?

 

Idiot

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Have you ever been victim of manifest ultra brain trauma, no doubt instigated by repeated head bludgeoning via the 27kg sledgehammer technique?

Photons do not emit electrons, bozotard

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I never said a photon doesn't emit electrons.

What I have been saying is a photon is able to emit electrons because it is a burst traveling through the medium of space.

It is not a massless particle.

If I have a tank with rubber sides and I punch one side of the tank of water, the other side will poke out. A burst travels through the water and impacts the other side in a particular location.

A photon is a burst traveling through the medium of space that is able to impact a particular point on the metallic surface, which will emit an electron.

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

You take consummate cretinism to new unexplored levels of perfection.

 

How does a molecule create an interference pattern in the Double Slit Experiment?

How does a molecule go through both slit simultaneously?

How is it a single molecule prior to entering the slits, go through both slits, and be a single molecule as it exists the slits, and how does that cause an interference pattern to be created?

How exactly does it interact with itself in order for the interference pattern to be created?

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

- a molecule? -

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Retardation is most strong in this one.

 

Since then particle interference has been demonstrated with neutrons, atoms and molecules as large as carbon-60 and carbon-70.

 

Idiot

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

This is misleading claptrap designed only to fool meta-syndromic, inbred village idiot types - The only molecular double-slit experiments I know of involve photo-ionization; meaning electrons pass through the slits ..... not molecules.

 

One person's know is another's ignore.

 

"all these observations support the view that each carbon-60 molecule interferes with itself only."

 

Anyone?

A single molecule is able to "interfere with itself" because it is creating a displacement wave in the medium of space.

It is this displacement wave that goes through both slits in the DSE.

It it this displacement wave that creates interference as it exits the slits that the molecule, which goes through one slit, encounters as it exits the slits.

 

I've already told you how this works. The rest of us aren't going to wait for you to grow a brain. Sorry.

 

Except you put forth no way of testing your idea, given an idea is not a theory, in the science definition of the word.

Do electromagnetic disturbances come in packets ie quanta? Yes, experiment has proven that. Does modern physics know how to describe the double slit experiment? Yes, experiment has proven it. Does modern physics steadfastly claim photons and other quanta are literally particles (ie billard ball like entities)? No. When a physicist says "The photon is a particle of light" he or she doesn't mean "Photons lack wave properties, they are ballistic in nature" but rather the use of the word 'particle' is to refer to the quantum field theory concept of a quantum of fluctuation in a particular field.

Have people considered using some kind of gravity based theory to try and describe electromagnetism? Yes. Kaluza and Klein did it in the mid 1920s using a 5 dimensional general relativity model. It leads to inconsistent predictions. However, their methods (dimensional compactification) are central to string theory. A part of string theory known as the AdS/CFT correspondence uses a gravitational description to describe particle behaviours. However, due to the nature of it's description it doesn't literally consider the photon a ripple in space-time.

So your idea is not a new one. Taking a model which we know describes gravity, ie general relativity, we have tried to describe photons and any other particle you wish to name. They are not describable in terms of gravity. There's a whole slew of technical descriptions relating space-time perturbations, decompositions and dualities which exist within current or previous models of physics which, unlike your arm waving vacuous idea, actually had some quantitative stuff to back them up. They either fell by the wayside or involve other things such as gravitons, virtual particles and extra dimensions.

The quantum mechanical description of the double slit experiment is independent of what you're actually throwing through the slit, be it a photon and electron or a Bucky ball. I've told you where to read about said description, you obviously aren't interested. Simply saying a question you could answer yourself if you spent a little time reading mainstream physics doesn't mean that answer you haven't bothered to try and find doesn't exist.

 

Pop science blather - the same Viennese team claimed the same (as to date, unverified elsewhere) interference patterns, generated by larger 'biomolecules'.

 

Nope, neutron interferometers have existed for decades, chum.

And "The most probable velocity of 210 m/s corresponds to a deBroglie wavelength for C60 (buckminsterfullerene) of ldB = 2.5 pm !"; from a team at U. Vienna - A Zeilinger & co.
So it isn't science fiction, exactly.