The double slit experiment

[optiongeek]

Mill's basic idea may be original, but he has been criticized for plagiarism; see Reference 51 here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BlackLight_Power

Pardon me for butting in, but as someone who has fought against thinly sourced defamatory biographical material for years across all areas of Wikipedia, I feel like I have to say something here. The plagiarism claim here is sourced to a 15-year-old blog post passing on hearsay. This is a glaring example of bias by Wiki editors who control the page. I can't think of another example this egregious where defamatory material has been allowed to remain on such thin evidence. I would urge against relying on anything drawn from the Wiki page.

[Q-reeus]

First off, several associates pointed out that the “erroneous” diagram 107 that was so heavily criticized could not be found! Here is one comment: “neither the page labeled as 107 in its corner, nor the 107th from the start of Volume I (including front-matter pages labeled stuff like "iv") have figures of the photon. He should *read* Chapter 4 (Equation of the Photon) and look at figures 4.1 through 4.7.”

Well Bill, I thought it obvious my referencing was to the pdf article linked to as http://www.blacklightpower.com/wp-conte ... ionPt1.pdf
in your post of Nov 19: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=51&start=100#p5790
Here's the relevant passage again from my post viewtopic.php?f=6&t=51&start=100#p5792

I began a skim through the linked pdf article. Not happy initially that a number of equation entities were never defined. However, pp 107-110 (according to my Foxit pdf Reader): The Field of the Photon Observed from the Laboratory Frame is where Mill's GUT of CP theory obviously starts falling apart for me. In fact just p107 sealed it (p108 being a useless and misleading distraction). See if you can guess why (hint: he claims full consistency with special relativity).

That passage is accurate re logical page #'s I gave, and reference to relevant figure. The cited pdf article itself has NO page or figure numbering or best I could see any equation numbering - a very poor show and not my fault!

Second, here is an edited-for-brevity set of comments that catch the ‘flavor’ of the group’s response:
“Dr. Mills isn't saying that it's possible for a photon (or its fields) to be at rest. Those figures show what the EM fields would look like if you could be in the *photon's inertial reference frame* (which of course you can't be). The photon's wavelength is the diameter of its EM field orbitsphere and its frequency is the number of times a second that the overall E field vector (or equivalently the B field vector) completes a 360 degree rotation (see Figures 4.5 and 4.6)...

On the assumption your above previously cited pdf is an accurate subset of larger article 'Volume I', all I need do is refer to the rhs figure on (logical) p107. Labelled with 'Time axis' and 'toward the observer'. It's clear from that illustration the photon fields, in observer rest frame, have substantial extent along the propagation axis (arrow shown). It follows from Lorentz transformations that 'what photon would look like in its inertial rest frame' is an entirely vanished entity - infinitely extended thus infinitely diluted thus no energy-momentum or fields whatsoever there. Fundamental to the very concept of massless Boson is that not only can't one be in the (non-existent) rest frame of a massless Boson, it's equally absurd to even imagine that (im)possibility as thought experiment. As I explained previously. Getting that wrong may not of itself be fatal to the rest of his theory, but a frank admission of conceptual error is preferable to weasel words intended to save face.

...Since the photon travels at c, in the lab frame we see relativistic length contraction *such that the photon appears "flat" in the axis of propagation.*...
“Note that in this lab reference frame view that the photon (pair) appears to have zero extent in the direction of propagation due to relativistic length contraction (just like in Mills' Figures 4.5 & 4.6).“

See my last comments above - according to the rhs figure I referred to, Mill's photon most certainly and obviously is far from having zero axial extent. Calling black white doesn't make it so. And even if, contrary to the rhs figure, 'zero axial extent' in observer frame were true, it implies an infinitely thin pulse having an infinite Fourier frequency spectrum such that talk of a definite photon 'frequency' would be nonsensical.
[Also, axial spatial extent is explicitly given in the wave equations for E & H shown on (logical) p109.]

Third, and most important, physics is an empirical science, so reproducible experimental evidence trumps any wiggling around about theoretical semantics.

There are *many* reproducible experimental results in top-tier journals that defy explanation in quantum theory, but are *predicted* by GUT-CP. These include *many* experiments that yield unexplained (by current physics and QM) excess heat. In addition. And, within the last year, in-house and public demonstrations have shown a dramatically new configuration that generates enormous amounts of light that can be captured by conventional Solar Cells and turned directly into electricity.
This technique has not, AFAIK, been independently replicated. Engineering (as opposed to R&D) work is currently in process.
One of the group added, WRT independent verifications: “I link a ton of such evidence in my comments in that awful Forbes blog post from 6 months ago here: http://goo.gl/XTXczp http://goo.gl/XTXczp

I grant the possibility that, despite many sceptics claims of incompetence and/or fraud, he may have discovered something real that lacks any explanation within standard QM/QFT. What dulls that is the decades long claims of imminent practical hydrino-physics almost-free energy devices that, notwithstanding radical design changes, just never quite come to fruition. Why not? What also of the radical new hydrino-based compounds with amazing properties that similarly never quite make it to market?

If Q. would wish to continue this discussion, I believe it might be better to start an entirely new thread, since the contents here have drifted dramatically from the double slit.

I'll leave that perogative to you. In passing, having previously given scant attention as to whether his e.g. H atom electron shell 'orbitsphere' derivation is self-consistent with stated uniform areal charge density, it has just occurred to me the answer is surely no. A complex arrangement of crisscrossing orbitsphere currents imo cannot allow it. The sole current distribution compatible with uniform shell charge density being that generated by a spinning spherical shell of charge - with proviso angular velocities maybe a function of latitude but not longitude. Just how such an entity could be mechanically stable via classical physics alone is beyond me.

[Bill]

My Final comment on Mills' Hydrinos in *this* thread.
Q: " he may have discovered something real that lacks any explanation within standard QM/QFT. What dulls that is the decades long claims of imminent practical hydrino-physics almost-free energy devices..."
The time from Maxwell's papers to acceptance was relatively short. The primary reason "chain," IMNTBHO is that it was easy to understand since all but one "piece" was already in place, it *predicted* radiation, and this was almost immediately verified, no competing theory was already "imbedded" in the physics community, and there was an almost-immediate "gratification"... Radio!

Contrast that with Mills' concept. Starting with his electron model, the concept is *very* complicated. It predicts "excess" heat/light, and while this has been verified by many third parties, the lab setup is complex and the amounts generated (until now) have not been high enough to command attention. (IOW no gratification.) Finally, there is in existence a Ptolemaic-like theory (QM) that provides useful results *and* is accepted by every physicist that values his career (and tenure!)
Q said: "Just how such an entity could be mechanically stable via classical physics alone is beyond me." Without reading (and understanding) the Mills theory, that condition will endure.

Hint: (see, I can do it too!) the orbitsphere is not spinning. That is obvious to anyone that follows the derivation.

Now... would someone like to comment on the non-Hydrino, classical (only) interpretation of the double slit "problem" that is what this thread is *supposed to be about?*

All the best, Bill

[Q-reeus]

Now... would someone like to comment on the non-Hydrino, classical (only) interpretation of the double slit "problem" that is what this thread is *supposed to be about?*

OK Bill, double slit it is. No need for any in-depth analysis of RM's math though. Just a case of being sufficiently savvy to spot a grievous fundamental conceptual blunder. Again referring to the abbreviated pdf article, lets look at section "Equations of the Free Electron" (logical) pp114-124. Randall's free electron is an almost infinitely thin pancake propagating along it's axis of circular symmetry - as per figure on p115. The disk has a definite radius ρ inversely proportional to the magnitude of emission velocity v relative to emission source i.e. ρ ~ 1/|v| (subscripts omitted). The 'de Broglie wavelength' is, according to eqn. on p118, then simply related by λ = 2πρ. Thus also inversely proportional to v relative to the emission source.

What?!! This theoretical framework strongly violates Galilean invariance, let alone Lorentz invariance. In order for there to be any consistency with diffraction, λ = h/|p| = h/(m|v|) (v << c) must have v relative to the diffraction grating - NOT the source! One can get away with RM's theory only if restricting to a special ad hoc reference frame in which both source and target (grating) are at rest. Go through it yourself - look at various reference frames in which relative motions are arbitrary. It should, hopefully, soon become apparent his theory is unworkable, having no general consistency needed of a bona fide theory. If it fails at the first few hurdles, no need to examine the rest of the course.

I do understand the appeal his worldview can have. With impressive looking mathematical equations, an authoritative and professional style, coupled with numerous claimed experimental support and tables of e.g. numerous calculated ionization potentials that exquisitely match experimental values (though not perfectly). Not to mention the sheer excitement of 'disruptive' science & technology that would overturn our currently unsatisfactory worldview drastically.

I could go back and pick you up on one or two claimed points in your last post, but why bother - it would just get us off-topic again. And that's 'not trout'! Maybe Randall could post any defense of his theory here as a guest.

[FrediFizzx]

http://phys.org/news/2013-10-classical- ... antum.html

Maybe the above is relevant here?

[Q-reeus]

http://phys.org/news/2013-10-classical-physics-shown-equal-quantum.html

Maybe the above is relevant here?

Drawing a long bow there Fred - extremely unlikely that team of actual physicists would in any way concur with the claims of RM 'team'.

Decided to do a quick web search for 'society for classical physics', and quickly homed in on: https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/Soc ... opics/7175
After finding how to expand that thread, read through the various posts. One or more pedantic nitwits among them - much ado about my incorrect use of an apostrophe (so very, very sorry), or slightly mispelling Randell. But amusing to note that RM's physics/cosmology evidently is based on an absolute space and time i.e. Newtonian. I had at least expected it to be consistent with both SR and GR, but actually neither. Quoting from 2nd post there:

First tell him to drop the "apostrophe" on "it's", unless he's trying to say "... in it is ⨁own rest frame". Which he clearly isn't. So rumble him up a little on the grammar. They love that stuff.

Then tell him the photon doesn't have zero rest "energy" as he implies by implying that gutcp implies it. The photon merely has zero rest "mass". Then tell him the "free" photon never stops "frequencying", thus it never stops "energying"...

...Except in the case where a photon merges into spacetime's absolute rest frame, by way of resonation, by cause of band-stop impedance, allowing the photon to transition from light speed-energy --> to --> physical matter at-rest in the universal absolute spacetime frame of reference.

If that poster, who has his own spelling issues, is accurately representing RM's position, and it seems so, it's clear RM is denying validity of Lorentz transformations. Thus in fact anti-SR, despite claims to the contrary. At least one of the posters has cottoned on to that GUTCP photon has bleeding obviously non-zero axial extent in lab frame. On top of the issue raised in my last post, there is just nothing in GUTCP worth continuing with here. RM's explanation for double slit interference is voodoo, not 'common sense classical physics'. And, according to one GUTCP conversant poster, a neutrino is supposedly an EM entity - a kind of special photon?! Amazing.

Anyway, Bill, please inform me when the very first sample of super-hard/room-temperature superconducting/anti-gravitating/etc. hydrino compound becomes available for purchase (at an affordable price). That would be really exciting!

[Bill]

#SIGH#
Q said "OK Bill, double slit it is." and then: "lets look at section "Equations of the Free Electron" "

Let me try again... Randell's Double Slit analysis has * Nothing To Do With His Free Electron Model, nor hydrinos."

It is simply an analysis, using *only* Classical Formulae and derivations thereof.

In order for anyone to to comment on it, it would be a good idea, perhaps, to read it.

BTW, his name is Randell; not Randall.

You learn that by reading also.
All the best, Bill

[Bill]

http://phys.org/news/2013-10-classical-physics-shown-equal-quantum.html

Maybe the above is relevant here?

hi Freddi... It certainly seems that someone other than RM and his team has identified a sensible alternate explanation of the double slit experiment that so baffled Feynman.

I sometimes get the impression that the international physics community, knowing how truly brilliant Feynman was, have simply given up... saying, in effect, "If Feynman couldn't figure out the double slit using Classical approaches, then it can't be done!"

All the best, Bill

[Q-reeus]

#SIGH#
Q said "OK Bill, double slit it is." and then: "lets look at section "Equations of the Free Electron" "

Let me try again... Randell's Double Slit analysis has * Nothing To Do With His Free Electron Model, nor hydrinos."

WRONG. It has everything to do with his free electron model - as pointed out in:
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=51&start=120#p5889
If you cannot grasp RM's simple (and erroneous) relation between emission velocity and free electron 'de Broglie wavelength', which is fundamental to his diffraction analysis, it's your problem, not mine. And btw it is even more explicitly given on (logical) p119 in the pdf article.
To repeat in hope it will get through - de Broglie wavelength thus v necessarily is relative to target (diffraction slits) - NOT emitter. Even for v << c, his formula *strongly* violates Galilean relativity thus *cannot* have general validity.

It is simply an analysis, using *only* Classical Formulae and derivations thereof.

Indeed - and one that breaks down outside of his ad hoc emitter-and-target-both-stationary-in-lab-frame scenario. True Believers tend to miss such basic shortcomings.

In order for anyone to to comment on it, it would be a good idea, perhaps, to read it.

I have read enough. And suggest you go back and actually try and comprehend what I have written earlier.

BTW, his name is Randell; not Randall.
You learn that by reading also.

Bad show there Bill, repeating pedantry after I dealt with it last time. Is that attitude characteristic of the entire 'Society for Classical Physics'? Try concentrating on the essential physics. And by all means try and get Randell to respond frankly. Some chance - given how long his (of late 'sparks and bangs') roadshow has been running now.

[Bill]

Q: What are you reading?

I am referring to Chapter 8: http://issuu.com/blacklightpower/docs/v ... 98/2669360 "Classical Photon and Electron Scattering." Please note: "Classical."

Sorry about the pedantic slip re Randy's name spelling. I sent my message before reading the posts that followed. My bad.

All the best, Bill

[Q-reeus]

Q: What are you reading?

I am referring to Chapter 8: http://issuu.com/blacklightpower/docs/v ... 98/2669360 "Classical Photon and Electron Scattering." Please note: "Classical."

OK let's now refer to the full Volume I instead of abridged pdf. But the djvu downloadable 2011 version masquerading as (non-existent?) Spring 2014 version!! Your above linked-to web incantation is imo just too clumsy to work with.

In first para of ch 8. RM states "Huygens’ principle is that a point source of light will give rise to a spherical wave emanating equally in all directions." This relates to the secondary radiation through a pinhole in an otherwise opaque screen, back-illuminated by notionally uniform intensity radiation. That assumed 'equally in all directions' past pinhole as point source is only really true of acoustic waves in fluids; or the space & time averaged result for incident randomly polarized EM radiation. As an antenna buff you must be aware dipole radiation has only axial symmetry - azimuthal intensity is not uniform. Thus if back illumination was from a coherent source e.g. laser, the point source would NOT radiate uniformly in all directions. However such is the partially phase cohering nature of an initial pinhole filtering source, down-the-line double-slit diffraction pattern will result even for incoherent back-illuminating radiation. As shown since the famous 1801 experiment by Thomas Young.

What is seldom covered in accounts of Young double-slit is just how incident incoherent light yields phase coherent light past the initial pinhole. The standard explanation notes that most incoherent light sources such as sunlight or an incandescent bulb emit photons with significant coherence lengths - perhaps millions of times the nominal wavelength. Those that make it past the initial pinhole 'naturally' then behave as phase coherent secondary sources because each is effectively a near monochromatic wave train. The mystery part is that ever since Dirac, it's become lore that photons only interfere with themselves - not other photons! Nowadays it's recognized that doesn't always hold but such exceptions are fairly exotic and not supposed to apply to double slit case. Main thing to note here though is photons are not stocky 'bullets' in standard quantum picture. If they were, phase coherence past slits would not happen and only a washed out pattern would be expected. Which btw mysteriously happens anyway if which-way detectors (need not actually record!) are placed in the system.

For RM's bullet-like photons having lab frame dimensions no greater than the assumed wavelength, there is no possible explanation in terms of coherent waves given the huge frequency spread implied on a tight bullet wave-packet basis. Taking as he does that photons can mutually interfere, phase incoherent secondary radiation would continue to be true past the pinhole. Hence no double slit interference fringe pattern further on. RM's explanation afaik though is in terms of incident bullet photons inducing locally coherent currents, modulated by the twin slits, that then re-radiate bullet photons of identical frequency to that of the incident photons. With the appropriate angular distribution generating the usual twin slit diffraction pattern. Which defies a general expectation that the re-radiation should by Fourier analysis entail a highly dispersive spectrum of photon frequencies. In turn gets back to whether the basic photon picture as compact bullet is at all compatible with a well defined frequency!
Above has disregarded content of earlier posts questioning basic SR consistency of his photon model re 'rest frame' vs 'lab frame'.

Assume basic picture QM vs GUT-CP entails much the same for electron diffraction case. His electrons necessarily having an infinite number of possible internal states - huge contrast to standard QM picture!

What I'm suggesting is Randy has adopted the usual Fresnel etc. wave-based math predicting the usual interference fringes, but such math is inappropriate to his physical models - be it photon or electron. Beyond that, a new thread centered around basic plausibility and consistency of his photon and electron models in themselves is maybe the way to go from here. Will be tight for time for quite some time hereon out, hence any feedback from me could be very sporadic.

Sorry about the pedantic slip re Randy's name spelling. I sent my message before reading the posts that followed. My bad.

That's ok Bill and thanks for responding so well.

Cheers & best over Xmas/NY,
Q-reeus

[Bill]

Hello, Q...

I also have been busy this time of year. Unfortunately I still must turn the pecuniary grindstone.

I appreciate your understanding re my errors --like Dr.Mills' name spelling. Once acknowledged, I *try* to put them behind.

Re his Classical derivation of Two Slit, we both agree that this puzzling phenomenon is present in a wide variety of charged and charge-neutral items. (Though I am still puzzled as to how one goes about accelerating a neutron without imparting some type of charge to it, After all, one can't simply grasp a handful of charges and *hurl* them at the slits!)

But this agreement brings with it a challenge. *IF* the procedure outlined in Chapter 8 is valid, then it *must* be valid over a wide range of different items, including many whose physical characteristics are well-defined. So... your critique of the process must be valid for *all* types of particles, from Protons through neutrons through -- to be silly -- charged elephants passing through barn-door apertures at speed.

You have chosen to focus entirely on what you believe to be flaws in the model(s) of Dr.Mills and -- by extension -- negating this process for *all* other particles (except maybe the elephants!)

That's a leap of faith that I'm not real happy with. That's especially true since I have already seen *one* example wherein your own understanding of the Mills model is incorrect.

A while back, you pointed out that the thickness of the electron shell (aka Orbitsphere) was a small but finite dimension, and therefor violated... not sure what.

The Orbitsphere shell -- and it's conjugate "pancake" in free space --is a superconductor of zero thickness, according to Mills.

Non physical? I dunno! But not any more ridiculous than an electron whose properties are unknown until we look at it!

But that comment starts to violate the "trout rule."

So... when you have time, I cordially invite you to consider the *process* by which Mills made his "Classical" explanation of the two slit conundrum, rather than considering whether or not *his* models are valid.

I also wish for you and yours all the best for Christmas and the Year to come.

All the best, Bill

[Q-reeus]

Bill - by chance came across something that may interest you. Don't blame me if this leads to chasing down another exciting breakthrough - with eerie parallels to a certain RM's model of reality:
http://pesn.com/2015/12/19/9602707_Quan ... -pressure/
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory: ... Energy_LLC
Have to wonder if there wasn't a certain amount of idea borrowing going on.

[Bill]

Q: Thanks for the links. Will look after Xmas business rush is done.

Re: Double slit and "QM Patterns." I was reminded by a friend that "neutral" particles aren't as neutral as we might assume. They have magnetic fields and possess angular momentum. Both of those characteristics allow for interaction - especially when moving - with other "stuff." also, since they are composed of positive and negative "stuff," this provides ample opportunity for charge-related interactions during and after *at speed* particle collisions with slit edges and the slit walls.

No need for QM weirdness.

Merry Christmas all!
Bill