God does not play dice with electrons, An alternative interpretation to the DSE

If you place one or an infinite number of quantum wells or barriers between the electron gun and double slits in the standard Double Slit experiment, you do not change the out come of the experiment - you still get an interference pattern produced, if you accept quantum tunneling.

"Whether you send a beam of "Classical" or "Quantum" electrons, you do not change the out come of the experiment."

Consider an electron as a superimposed collection of wavelengths, in 5 dimensions.

Adding additional quantum wells or barriers is the same as increasing the number of filters within the experiment, increase the purity of the final sample, if you add an infinite number of wells or barriers minus one, so the probability of finding only one electron is greater than zero. Then as predicted by quantum mechanics all electrons would be identical - God does not play with dice with electrons, only humans differentiate.

Classical electrons travel through copper wire, very very slowly, but electric current or flow travels at the speed of light - Can any one please explain the difference.

Before the classical electron reaches the first Quantum Well, the Classical Theory and General Relativity, apply in 4 Dimensions, where the 5 Dimension is assumed to be either 0 or 1.

After the electron has tunneled through the first Quantum Well, or even from wire from which it emerged, Quantum Mechanics and Electro-Magnetic theories, apply in 5 Dimensions, where the 5 Dimension is assumed to be either infinite but finite, between 0 and 1, or imaginary "i".

Does this help us begin to start solving the true mystery of the electron, in 5 Dimensions.

Assuming Theodor Kaluza was right all along and Klein interpretation was a special case, would this change our perception.

Is this an acceptable alternative solution to the Double Slit Experiment?

Yes or No - Lets conduct a poll?????????????

I am dying to know the answer.

Regards

Terry Giblin

Hi Terry

The difference between electron flow and current flow is that electrons have both an electric and a magnetic moment/field that extends beyond the actual electron. In metals and semiconductors(N-Type) there are free electrons that can align themselves to an external field/potential. The alignment/addition of the electron's electric field under the influence of an external electrical potential is what travels at close to the speed of light.

Moving electrons within a conductor is what generates heat from collisions of the free electrons with the metal lattice. Free electrons will also move to the surface of a conductor as a function of applied potential.

Also bound valance electrons will align their magnetic moments with an external magnetic field.

I'm not well read on this topic, but the way i'm imagining it is that the movement of one electron alters the electric field at the speed of light, just like gravity fields are affected at the speed of light. I'm guessing that the electric current is like the amount of change in the electric field.

Regarding electrons and that 5 dimension stuff, i'm clueless. But my counter phrase to Einstien's is "God does play dice with the universe; but he controls the dice."

I would like to see if there is a mechanism for God to influence the probability of an electron choosing one path over the other.

By the Aether Wave Theory the famous double slit experiment can be explained using the semiclassical physic insights using a inhomogeneous elastic environment as the medium by the following way:

1) The spacetime is formed by the elastic inhomogeneous massive environment, i.e. Aether

2) All the energy is spreading like the transversal wave through such environment

3) The inner particle energy isn't any exception, i.e. the particle resides / is spreading like the elastic (torsion) vibration of such environment



4) The energy of the aether vibrations is additive and makes the Aether more dense at the same time, i.e. the place, where the particle vibrations occurs are behaving like the tiny gravity lens, focusing the particle wave energy (see the Java applet for better idea)

5) The energy of the relative particle motion behaves by the same way. It creates so called de Broglie virtual energy density lens perpendicular to the particle motion direction.



6) The insintric vacuum fluctuations are behaving like the tiny gravity lenses too



7) As the result, the energy of (torsion) vibrations particle inside particle spreads to the nearly whole volume of the experiment (compare the 3D wave video).



8) The energy density fluctuations are dynamically separating particle (torsion) vibrations to the many places at the same time and connecting it like the dance of the light spots at the water surface during sunset. Just the total particle energy (i.e. Hamiltonian) remains constant, the particle energy density changes dynamically.

9) Due this fact, the particle can really pass through both the slits at the same time. The whole particle energy is restored at the place of the particle target in process of so called quantum wave collapse:



10) The particle energy spreading to the larger volume of vacuum by the density fluctuations of it can be considered a reason of the manifestation of the other distributed particle properties, like the Aharamov-Bohm effect. Because each bit of vacuum near the electron oscillates like the field inside the electron, it's influenced by the spatially limited magnetic field of the long solenoid by the similar way, as if the electron would pass through solenoid directly ("holographic principle").



I believe, such explanation is rather qualitative at this moment, but it can give some idea, what the Aether concept is really about.

I enjoyed the thread. Now consider that all these quantum wells/vacuum fluxuations might physically be a single small quantum well/vacuum fluxuation (or at least some small number). So the entire experiment, including the walls and detector plate might instead of being trillions or quadrillions of independent "resonant cavities" could be a single one with maybe thousands of resonant modes or even significantly less each in a few dimensions.

That might seem impossible because the wall itself likely has trillions of "imperfections", but consider that the wall itself would have been constructed using a similar process. Did we put every single imperfection into the material on purpose and assure they were all exactly independent and even if we tried, what did we use as a source in determining what those independent features were suppose to be? The line of detector elements was manufactured in a similar manner, and if we tried to remove all variables in these, we'd likely end up with a perfectly "crystalline" wall or array of detectors that could be represented by an even smaller number of features/dimensions.

So did the electron "leap" across space through some sort of quantum tunnelling or did a "wave collapse" occur far from the source, or are the physical distances instead more illusionary and representative of triangulating phase differences detected within a physically small universe? So instead of these waves being physically separate, we could simply be seeing them interacting at a common location inside a single small object/vacuum fluxation/quantum wall/"black hole?".

(That may or may not be off topic ) I admit I can't prove this is the case but it seems to explain so many things, even beyond these quantum wave interactions.

The electron moves through Aether like the wave through dynamic inhomogeneous massive elastic environment. Such inhomogeneities are spreading the electron vibrations to the randomly distributed wave pockets.



The wave collapse is the result of interference of the moving particle vibration with the wave of detector particle vibrations. Alternative descriptions are possible, but the idea of the vacuum like the elastic massive environment (i.e. the Aether) can be reused in explanation of many other effects.

Yes, I agree this is likely how things work and I have looked at many of your links before with pleasure, but I'm trying to emphasize that, for example, in your last post you show the waves flowing off through empty space, we'll assume to infinity. Instead I believe these might be better viewed along the lines of standing waves in a small enclosed cavity. The electron itself need not even exist as we only interact with the forces, not with the mass itself. (Assuming gravity is unified with EMF, which seems possible in a small universe model) Consider that we only intuitively recognize mass and gravity because they reflect aggregate effects of a large number of smaller interactions (consciously we don't see the individual dice, but simply add up totals and call these inertia/mass/spacial dimensions).

Consider the pattern followed by the real toroidal collisions you've shown on this site and imagine how waves would propogate over time, for example inside a single toroidal manifold. It seems likely that the same spacial expansion of the collision between them could be mimicked in characteristics by interpreting wave propogations inside of only one of these and not even needing an expanding space. If these wave interactions were non-linear they'd quickly grow in complexity, yet retain characteristics in resonance with dimensions of this manifold. A complex spacial motion could be interpreted by simply comparing phases of a few of these and adding more would produce incredible complexity.

For example, if you took 3 paths inside this and plotted the phase relationships when interacting with the surface over time, you could trace out discrete events that would look like a lissajous pattern in 3-D space. But if you added a 4th path, you find 4 possible combinations of 3-D objects (take 1 of the four out and plot the other 3 over time, once for each of the 4 resonant modes) these "particles" would happen to share 1 or 2 "quantum properties" each. When you added a 5th path, you'd find 10 3-D "particles" that again would share some "quantum properties" (Taking 3 at a time for 5 gives 4+3+2+1) and a 6th jumps these up to 20, 7 goes up to 35 ( n!/[3!(n-3)!] ), yet all would still retain toroidal characteristics and things like superluminal gravity would seem much easier to explain, because none of these objects were physically far apart in space.

A way of getting a general picture of the idea would be to take a few mirrors arrange them so that all the paths the electron took followed straight lines (I think that may only take 2 mirrors - one to mirror the two slits together and another to mirror the varying wave densities into a single uniform density). So you could view this entire experiment as a single spread of electrons always travelling straight but mirrored/reflected in various ways. Though to take a broader more generally view, the mirrors themselves could be seen as a single mirror surface itself mirrored into a plane etc. Basically the entire experiment could be represented as a single very small reflective/resonant object with time evolving at discrete steps as particles interact with the surface and that simply by viewing the surface of this, you could recreate the entire 3-D structure in which this test took place. (Now I admit this may not be the reality, and even if does reflect reality, not only would it be virtually impossible to take a physical test of this scale and reverse engineer things but it seems likely on small scales we could be able to verify these effects, and from everything I understand, this seems to be the case).

(Ok, yes I admit I'm off topic now.)

Zephir,

It was I not Seth, who you sent you this message.

"In my professional option, if you apply quantum tunneling to Theordor Kaluza original theory as endorsed by Albert Einstein, it can be used to explain what happens if you place a quantum well between the electron gun and the double slits."

Thank you very much for your execelent various examples of the DSE.

Unfortunately you appear to be missing the most important new improvement to the experiment, which is the purpose of the tread.

What happens to all your diagrams you have drawn, when you apply my modification and re-interpretation by simply including one or more quantum wells.

"There is no new physics...." This is what I was often told when I said that I had solved the DSE.

Because everyone simply visualised or pictured the diagrams or theories which you are supporting.

The real break through came by combining two well known and accepted theories, the DSE and Quantum Tunneling and realizing its importance and implications to General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics.

Inserting a quantum well in the DSE, has proven that we can never again consider an electron as a particle, even if the mathematics works.

Whether you use a black hole or an electron in my version of the DSE, the same mathematics and physics still apply and always gives the same valid answer.

If you don't take my word for it, you can always read Theordor Kaluza paper.

Regards

Terry Giblin

What wells? Can you supply at least single picture, illustrating your concept? I don't need any further concept to demonstrate/solve/interpret the DSE situation (see the Java applet. After all, you shouldn't try to explain the quantum effects using a quantum mechanic concepts without risk of tautology.

What wells? Can you supply at least single picture, illustrating your concept? I don't need any further concept to demonstrate/solve/interpret the DSE situation (see the Java applet. After all, you shouldn't try to explain the quantum effects using a quantum mechanic concepts without risk of tautology.

Dear Zephir,

I have been frequently asked to write up my work and experiment, but how do you expand on "Draw a line/wall/barrier in front of every set of double slit in the above diagrams and label it a "Quantum Well or Barrier"?

Electron source, quantum well or barrier, double slits, interference pattern.

The more quantum wells or barriers you add the better the experiment becomes.

The Quantum wells or barriers, can be anything from the event horizon (Hawkings Radiaition), a lift door - (Queueing theory), an electric or magnetic potential gradient or field (Maxwells equations), a hill or wall (Classical and General Relativity) down to an NPN quantum junctions (Quantum Mechanics) - You always get the same answer, you simply apply the according basic mathematics or physics.

The double slit experiment works for everything not just electrons, even when there is no matter in sight, only a wave.

Now between each quantum well, put a question mark.

Starting with a "Claissical" electron, we end up with an infinite number of "Quantum" electrons (Question marks), which pass through the double slits to form an interference pattern.

electron, first quantum well, [?][?][?][?]......[?][?][?][?][?][? , double slits, interference pattern. - A photo-multiplier in reverse.....

Regards

Terry Giblin

Sorry, I didn't catch-up the explanation of improvement of DSE experiment at all. Maybe somebody else will be a more lucky and he will help both of us. Some potential barrier should exist at the front of each DSE forming a detector (the fluorescent screen, as an example) - how do you expect to trap the particle quantum wave and to detect the particle location without interference without some other potential gradient ? Of course, all potential gradients are formed by the less or more standing quantum waves of the other particles, which are forming the screen material. Everything is heavily dynamic at the quantum level, being formed just by the energy of vacuum inertial vibrations.

Is my explanation of the DES at least clear for you? Can you reinterpret it by your own worlds?

Sorry, I don't see any fundamental difference with respect my model. Of course, the vacuum density fluctuation behaves like a tiny gravity lens, focusing a separating the part of particle vibrations into small area, which can be considered being a tiny less or more separate parallel bits of spacetime (the parallel Universe is rather general concept for this case).

But the gravity lens concept is quite good enough for everybody, who has basic knowledge of the energy spreading through inhomogeneous dynamic environment from optic. Such model is quite classical, in fact - the deepest thing in understanding of quantum mechanic is the deBroglie wave formation as the result of relative (sic!) particle motion. It cannot be understood fully without understanding the relativity concepts (and/or without the mass-energy equivalence assumption).

It means - each the motion of particle generates a more dense volume area inside the vacuum, it means some gravity lens. But the relative motion creates just the relative gravity lens. Such fluctuation is solely virtual, as it's a responsible for the relativistic particle mass increasing - it cannot be observed by the some other observer, which is moving together with the particle, just by the standing observer. It doesn't influent the other particles, moving in parallel direction by the same speed - it influences just the particles in rest or relative motion. Compare with my Dancing in the rain example for understanding of the deBroglie wave nature from different perspective.

Thank you I'm happy you see the similarities.

Yes, in many ways they could function very similarly. Gravity or quantum gravity could be due to a deformation of the surface outward when something impacts it. Though the same mechanism seems to allow for EMF forces to propogates as ripples along the surface. A high energy mass would simply reflect more particles impacting the surface at some point creating closer and closer spaced ripples along the surface at that point, giving the e=1/d wavelength relationship. Polarization might be a result of the phase difference between particles when they impacted the surface - if two particles impacted very close together and in phase, they'd create a concave/attractive reflection, whereas particle impacts in an area out of phase, or with a spacing on the surface between them could meet a ripple that had a repulsive effect. Fractal characteristics to the universe could be explained from it being a reflection of this recursive operation.

Anyway, I agree that there's a large correlation between the two models. The advantage to possibly either view is that the functions can be mirrored on various scales - so characteristics of electron orbits could possibly be correlated with planetary orbits or galactic spirals etc. because they're simply reflections of the same properties on different scales.

Some of the main reasons I prefer to see things as a small oscillating structure is because 1) superluminal gravity appears easier to explain. 2) despite the typical 3-D + time assumptions of what we intuitively perceive, it seems truly all forces operate as 2-D + time functions, and that the "depth" of time doesn't need to be very large. For example, the electron wave in this example itself seems easily described as a single "particle" oscillating between a couple surfaces with period correlating to its own wavelength. (So to extend that mirror analogy, the electron itself appears to have multiple wavelike features because it's also oscillating between a couple mirrors ... in reality it's travelling through the 3-d dimension of time and we only sense it as a stack of discrete 2-D "wave/surface" events extended over time). And from the point of view of quantum wells they'd operate similar to a recursion. 3) And again, the fractal appear of things, like the natural occurance of phi etc. seem to imply a shared recursive operation to nature that a flat space model seems to be missing. 4) By having EMF/gravity forces propogate along the surface at light speed, all forces appear to interact at light speed despite what their real velocities are inside this surface. The constant speed of light is easy to see as due to the fact that nothing really moves very far in space and that our distance measurements are done by simply looking along a particular reflective path which is only valid at measuring distances that happen to take that path. (I admit it's a bit of a brain twister and there seem to be likely a few "tweaks" necessary but overall it seems likely to be able to explain everything ... then they said that about string theory, so who knows).

I guess truly it seems there are many computational equivalents of the same idea. In the Reciprocal System, there's also a view that at a specific scale, time and space appear to share scalings that can be traded off in a reciprical manner between them. So time and space can be viewed as rather discrete units in real space. To me it seems like the universe could be composed of relatively small number of these (or maybe only 1) and that spacial expansion on larger scales is more a subjective interpretation of reflections inside of this one. (If you stand between a couple bent mirrors and look out at "spacetime" distances can have multiple interpretations and objects appear repetitive and "wavelike").

Yes, I agree. I went off topic really. For most any discussion it's appropriate to simply describe the observed phenomenon without digging into the specifics of how it all occured.

I thank you for this information. Quantum gravity - that sounds like something I need to take a look at. My guess is that there are computationally equivalent models that might get similar or the same results but describe the whys differently.

If you consider that particles appearing to move at light speed in space, would necessarily not be impacting the surface of this small volume, then they would not create ripples on the surface correlating with EMF or gravity. A particle travelling at a different spacial velocity would need to trade some of its velocity through space for velocity through time - velocity through time would be an oscillation between alternate plates and the frequency/wavelength would depend upon the "depth" of time in that area (slower in the presence of other masses as the surface is deflected outward and becomes concave, resulting in a externally perceived slowness in time in that area as well as gravity ... so this also correlates with observed phenomenon).

In other words, for two particles to travel along the surface of this volume (the surface correlates with real space), and every particle moved at lightspeed, then then neither of them could "dive" below surface space and travel through "time", so none of them would oscillate through the time dimension (depth of the and impact

A torus is a 2-D surface/plane that's wrapped around on itself.

+----space-----> (Horizontal motion is spacial velocity. "Real space" is on top)
|....................
T....................
I....................
M...................
E...................
|....................
V
----------------
Velocity downward trades off spacial velocity as motion through time. Excal was using a Reciprocal System that seemed to correlate closely with this view also.

(The distance between these two plates is likely relatively thin, at least from a human perspetive of space) When you wrap the left and right edges around, you get a cylinder. When you wrap top and bottom around, you get a toroidal surface and when you make the spacial dimension 2-D it equates to a 3-D toroid, with time already included as the the third dimension and a single one of these could (possibly ... I admit it's likely harder than this) represent physical laws for the entire universe. Though the devil is in the details and exactly what resonant modes or frequencies represent what particles, along with the exact effect of interactions along the surfaces (for example, can 2-D wave spreading from an impact along the surface give everything from EMF forces to gravity without requiring the particles themselves to have additional properties or interact internally etc.) I believe each of the 2 spacial dimension represents a physical property as well but that we subjective perceive all 3 dimensions similarly because the knots created by these complex reflective interactions "smear" all 3 of these (time, charge, and spin maybe?) into a single stream of information of which 3 major characteristics are detected, though we're unable to consciously untangle the interactions except for large scale stochastic associations (mass, interia, large spacial dimensions etc.). Sorry, I don't want to make things too complex but I'm trying to figure out how consciousness perceives things as well ... which of course adds another layer of complexity that likely isn't necessary ... yet

For example, the quantum wells could be represented by a particle interacting with something and switching into a different oscillation path, so that it impacts "real space" in a different location, and this would appear as a jump that might even look like it skipped past some obstacle, effectively by burrowing "underneath" it through time.

Anyway, I apologize somewhat as I recognize a lot of brilliant people are working on these ideas already and I'm thankful that they've discovered so much and that there are so many interesting ideas floating around. It's just tough to remain a passive bystander without making a few "waves" of my own

Thanks much. I'll go do some searches about these and see how close they appear to be.

Well, they shouldn't be so briliant, after all - but why to reinvent a wheel? Please consider, the "quantum wells" is selfreferencing tautology - you cannot "explain" the quantum effects by the quantum effects.

Well, they shouldn't be so briliant, after all - but why to reinvent a wheel? Please consider, the "quantum wells" is selfreferencing tautology - you cannot "explain" the quantum effects by the quantum effects.

E= mc2 or -mc2 or (i)mc2

We appear to be only interested in the "real" answer and have completely ignored the alternative solutions.

The new version of the DSE, which includes "quantum" wells, for the first time forces us to "see" and accept and consider all alternative solutions, real or imaginary.

Whether you send single "Classical" electrons or "Quantum" electrons, you do not change the outcome of the experiment.

Yet a "classical" electron travels down a copper wire, very slowly, but we know its "quantum" equivelant can be measured and felt travelling at the speed of light.

Does the electron "tunnel" through the quantum well or barrier or does it simply leap over the well via an alternative "hidden" or imaginary dimension (i) or simply follow the shortest probability wave or exponential decay path.

This raises the immediate question

"Can General Relativity be defined in 5D in an electro-magnetic sense?"

According to Theordor Kaluza and endorsed by Albert Einstein, it appears that it can.

Terry Giblin Double Slit Experiment works best using imaginary quantum electrons in 5 Dimensions, which are measured and have all the same properties of real classical electrons in 4D.

We have known for a long time that we live in a multidimensional universe, we are all familiar with the four dimensions described by Albert Einstein, its the imaginary one no one seems to understand. But at least now we can see over the wall - I am are no longer a flat lander.

The world is not flat, its 5 Dimensional at least - I know people have been saying this for a long time, but solving the DSE was the first time I had seen it for myself, E=mc2 = -mc2 = (i)mc2 is true, especially when you are an electron.

Regards

Terry Giblin