explain why wave-particle duality is nonsense?

[Bishadi]

Don't be ridiculous! You are claiming there will be an effect, yet it must be one so subtle that nobody has ever noticed it,

and you are not seeing it also. The photoelectric effect itself shares that mass is affected by energy (em).

colors show this fact and you are not maintaining the comprehension as applying to the double slit; the mass is relevant to the pattern and per se particle release

in one of the most replicated experiments in all of science, and you refuse even tell us what kind of effect to look for.

i already did in every angle you can imagine.

ie..are you actually asking me to calculate the interferance patterns and give you a value?

You refuse to say what parameter we need to measure,

sure i did, i said compare graphene to gold both can be extremely thin and the effects measured and manipulated (temp etc)

let alone predict the size of the alleged effect or what sensitivity of measurement we would require in order to detect it.

all mass is affected by a variety of em exposures. No matter the molecular structure, every element that even combines is held by em (cause).

the variation is hugenormous between mass. So identify which 'wavelength' for each structure and then begin recording. The double slit is just stupid to me and the identification of the threshold wavelengths for proteins, catalyst and cellular energy transfer is far more important (but this is like going back to grade school when i have to explain that colors are based on the mass which affects the release of energy your eye detect)

you have double slits on your head, why are you debating when it is basic that the mass is more important than believing what was accepted a long time ago. (ie... reminds me of how some thought you would fall off the edge of the earth (before they knew it was round))

In short , this is just childish nonsense. You have nothing. You are just making this up.

That claim is nonsense at it means to do nothing but try and insult me.


not my fault you are just learning what many have long since understood. (mass affects the release)

 

[dafydd]

I feel a kitten coming on.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

...
ie..are you actually asking me to calculate the interferance patterns and give you a value?

I know better by now than to ask you to provide any maths.


So do this instead:
Describe the experimental procedure.
Describe the apparatus.
Describe the effect you predict.

It is impossible to work it out from what you have written so far.

 

[Bishadi]

Bishadi, this all seems to be comign down to the physical proof. This double slit experiment is reproduced over and over again in classrooms all over the world. It sounds like it requires a certain amount of equipment but otherwise is fairly simple to setup. Why don't you actually run your experiment and show the world what your results are?

have you done the experiment?

if you did, had you ever thought the detector was important? then again, it is important ( a question)? Be fair!


thes people are not caring to check nor is there anything published to check it. But you can!

the key is, if you know by common sense that the recieving mass does have an affect on what is emitted, then you already know which side of the argument is closer to finding/seeking truth than to just adher that it is NOT important.

ie.... i already know how rediculous it is, the question is do you see it also or do you just trust what 'others' tell you?

But first, what exactly do you expect to find?

the pattern as well the single unit exposure (on per se photon at a time), will render that the mass is relative and not that the blips are particle but that the exposure to the detector is releasing for its thresholds (just like the photoelectric effect shares)

How does greater or lesser mass of the target change the results?

you are kind of like asking, 'why does it take more heat to warm up a bucket of water versus a cup of coffee?"

How great a difference in mass do you expect to need to have noticeable differences?

do not focus on the amount but what is the molecular structure (both are relative but the structural elements have the greatet range of effects)


ie.... the black body radiation issue is not rendering the amount nor physical properties of the carbon (black) of the mass (cylinder).


black is not an element

just like heat is not energy (itself)

 

[Bishadi]

Did they return your paper because they wouldn't accept submissions in crayon?

i guess i was about that age when i figured out the existing belief system was off.

when did you start understanding that the mass is important to the double slit experiment?


i wrote my first paper on how the exchange of energy (resonant energy transfer) works between the synaptic junctions at 16 years old.

I believe it was cal tech that replied rendering that the photon cannot be slowed per relativity, upon mass (and as of now, we all know better than that; what's a phonon, exciton, soliton, polariton but a per se 2nd quantization to render the eigenstate of em upon mass (energy as an 'f'))?

What is cute is that someone did review the mathematical rendition even at cal tech, and could not understand it. (because they followed the laws over the evidence and implications)


BUT i like that comment/question of your post, as it is really kind of enlightening; as if i was born with the knowledge upon the head............... (even when we know better as it was by choice that i learned to seek well before my 'peers' were old enough to drink)

i will consider that a compliment...... (submitting to the global community in crayons) and as of today many still dont comprehend the integrity of science over-rules the laws and acceptances of beliefs (benchmarks)


fyi........... i had that 'math' of the transition (mass/energy/time) well before you even comprehended that the implications of simply addressing the mass in the double slit experiment practically turns over todays 'duality' belief.


now imagine if someone would have listened back then versus just pushing it out the door because i was writing with crayons

 

[Jack by the hedge]

the key is, if you know by common sense that the recieving mass does have an affect on what is emitted, then you already know which side of the argument is closer to finding/seeking truth than to just adher that it is NOT important.

ie.... i already know how rediculous it is, the question is do you see it also or do you just trust what 'others' tell you?

the pattern as well the single unit exposure (on per se photon at a time), will render that the mass is relative and not that the blips are particle but that the exposure to the detector is releasing for its thresholds (just like the photoelectric effect shares)

Is there someone else there who could assist you to rewrite this in English? I mean that quite seriously; it is not an insult (although you may feel insulted by it). It is simply an attempt to find a way to make plain whatever it is you are trying to say (or possibly trying to avoid saying).

When you talk about "the receiving mass" are you talking about a plate upon which the interference pattern appears? If this appears to be a childishly trivial question, it is necessary because you constantly fail to speak plainly.

 

[Bishadi]

When you talk about "the receiving mass" are you talking about a plate upon which the interference pattern appears?

seems like in the OP i kind of wrote that CLEARLY


core concept to maintain: the energy affects the mass


So when sending your em (electromagnetic energy; photons (per se)) thru the double slit to the receiving plate, both the double slit and receiving plate will render different effects to various wavelengths that are exposed to them.


then in a few other posts i used the word 'detector' (definition;... that mass (matter, elemental structures, molecules, etc....... are the 'recieving plate' or 'detector' to address)

If this appears to be a childishly trivial question, it is necessary because you constantly fail to speak plainly.

i am the one speaking plainly, it is you that is not reading the thread with an intent to comprehend.

YES>.................. the detector, recieving plate; change the mass.............and the patterns will change for the single wavelengths imposed. (EM)


ie...... if i saID, i was a professor at MIT you would perhaps observe these words with more vigor (your mass would react differently) but since i am just a plain wrapped idiot, you could care less and react with a standard claim IT IS ME that is having english problems.

it aint my english that is off it is your intent that is less-than proactive.

It is because you have me identified as just a plain old idiot with nothing better to do, than pick on you guys.



.

 

[MattusMaximus]

have you done the experiment?

if you did, had you ever thought the detector was important? then again, it is important ( a question)? Be fair!

The double slit experiment? Yes, repeatedly, in fact. I actually have my advanced students perform the double slit experiment every year, and the results are consistent.

That is, they are consistently NOT what you are interpreting them to be, Bishadi. At least, I think they aren't - because trying to figure out what you are saying is an exercise in futility

 

[Ziggurat]

i am the one speaking plainly

No, Bishadi, you are not. Your English skills are terrible, and much of what you write is complete nonsense because of such bad English.

it aint my english that is off

Yes, Bishadi, it is. It's so bad that it's not even worth discussing physics with you, because there's no way for us to determine what you're trying to say. We can't tell if what you're saying is nonsense because you're confused about physics or because your writing is so bad. I grew tired of trying to make such distinctions long ago.

 

[Mashuna]

i wrote my first paper on how the exchange of energy (resonant energy transfer) works between the synaptic junctions at 16 years old.

I believe it was cal tech that replied rendering that the photon cannot be slowed per relativity, upon mass (and as of now, we all know better than that; what's a phonon, exciton, soliton, polariton but a per se 2nd quantization to render the eigenstate of em upon mass (energy as an 'f'))?

What is cute is that someone did review the mathematical rendition even at cal tech, and could not understand it. (because they followed the laws over the evidence and implications)

That's great. So you've been doing this since you were 16, you've sent your work off to CalTech, who reviewed it and told you it was wrong. From this, you decided that they just couldn't understand your work and that you were right all the time.

It's good to know you're consistently refusing expert advice (not me, I hasten to add), and that you're unlikely to change any time soon.

Have fun!

 

[Bishadi]

That's great. So you've been doing this since you were 16, you've sent your work off to CalTech, who reviewed it and told you it was wrong. From this, you decided that they just couldn't understand your work and that you were right all the time.

that was almost 30 years ago and since, it seems there is far more evidence available. would you agree?

It's good to know you're consistently refusing expert advice

which advice is expert other than folks assuming what i know or do not know, when over 3 decades of learning is not just a maybe when discussing at this level.

the difference is, what some hold so dear, i knew was divergent from nature.

(not me, I hasten to add), and that you're unlikely to change any time soon.

Have fun!

this aint fun as this thread requires no math

it is based on common sense and the maintaining of parameters to render a causal explanation. I am capable of comprehending that the particles that are believed to be conveying are not quite what it seems when observing all parts to the experiment.

and the solution is so simple; observe the receiving mass and its properties and the single wavelength imposition of the double slit experiment will turn over what many believe of the particle wave hypothesis.

i think it is fair that i addressed this to the level that any can verify themselves in labs all over the globe.

when the criteria of the mass (changed) and single wavelength (gun), then with capability to measure the single (per se photon) emssions, then have them post up.

i am trying to follow a protocol and if you can add, please do!

 

[Jack by the hedge]

... you could care less and react with a standard claim IT IS ME that is having english problems.

That's couldn't care less. I regret to say I mentioned that once before.

 

[Weak Kitten]

I feel a kitten coming on.

What, huh, did I miss something? Do you need me to do a little dance or recite kitten poetry?

 

[Tim Thompson]

Wave Particle Duality I

this aint fun as this thread requires no math.

Do you mean by this, that you cannot describe the process you are trying to explain using equations rather than words?

 

[Bishadi]

Do you mean by this, that you cannot describe the process you are trying to explain using equations rather than words?

that is my kind of talk there. cudos!


No, that definition you used is not what was meant. my comment 'means' that even a kid could comprehend that to change the mass you will get different results (colors).


as it is that 'stupid easy'


it is only of the physicist/scientist. right NOW with labs, that can create a solid rendition for each wavelength - mass to OBSERVE without any need of math and completely break the back of the duality

but if you think clearly by me just pointing out "colors" should do it, immediately, to real thinking soul.

ie.... the mass is what is rendering the 'particle' (per se) (ie.. the color) to be released.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

The double slit experiment? Yes, repeatedly, in fact. I actually have my advanced students perform the double slit experiment every year, and the results are consistent.

Well, that's confusing. Do you mean to say that in the many times your students have performed the experiment, they have always found the spacing of the interference fringes to depend on the wavelength of light, the spacing of the slits and the distance to the screen, just as non-Bishadi physics predicts?

What about Bishadi's confounding factor of the mass of the screen? Don't they find weird anomalies, depending on whatever material they shine the interference pattern onto?

That's mysterious. A real head-scratcher.

 

[Bishadi]

That's couldn't care less. I regret to say I mentioned that once before.

am i supposed to hire you?

 

[Bishadi]

Well, that's confusing. Do you mean to say that in the many times your students have performed the experiment, they have always found the spacing of the interference fringes to depend on the wavelength of light, the spacing of the slits and the distance to the screen, just as non-Bishadi physics predicts?

What about Bishadi's confounding factor of the mass of the screen? Don't they find weird anomalies, depending on whatever material they shine the interference pattern onto?

That's mysterious. A real head-scratcher.

maybe i should, hire you!


as that is what im talkin about: define the experiement with someone who has the equipment (single wavelength to variable, is best, then change the mass (detector plate))


ie.... be specific, try gold, carbon, as the greater the complex molecule the greater spectrum capacities. Be fair and watch what happens.



How many can actually perform these parameters?

please post what wavelength(s) you are using, your gun (emitter) and let me know if you have a BBO crystal (as i have another one to play with).


now i am having fun!

 

[Jack by the hedge]

that is my kind of talk there. cudos!


No, that definition you used is not what was meant. my comment 'means' that even a kid could comprehend that to change the mass you will get different results (colors).


as it is that 'stupid easy'


it is only of the physicist/scientist. right NOW with labs, that can create a solid rendition for each wavelength - mass to OBSERVE without any need of math and completely break the back of the duality

but if you think clearly by me just pointing out "colors" should do it, immediately, to real thinking soul.

ie.... the mass is what is rendering the 'particle' (per se) (ie.. the color) to be released.

This doesn't appear to have anything to do with the double slit experiment per se. You appear to be saying that if I take my laser pointer and shine it on, say, aluminium and then on lead, it will change colour. How much will it change?

 

[Bishadi]

This doesn't appear to have anything to do with the double slit experiment per se. You appear to be saying that if I take my laser pointer and shine it on, say, aluminium and then on lead, it will change colour. How much will it change?

you funny.

what it the thread about?

this thread is about particle-wave duality and it seems with basic common sense, you know the outcome.



atta-boy!


now send that lazer through a gazillion miles of mass (fiber optics) and let us know what a 'red-shift' is. (is anything moving away from you?)