How do electron clouds quantum leap?

[m***@gmail.com]

Electron's positions jump and bond to the next shell without a cloud.
How do electron clouds conduct to the next atom surface
in the phenomenon of electricity?

Quantum mechanics hasn't known what it is talking about.
Einstein knew better. QM clouds are not real. Particles
do have definite positions that move continuously.
Quantum Mechanics has been a so called scientific
fairy tail...

No one should believe anymore that Einstein lost the
argument to the world...

Mitchell Raemsch

[john]

Mitch
"Electron's positions jump and bond to the next shell without a cloud.
How do electron clouds conduct to the next atom surface
in the phenomenon of electricity?

Quantum mechanics hasn't known what it is talking about.
Einstein knew better. QM clouds are not real. Particles
do have definite positions that.."
Yes, electrons behave as particles.
But they are a cloud. I think that what keeps all the bits of the individual electron together is their common spin. All Matter has a common spin, but each electron was created from a different place in the Universe, which gives it an initial cohesive spin characteristic, like a fingerprint.

Every electron is different.

[john]

I was going to talk about photons, and end up with "original spin".
Haha.
No, I think that photons accrete at an atom's Center, pulling the electrons' arms gradually inward and speeding
them up. Like when a skater pulls in her arms in a spin. Then, when the photon release takes place, the electrons suddenly stretch out again and slow down.

I'm sure Odd has definitive proof that this is incorrect, but I need advanced maths to comprehend it.

[Odd Bodkin]

Post by john
I was going to talk about photons, and end up with "original spin".
Haha.
No, I think that photons accrete at an atom's Center, pulling the
electrons' arms gradually inward and speeding
them up. Like when a skater pulls in her arms in a spin. Then, when the
photon release takes place, the electrons suddenly stretch out again and slow down.
I'm sure Odd has definitive proof that this is incorrect, but I need
advanced maths to comprehend it.

Depends on what you mean by “advanced maths”. If you mean more than 3rd
grade arithmetic, yeah probably so.

I don’t think it’s unreasonable that ideas that are just wrong would
require more than 3rd grade arithmetic to explain why they’re wrong. Do you
think wrong ideas should be shown clearly wrong at the 3rd grade level?

[m***@gmail.com]

Post by john
I was going to talk about photons, and end up with "original spin".
Haha.
No, I think that photons accrete at an atom's Center, pulling the electrons' arms gradually inward and speeding
them up. Like when a skater pulls in her arms in a spin. Then, when the photon release takes place, the electrons suddenly stretch out again and slow down.
I'm sure Odd has definitive proof that this is incorrect, but I need advanced maths to comprehend it.

Spin only goes half way... sometimes...
It is a failed mind concept because
particles don't have radiuses.

Mitchell Raemsch

[Edward Prochak]

On Tuesday, March 13, 2018 at 9:57:39 AM UTC-4, john wrote:
[]

Post by john
Yes, electrons behave as particles.
But they are a cloud. I think that what keeps all the bits of
the individual electron together is their common spin. All Matter
has a common spin, but each electron was created from a different
place in the Universe, which gives it an initial cohesive spin
characteristic, like a fingerprint.
Every electron is different.

How do they differ? Is it something measurable? Or perhaps its aura?

Lets see, Do they differ in mass?
Well many experiment measure the mass resulting in over 10 digits of
precision. So if they differ in mass it is 0.000000001% or less.

how about charge?
Oh, you have a SLIGHTLY better chance here. Yhe charge is 9 digits
of precision, so electrons could differ by 0.00000001% or less
and still look the same in charge experiments.

Maybe since you call it spin, you mean they differ in magnetic moment?
that has to be it right?
Well then, that fingerprint is pretty small. It would have to be
a difference in magnetic moment of 0.0000000000001% or less.

I don't know John. Where is this fingerprint hiding?

Ed

[john]

Ed
"On Tuesday, March 13, 2018 at 9:57:39 AM UTC-4, john wrote:
[]

Post by john
Yes, electrons behave as particles.
But they are a cloud. I think that what keeps all the bits of
the individual electron together is their common spin. All Matter
has a common spin, but each electron was created from a different
place in the Universe, which gives it an initial cohesive spin
characteristic, like a fingerprint.
Every electron is different.

How do they differ? Is it something measurable? Or perhaps its aura?

Lets see, Do they differ in mass?
Well many experiment measure the mass resulting in over 10 digits of
precision. So if they differ in mass it is 0.000000001% or less.

how about charge?
Oh, you have a SLIGHTLY better chance here. Yhe charge is 9 digits
of precision, so electrons could differ by 0.00000001% or less
and still look the same in charge experiments.

Maybe since you call it spin, you mean they differ in magnetic moment?
that has to be it right?
Well then, that fingerprint is pretty small. It would have to be
a difference in magnetic moment of 0.0000000000001% or less.

I don't know John. Where is this fingerprint hiding?

Ed "

So you think all electrons are identical?
Whyever would you think that?

[Edward Prochak]

Post by Edward Prochak
Ed
[]

Post by john
Yes, electrons behave as particles.
But they are a cloud. I think that what keeps all the bits of
the individual electron together is their common spin. All Matter
has a common spin, but each electron was created from a different
place in the Universe, which gives it an initial cohesive spin
characteristic, like a fingerprint.
Every electron is different.

How do they differ? Is it something measurable? Or perhaps its aura?
Lets see, Do they differ in mass?
Well many experiment measure the mass resulting in over 10 digits of
precision. So if they differ in mass it is 0.000000001% or less.
how about charge?
Oh, you have a SLIGHTLY better chance here. Yhe charge is 9 digits
of precision, so electrons could differ by 0.00000001% or less
and still look the same in charge experiments.
Maybe since you call it spin, you mean they differ in magnetic moment?
that has to be it right?
Well then, that fingerprint is pretty small. It would have to be
a difference in magnetic moment of 0.0000000000001% or less.
I don't know John. Where is this fingerprint hiding?
Ed "
So you think all electrons are identical?
Whyever would you think that?

Haven't found a different one yet!
8^)
Ed

[john]

Ed
"- show quoted text -
Haven't found a different one yet!
8^)
Ed "
Boasting about failure- QM indoctrinate

[Michael Moroney]

Post by john
Ed
"- show quoted text -
Haven't found a different one yet!
8^)
Ed "
Boasting about failure- QM indoctrinate

No, John, that's not how science works. Not finding something
that doesn't exist is not a failure if you are trying to figure
out whether it exists or not.

[Edward Prochak]

Post by john
Ed
"- show quoted text -
Haven't found a different one yet!
8^)
Ed "
Boasting about failure- QM indoctrinate

It is not my failure if you cannot find what you are looking for.
Ed

[Odd Bodkin]

Post by Edward Prochak

Post by john
Ed
"- show quoted text -
Haven't found a different one yet!
8^)
Ed "
Boasting about failure- QM indoctrinate

It is not my failure if you cannot find what you are looking for.
Ed

More like John launching diatribes against people who won’t look for things
only he believes are there.

[Michael Moroney]

Post by john
So you think all electrons are identical?
Whyever would you think that?

Because every single time we measure the properties of the
electrons, we *always* get the same answer (within an extremely
small error range)? They all have the same mass & charge to within
9-10 decimal places. They even all have the same measured radius
(extremely tiny, consistent with 0). That's how science works, John.

Here's another problem for you.
Do you think all values of 2 are identical?

[p***@gmail.com]

Post by m***@gmail.com
Electron's positions jump and bond to the next shell without a cloud.
How do electron clouds

------
first thing
here is no electron clouds and no electron schlowdes

conduct to the next atom surface
==
no first and no second surface !!
===

Post by m***@gmail.com
in the phenomenon of electricity?
Quantum mechanics hasn't known what it is talking about.
Einstein knew better. QM clouds are not real

=
right
no clouds and no sclaudes ~
===

. Particles

Post by m***@gmail.com
do have definite positions that move continuously.

====================================================
nothing is really moving!
-A LOT IS VIBRATING !!
THE MATHEMATICAL FORMULA OF A 'CIRCLING 'OBJECT ARE THE DAME OF A VIBRATING OBJECT !!!
SEE
http://sites/google.com/site/theyporatmodel/an-abstract
======

Post by m***@gmail.com
Quantum Mechanics has been a so called scientific

==

Post by m***@gmail.com
fairy tail...

it looks like a fairy tail
===

Post by m***@gmail.com
No one should believe anymore that Einstein lost the
argument to the world...
Mitchell Raemsch

================================
TIA
Y.Porat
===================================

[p***@gmail.com]

Post by p***@gmail.com

Post by m***@gmail.com
Electron's positions jump and bond to the next shell without a cloud.
How do electron clouds

------
first thing
here is no electron clouds and no electron schlowdes
conduct to the next atom surface
==
no first and no second surface !!
===

Post by m***@gmail.com
in the phenomenon of electricity?
Quantum mechanics hasn't known what it is talking about.
Einstein knew better. QM clouds are not real

=
right
no clouds and no sclaudes ~
===
. Particles

Post by m***@gmail.com
do have definite positions that move continuously.

====================================================
nothing is really moving!
-A LOT IS VIBRATING !!
THE MATHEMATICAL FORMULA OF A 'CIRCLING 'OBJECT ARE THE DAME OF A VIBRATING OBJECT !!!
SEE
http://sites/google.com/site/theyporatmodel/an-abstract

=====
sorry typo
(just one'pips and you are lost ...

so :

http://sites.google.com/site/theyporatmodel/an-abstract

i hope this time it is right
--
TIA
Y.P
================================

Post by p***@gmail.com
======

[Michael Moroney]

Post by m***@gmail.com
Electron's positions jump and bond to the next shell without a cloud.
How do electron clouds conduct to the next atom surface
in the phenomenon of electricity?

There is no "surface" to bond to. It is simply a jump in energy
level.

There is no real "how". The Feynman diagram is a simple 3 line point
vertex, e+gamma->e or e->e+gamma.

Remember, electrons, like photons, have both a wavelike and particlelike
nature. Orbitals show the wavelike nature of electrons. (Electrons,
because they have a small but nonzero mass, act more particlelike than
photons, but they still act wavelike. See the electron microscope as an
example)

[m***@gmail.com]

Post by Michael Moroney

Post by m***@gmail.com
Electron's positions jump and bond to the next shell without a cloud.
How do electron clouds conduct to the next atom surface
in the phenomenon of electricity?

There is no "surface" to bond to. It is simply a jump in energy
level.

Wrong. All atoms have their solid surface...
where electricity without a cloud takes place.
The same with a quantum leap.

Probability clouds are ruled out.

Post by Michael Moroney
There is no real "how".

Backing out of "reality" when you can't admit science doesn't
have all the answers? Shame on you...

Post by Michael Moroney
The Feynman diagram is a simple 3 line point
vertex, e+gamma->e or e->e+gamma.
Remember, electrons, like photons, have both a wavelike and particlelike
nature. Orbitals show the wavelike nature of electrons. (Electrons,
because they have a small but nonzero mass, act more particlelike than
photons, but they still act wavelike. See the electron microscope as an
example)

[p***@gmail.com]

Post by m***@gmail.com
Wrong. All atoms have their solid surface...

Mitch, you are just making this up as you go along, again...

[john]

Nothing is solid and continuous
The smaller you look, the more space you see

[Edward Prochak]

Post by john
Nothing is solid and continuous
The smaller you look, the more space you see

Yeah! You got that one right JOHN!!!
Congratulations.
Ed

[m***@gmail.com]

Post by p***@gmail.com

Post by m***@gmail.com
Wrong. All atoms have their solid surface...

Mitch, you are just making this up as you go along, again...

You are the one of science that does not have a possession
of his own mind. I stand by atoms having a solid surface
where weight science occurs...

[Michael Moroney]

Post by m***@gmail.com

Post by Michael Moroney

Post by m***@gmail.com
Electron's positions jump and bond to the next shell without a cloud.
How do electron clouds conduct to the next atom surface
in the phenomenon of electricity?

There is no "surface" to bond to. It is simply a jump in energy
level.

Wrong. All atoms have their solid surface...

And just why do you say that? Is this yet another case of
"It's True Because I Said So!!!"

Or do you have any actual evidence of that? Didn't think so.

Post by m***@gmail.com
where electricity without a cloud takes place.
The same with a quantum leap.
Probability clouds are ruled out.

Just how? It is a successful part of quantum theory, hardly "ruled
out".

Post by m***@gmail.com

Post by Michael Moroney
There is no real "how".

Backing out of "reality" when you can't admit science doesn't
have all the answers? Shame on you...

Wrong. You are assuming a method or process where this happens,
then the electron does this, then that. That's not how it works,
there ia juat before and after.

Post by m***@gmail.com

Post by Michael Moroney
The Feynman diagram is a simple 3 line point
vertex, e+gamma->e or e->e+gamma.

The lack of detail at the vertex indicates there are no complex
events going on.

[p***@gmail.com]

Post by Michael Moroney

Post by m***@gmail.com
Electron's positions jump and bond to the next shell without a cloud.
How do electron clouds conduct to the next atom surface
in the phenomenon of electricity?

There is no "surface" to bond to. It is simply a jump in energy
level.
There is no real "how". The Feynman diagram is a simple 3 line point
vertex, e+gamma->e or e->e+gamma.
Remember, electrons, like photons, have both a wavelike and particlelike
nature. Orbitals show the wavelike nature of electrons. (Electrons,
because they have a small but nonzero mass, act more particlelike than
photons, but they still act wavelike. See the electron microscope as an
example)

--=======================
in general -i tend to agree !

yet you remain too abstract !
nature and ***particles**re not may be that or may be that
they are very definite unequivocal !!
the confusion is only in some minds
---
2
once again :

THE FORMULA OF AN'ORBITING PARTICVLE
AND A **VIBRATING ENTITY
**ARE THE SAME *!!!!!
SO
SEE AGAIN THE
CHAIN OF***GLOBAL )**ORBITALS SYSTEM
THAT WORK ALALONG !!!:
CHEMISTRY CRYSTALLINE NUCLEAR SYSTEMS !!

http://sites.google.com/site/theyporatmodel/an-abstract

(that is just an abstract of a book )
old copyright
Y.Porat
=============================================

[p***@gmail.com]

Post by p***@gmail.com

Post by Michael Moroney

Post by m***@gmail.com
Electron's positions jump and bond to the next shell without a cloud.
How do electron clouds conduct to the next atom surface
in the phenomenon of electricity?

There is no "surface" to bond to. It is simply a jump in energy
level.
There is no real "how". The Feynman diagram is a simple 3 line point
vertex, e+gamma->e or e->e+gamma.
Remember, electrons, like photons, have both a wavelike and particlelike
nature. Orbitals show the wavelike nature of electrons. (Electrons,
because they have a small but nonzero mass, act more particlelike than
photons, but they still act wavelike. See the electron microscope as an
example)

--=======================
in general -i tend to agree !
yet you remain too abstract !
nature and ***particles**re not may be that or may be that
they are very definite unequivocal !!
the confusion is only in some minds
---
2
THE FORMULA OF AN'ORBITING PARTICVLE
AND A **VIBRATING ENTITY
**ARE THE SAME *!!!!!
SO
SEE AGAIN THE
CHAIN OF***GLOBAL )**ORBITALS SYSTEM
CHEMISTRY CRYSTALLINE NUCLEAR SYSTEMS !!
http://sites.google.com/site/theyporatmodel/an-abstract
(that is just an abstract of a book )
old copyright
Y.Porat
=============================================

and more !!
does the chain of orbitals system ''
remend yu as well
the 'sting theory as well ??!!
==
TIA
Y.Porat
==============================

[Edward Prochak]

Post by m***@gmail.com
Electron's positions jump and bond to the next shell without a cloud.

This is a simplified view of what is happening in an atom.

Post by m***@gmail.com
How do electron clouds conduct to the next atom surface
in the phenomenon of electricity?

First you are not clear. Are you discussing the electron cloud
that forms around a hot filament (as in a light bulb)?
OR
the free electrons in a bulk material like a metal?
(This second case is not usually called a cloud.)

Post by m***@gmail.com
Quantum mechanics hasn't known what it is talking about.

Jumping to conclusions already.

Post by m***@gmail.com
Einstein knew better. QM clouds are not real. Particles
do have definite positions that move continuously.

Einstein thought he knew better. But even he admitted
that he could make mistakes and that nature has the
final word.

Under the right conditions they appear to follow
clear trajectories, but in other cases, the word
"definite" cannot be used.

Watch again the Feynman lecture on the two slit experiment.

Post by m***@gmail.com
Quantum Mechanics has been a so called scientific
fairy tail...
No one should believe anymore that Einstein lost the
argument to the world...
Mitchell Raemsch

Sorry but until you can explain the two slit experiment,
Mother nature shows you are wrong.

Ed

[john]

Ed
"

Sorry but until you can explain the two slit experiment,
Mother n"
Electrons don't fly straight

[Odd Bodkin]

Post by Edward Prochak
Ed
"
Sorry but until you can explain the two slit experiment,
Mother n"
Electrons don't fly straight

Indeed. This goes with the thing you scoff at, that electrons don’t have
definite straight line trajectories.

[john]

Odd
"

Post by john
Mother n"
Electrons don't fly straight

Indeed. This goes with the thing you scoff at, that electrons don’t have
definite straight line trajectories.
- show quoted text -"

Each electron has spin.
They are shot without regard to that spin.
So

[Michael Moroney]

Indeed. This goes with the thing you scoff at, that electrons don't have
definite straight line trajectories.
Each electron has spin.
They are shot without regard to that spin.
So

So you don't understand what QM spin is if you say that.

[m***@gmail.com]

Post by Edward Prochak

Post by m***@gmail.com
Electron's positions jump and bond to the next shell without a cloud.

This is a simplified view of what is happening in an atom.

Post by m***@gmail.com
How do electron clouds conduct to the next atom surface
in the phenomenon of electricity?

First you are not clear. Are you discussing the electron cloud
that forms around a hot filament (as in a light bulb)?
OR
the free electrons in a bulk material like a metal?
(This second case is not usually called a cloud.)

Post by m***@gmail.com
Quantum mechanics hasn't known what it is talking about.

Jumping to conclusions already.

Post by m***@gmail.com
Einstein knew better. QM clouds are not real. Particles
do have definite positions that move continuously.

Einstein thought he knew better. But even he admitted
that he could make mistakes and that nature has the
final word.
Under the right conditions they appear to follow
clear trajectories, but in other cases, the word
"definite" cannot be used.
Watch again the Feynman lecture on the two slit experiment.

Post by m***@gmail.com
Quantum Mechanics has been a so called scientific
fairy tail...
No one should believe anymore that Einstein lost the
argument to the world...
Mitchell Raemsch

Sorry but until you can explain the two slit experiment,
Mother nature shows you are wrong.
Ed

Oh really Ed? There is a new interpretation of Two Slits...

Light waves at the slits are what collapse the waves of
electrons... Removing their wave interference

Without the light the electrons retain their full
size waves and continue to interfere...


That is why there are two results at the
detection screen. Observer Created Reality is out
like Einstein knew it had to be.

Mitchell Raemsch

[Edward Prochak]

[]

Post by m***@gmail.com

Post by Edward Prochak
Sorry but until you can explain the two slit experiment,
Mother nature shows you are wrong.
Ed

Oh really Ed? There is a new interpretation of Two Slits...
Light waves at the slits are what collapse the waves of
electrons... Removing their wave interference

And thus cannot tell you what happens when such
detectors are not positioned at the slits. This
is covered by Feynman.

Post by m***@gmail.com
Without the light the electrons retain their full
size waves and continue to interfere...

Yes classical QM. So you agree that QM is correct,
that is progress.

Post by m***@gmail.com
That is why there are two results at the
detection screen. Observer Created Reality is out
like Einstein knew it had to be.
Mitchell Raemsch

Sorry but you reached the wrong conclusion. Please watch
the video. Feynman explains the problem very clearly.

There is not solution outside of QM. As Feynman says,
that's just the way it works.

IOW, nature tells us the rules and in this case they are QM
Ed

[m***@gmail.com]

Post by Edward Prochak
[]

Post by m***@gmail.com

Post by Edward Prochak
Sorry but until you can explain the two slit experiment,
Mother nature shows you are wrong.
Ed

Oh really Ed? There is a new interpretation of Two Slits...
Light waves at the slits are what collapse the waves of
electrons... Removing their wave interference

And thus cannot tell you what happens when such
detectors are not positioned at the slits. This
is covered by Feynman.

Post by m***@gmail.com
Without the light the electrons retain their full
size waves and continue to interfere...

Yes classical QM. So you agree that QM is correct,
that is progress.

Post by m***@gmail.com
That is why there are two results at the
detection screen. Observer Created Reality is out
like Einstein knew it had to be.
Mitchell Raemsch

Sorry but you reached the wrong conclusion. Please watch
the video. Feynman explains the problem very clearly.
There is not solution outside of QM. As Feynman says,
that's just the way it works.
IOW, nature tells us the rules and in this case they are QM
Ed

Einstein was right to disagree with the stupidity of Observer Created Reality
Copenhagen interpretation philosophy of QM.

It doesn't matter if anyone sees the light at the two holes.

It doesn't work backward in time. It is a new light phenomenon
collapsing electron's waves giving the two results detected.

Path integral is also something that depends on working
backward in time. But both it and OCR are the most absurd
ideas or orders supposedly in the quantum universe.

Mitchell Raemsch

[Edward Prochak]

[]

Post by m***@gmail.com

Post by Edward Prochak
Sorry but you reached the wrong conclusion. Please watch
the video. Feynman explains the problem very clearly.
There is not solution outside of QM. As Feynman says,
that's just the way it works.
IOW, nature tells us the rules and in this case they are QM
Ed

Einstein was right to disagree with the stupidity of Observer Created Reality
Copenhagen interpretation philosophy of QM.

So you merely dispute this particular interpretation of QM.
Okay.

Post by m***@gmail.com
It doesn't matter if anyone sees the light at the two holes.

Actually it does. If there is a detector at even one of the slits,
you get different results.

Post by m***@gmail.com
It doesn't work backward in time. It is a new light phenomenon
collapsing electron's waves giving the two results detected.

It is not clear what you mean by "new light phenomenon" and
"the two results detected". Elaborate please.

Post by m***@gmail.com
Path integral is also something that depends on working
backward in time. But both it and OCR are the most absurd
ideas or orders supposedly in the quantum universe.
Mitchell Raemsch

Can you define what you mean above?
By path integral, are you making a vague reference to Feynman diagrams?

I am not a QM expert. but the only meaning I have for OCR is Optical
Character Recognition? So Please explain what you mean by OCR above.

I cannot agree or disagree with you when what you say is so unclear.

ed

[m***@gmail.com]

Post by Edward Prochak
[]

Post by m***@gmail.com

Post by Edward Prochak
Sorry but you reached the wrong conclusion. Please watch
the video. Feynman explains the problem very clearly.
There is not solution outside of QM. As Feynman says,
that's just the way it works.
IOW, nature tells us the rules and in this case they are QM
Ed

Einstein was right to disagree with the stupidity of Observer Created Reality
Copenhagen interpretation philosophy of QM.

So you merely dispute this particular interpretation of QM.
Okay.

Post by m***@gmail.com
It doesn't matter if anyone sees the light at the two holes.

Actually it does. If there is a detector at even one of the slits,
you get different results.

Post by m***@gmail.com
It doesn't work backward in time. It is a new light phenomenon
collapsing electron's waves giving the two results detected.

It is not clear what you mean by "new light phenomenon" and
"the two results detected". Elaborate please.

Post by m***@gmail.com
Path integral is also something that depends on working
backward in time. But both it and OCR are the most absurd
ideas or orders supposedly in the quantum universe.
Mitchell Raemsch

Can you define what you mean above?
By path integral, are you making a vague reference to Feynman diagrams?
I am not a QM expert. but the only meaning I have for OCR is Optical
Character Recognition? So Please explain what you mean by OCR above.
I cannot agree or disagree with you when what you say is so unclear.
ed

Light collapses matter wave of electrons at the two slits...

Mitchell Raemsch

[john]

Ed
"cannot agree or disagree with you when what you say is so unclear. "
Okay, there are two slits.
There are electrons being shot through space at these slits.
Space can have enough energy at some places to create electron-positron pairs- these would be like whitecaps on the waves that are implicitly admitted to be everywhere.
So I would say it's the wavelike pattern of Space itself combined with electrons being fired without some necessary constraints that gives the variation.
It's like throwing frisbees by the gazillions with varying conditions and spin directions.
Overrated

[p***@gmail.com]

Post by john
Ed
"cannot agree or disagree with you when what you say is so unclear. "
Okay, there are two slits.
There are electrons being shot through space at these slits.
Space can have enough energy at some places to create electron-positron pairs- these would be like whitecaps on the waves that are implicitly admitted to be everywhere.
So I would say it's the wavelike pattern of Space itself combined with electrons being fired without some necessary constraints that gives the variation.
It's like throwing frisbees by the gazillions with varying conditions and spin directions.
Overrated

==================
and what makes us be sure
that it is really only one electron ???
2
how about the possibility that
electrons from the slits are not involved in it ???
Y.Porat
==================================

[Edward Prochak]

Post by p***@gmail.com

Post by john
Ed
"cannot agree or disagree with you when what you say is so unclear. "
Okay, there are two slits.
There are electrons being shot through space at these slits.
Space can have enough energy at some places to create electron-positron pairs- these would be like whitecaps on the waves that are implicitly admitted to be everywhere.
So I would say it's the wavelike pattern of Space itself combined with electrons being fired without some necessary constraints that gives the variation.
It's like throwing frisbees by the gazillions with varying conditions and spin directions.
Overrated

==================
and what makes us be sure
that it is really only one electron ???
2
how about the possibility that
electrons from the slits are not involved in it ???
Y.Porat
==================================

Interesting question Porat.
I would guess you make the slit out of something without
material. I wonder if you can form the slits as two holes
in a magnetic field barrier?

Ed

[p***@gmail.com]

Post by Edward Prochak

Post by p***@gmail.com

Post by john
Ed
"cannot agree or disagree with you when what you say is so unclear. "
Okay, there are two slits.
There are electrons being shot through space at these slits.
Space can have enough energy at some places to create electron-positron pairs- these would be like whitecaps on the waves that are implicitly admitted to be everywhere.
So I would say it's the wavelike pattern of Space itself combined with electrons being fired without some necessary constraints that gives the variation.
It's like throwing frisbees by the gazillions with varying conditions and spin directions.
Overrated

==================
and what makes us be sure
that it is really only one electron ???
2
how about the possibility that
electrons from the slits are not involved in it ???
Y.Porat
==================================

Interesting question Porat.
I would guess you make the slit out of something without
material. I wonder if you can form the slits as two holes
in a magnetic field barrier?

===============
may be
yet
i don t understand
what(and how ?) do you expect from a magnetic field to do in that case ??
YIA
Y.Porat
========================
?

Post by Edward Prochak
Ed

[Edward Prochak]

Post by john
Ed
"cannot agree or disagree with you when what you say is so unclear. "
Okay, there are two slits.
There are electrons being shot through space at these slits.
Space can have enough energy at some places to create electron-positron
pairs- these would be like whitecaps on the waves that are implicitly
admitted to be everywhere.
So I would say it's the wavelike pattern of Space itself combined with
electrons being fired without some necessary constraints that gives
the variation.
It's like throwing frisbees by the gazillions with varying
conditions and spin directions.

You are describing the pilot wave interpretation of QM.
It is an interesting interpretation.

Post by john
Overrated

Which is "overrated"? the pilot wave theory?
or throwing frisbees?

I can agree throwing frisbees is overrated.
I much prefer volleyball.
ed

[john]

Ed
"- show quoted text -
You are describing the pilot wave interpretation of QM.
It is an interesting interpretation.

Post by john
Overrated

Which is "overrated"? the pilot wave theory?
or throwing frisbees?

I can agree throwing frisbees is overrated.
I much "
The trajectory of each electron will depend on its specific spin as well as the 'wind'- both vary.
Too many variables

[Edward Prochak]

Post by john
Ed
"- show quoted text -
You are describing the pilot wave interpretation of QM.
It is an interesting interpretation.

Post by john
Overrated

Which is "overrated"? the pilot wave theory?
or throwing frisbees?
I can agree throwing frisbees is overrated.
I much "
The trajectory of each electron will depend on its specific spin as well as the 'wind'- both vary.
Too many variables

Ah so you don't prefer pilot wave interpretation. You prefer
hidden variable theory. Too bad you do not understand mathematics.
Bell's theorem proves hidden variable theory doesn't work.

Ed

[Odd Bodkin]

Post by john
Ed
"cannot agree or disagree with you when what you say is so unclear. "
Okay, there are two slits.
There are electrons being shot through space at these slits.
Space can have enough energy at some places to create electron-positron
pairs- these would be like whitecaps on the waves that are implicitly
admitted to be everywhere.
So I would say it's the wavelike pattern of Space itself combined with
electrons being fired without some necessary constraints that gives the variation.
It's like throwing frisbees by the gazillions with varying conditions and spin directions.
Overrated

You’ve just given a very qualitative description that basically says, yeah,
stuff spreads out.

Compare this with quantum mechanics, which not only gives more detailed
qualitative information, but also quantitative information, like how far
apart will the maxima of the distribution be? what will be the relative
intensities of this maxima? how do those change if the slit spacing
changes? how do those change if the momentum of the electrons is increased?

Then here’s where you say you don’t care about bean counting and you don’t
care that quantum mechanics gets all that right because you just don’t
believe the basic tenets of quantum mechanics.

But a scientist (which you are not) will say that the quantitative
hitting-it-on-the-nose is the best compelling argument there is that the
basic tenets of quantum mechanics are right.

So John, you have it all completely backwards. You decide first what basic
tenets you want to believe, and then let that dictate to you which data are
important to look at. Scientists look at the data first and let that
dictate which basic tenets to believe.

No way to make you start thinking like a scientist. You’re too inside out
for that.

[john]

Odd
"So John, you have it all completely backwards. You decide first what basic
tenets you w"
Someone has something backwards, yes