Oldand Dilis

42 minutes ago, Strange said:

Photons are indivisible; a photon can only be detected by a single interaction. 

That's the perceived wisdom but the double slit experiment shows otherwise, it shows that photons are NOT single interactions, they appear so when recorded in "real time" but behave differently when not recorded what I am saying is it can only be detected as such because we can only record in real time in the first time dimension. So we are not seeing what is happening in the other two time dimensions. If you imagine a swimming section of a triathlon you have a group of swimmers if you focus a camera only on the lead swimmer you cannot see that there is a group of swimmers behind, you either need to change the camera angle, focus or aim either way to see what is happening. Im saying you need to change your thinking, are you able to IMAGINE other time dimensions? That would be a start, if you insist I am wrong without trying to understand the concept you will be, like the flat Earthers were, stuck wasting time because "it was clearly nonsense that the world could be round". If anyone has access to a lab please try the walls at angles as I suggest not recording the photon live so the end result will show the impacts on the other walls which will be arriving in the other time dimensions. If you record to watch the photon you will not see impact marks on the other walls as you will be recording in the first time dimension. If recording live in the first time dimension the vibration (photon) will indeed appear like a single particle.

Am finding nothing about extra walls at angles in photoelectric effect, again ..... your point? What I am seeing is that the experiments on this showed unexpected results which seemed to go contrary to their percieved logic. Perhaps you will see the same -unexpected results- if you do the experiment as I suggest.

Ok fair enough, I missed that. Anyone else like to do the extra walls of photon sensitive material at angles and rub that in my face too. Please do.

7 minutes ago, Strange said:

You can't

Look at minute 6:30 if it is only travelling forward and not part of a wave how can it be recorded..... anybody getting that AHA moment yet??? Please someone!

2 minutes ago, Strange said:

The whole reason that the photon model was adopted was because the evidence forced it. This started with a solution to the black body problem, confirmed by Einstein's explanation of the photoelectric effect and many, many experiments since.

You can say "science is wrong" but without evidence, this has no value.

Because it was the best model they could come up with at the time. They all still agree much of quamtum physics DOESN'T seem to make sense. Thats why they have been looking for a Unified FIELD Theory NOT a new mathematical model as someone suggested, a Field Theory that makes sense of the knwon mathematics. The extra wall method I explain will prove it. 

2 minutes ago, Strange said:

You can't.

Obviously we can!!! Lol. The videos are there on youtube. 

3 minutes ago, Sensei said:

None particle accelerators are used to fire photons while performing double slit experiment...

None particle accelerators are used to fire electrons while performing double slit experiment with electrons...

You have never seen a double slit experiment in your life, have you?

 

As I clarified earlier in the thread whatever is used a laser or photon gun whatever. No I have never seen it done live in a lab what is you point? The fact I can understand it (and solve it though you guys cant grasp that yet) shows I don't need to see it live or be in the lab. Again what is your point? I cant understand it because I never studied science at University? You must be cleverer than me because you saw it done in a lab? Oh please... there really is too much academic snobbery, people stuck in outdated theory that doesnt make sense and not enough common sense going on in general. 

10 hours ago, swansont said:

Why?

If the walls are mirrored, sure, but then you won’t see any spots. If you see spots or otherwise detect the photon, it won’t also hit another wall. It’s gone after that.

To show the photon is a part of a wave, if each wall has a "photon" hit it it shows it is not a single particle but one point in a wave, not mirrors photon sensing material like used on the back wall in the original experiment. If there are no spaces like in the slits then yes the wave will be absorbed, if there are spaces the wave will pass through.

10 hours ago, Strange said:

As photons are indivisible (by definition) there can only be one point of impact per photon.

Thats exactly where traditional scientific thinking is wrong. If you can do the experiment go on try and prove me wrong that you will only get one point of impact, I guarantee you will get one on each extra wall. Go on try to prove me wrong. And to illustrate the point, we see light "photons" recorded at a trillion frames a second and more on youtube videos. If the photon is not a part of a wave and travelling forward only how can we see it from the side? Think about it..... 

On 7/4/2019 at 4:55 PM, Strange said:

 

Another way to show it is the point of impact of a wave is to add more walls at angles for example 4 walls joined to the first wall facing the laser/photon gun one to the left one to the right one one on top one on the bottom all at angles for example135° between the wall directly facing the laser and the laser itself. A shape similar to reflectors on a photographic shoot lighting. After firing a number of photons each wall will have a pattern of hits around a general circular point. For every photon fired there will be a photon hitting each wall, 5 points of impact one on each wall for each photon fired. Showing it is a wave of vibration travelling out in all forward directions. If the scene with the slits is what you call the front wall then yes, if it is not made from photon sensing material try making it so. You don't even need slits to test using the extra walls at angles if they are all made from photon sensing material. 
 

59 minutes ago, Strange said:

Photons are not matter. And the way we perceive matter has nothing to do with vibrations. And Tesla may have been a competent electrical engineer, but he also had a lot of crazy ideas which would never work.

Thanks matter amended to light, regardless of what terminology you use it is vibration just like all matter as you will surely see when the experiment is set up with extra walls at angles. Time I am sure will show Tesla was much more correct than you thought and not at all the crazy history paints him as. Rather the opposite.

. First diagram shows blank wall with circular areas we would expect the photons to hit, for the back wall if there were no feont wall. The second shows the hits when recorded to see which slit the photon passes through. The third shows the pattern when not recorded.

A rough drawing of the extra walls and where I expect the wave to impact each, one hit on each wall for every photon fired. if you do it with 8 walls at angles to the full facing wall you will get 8 areas of points of impacts along with the main wall. If 16 extra walls 16 areas one on each etc.

A rough drawing of the extra walls and where I expect the wave to impact each, one hit on each wall for every photon fired. if you do it with 8 extra walls at angles to the full facing wall you will get 8 areas of points of impacts along with the main wall. If 16 extra walls 16 areas one on each etc.

On 7/4/2019 at 8:55 AM, Strange said:

Why would photons impact at the "crest of a wave"? Photons are not waves; you seem to be mixing up the quantum description and the classical (wave) description.

If the photon has hit a wall, then there will no longer be a wave to continue. The photon will be absorbed.

What evidence do you have that a wave passing through the slit produces "secondary waves"? What are "secondary waves"? We can observe this effect in, say, water and there is no evidence of new waves being created.

And how can "extra photons" be created? Photons have energy (and momentum) and so can't be created from nothing.

That's where u are stuck mentally thinking "photons are not waves" that is a theory not a fact as you present it, and it is incorrect they are the visible point of the wave moving in the first time dimension. The secondary waves are those created by the interferences not from nothing but from the parts of the wave that passes through the slits. This is indeed science, it's science advancing to the next level and showing that there are dimensions that cannot always be measured but verified that they do exist. Like time dilation it takes a bit of thinking but some people will get it sooner or later just like it took many minds a long time to accept time dilation. The maths I have shown are primary school, you simply aren't grasping it, treating incorrect theories as facts won't help you unfortunately. Bufrog every bit as magical as the world being round or time dilation in the sense that nature is by it's nature magical yes, the extra time dimensions have always been here though and explain a lot that science can't but I'm not elaborating until everyone gets the basic concept first. There is no point until people do. 

On 7/4/2019 at 8:55 AM, Strange said:

Could you provide a diagram. I have no idea what you mean by "front wall" and "back wall". 

Why would photons impact at the "crest of a wave"? Photons are not waves; you seem to be mixing up the quantum description and the classical (wave) description.

The slits are where if not on the front wall? Photons like everything we perceive as matter are vibrations as Tesla predicted. Again a hard concept to grasp but it provides the solution to the double slit experiment and the Unified Field.

On 7/4/2019 at 8:55 AM, Strange said:

Could you provide a diagram. I have no idea what you mean by "front wall" and "back wall".

The diagrams are very clear on the website, why are you commenting if you haven't even read the papers to see what we are talking about. The basis of any scientific discussion is to read the subject matter first.... Please! In case you missed it,

url removed

16 hours ago, Ghideon said:

Sorry, I am unable to follow that description of the experiment. I don't think the introduction of "mental" and "minds" helps in this case. 

Maybe this might help

The hits on the front wall show the photons ALWAYS are the point of impact at the peak/crest of a wave, the wave continues after the initial impact, passes through the slits forming secondary waves which form the interferences and more waves, these are the extra photons (crests of secondary waves) arriving at the back wall in different time dimensions when not recording which slit the photon is passing through. 

Are scientists looking for a unified mathematics theory? No
Are scientists looking for a Unified FIELD Theory? Yes
Do I have a Unified FIELD Theory that WORKS? Yes
Does it provide a logical framework which provides the mechanics behind all the known mathematics? Yes
Does it provide mechanics which explain
1.Gravity?...yes
2.Electromagnetism?...yes
3. Quantum Entanglement?...yes
4. Radio waves? ...yes
5. Light?...yes
6. Time dilation?...yes

Does it provide an explanation for the double slit experiment? Yes.
Where is this theory?
doubleslitsolution.weebly.com
Are science forums and physicists in general taking it seriously? No
Why?
They appear not to be looking at it seriously or testing it with mathematics?
Why?
They are asking for more mathematics.
Are scientists looking for more mathematics or a unified mathematics theory? No

To explain with a visual example, technicians all work together to make a guitar they find the material with the best acoustics, they work out the optimal body and neck shape for optimal acoustics, they work out the optimal string material and gauge etc etc. They may have made the best guitar ever so what do they need to test it? A guitar player. Who do they dream of getting to play it to the world? The best creative guitar player they can find. Every guitar company dreams and pays HUGE money to have famous guitar players use their instruments. Do they insist the artist(creative thinker) know all the technical details? No
Jimi Hendrix widely recognised by serious guitar players as the most creative guitar player ever COULDN'T EVEN READ MUSIC. Before he was famous he was treated as a two bit guitar player, often treated like a freak (Elvis and many other artists likewise) and thrown out of the military for insanity. He didn't need to read music he just needed the right people to listen.
I would expect science forums would be excited to have a creative visual thinker with a Unified FIELD Theory that WORKS enter their forums, not least for the credibility and popularity it would provide. Being the place where the double slit experiment solution and the long sought after Unified FIELD Theory breaks into the news is surely a coveted accolade. Why are they not? They are asking for more mathematics.

Return to first sentence.

2 minutes ago, swansont said:

That’s your job, not mine. 

I’m saying the existing theory works. It matches experiment. Either your model gives the same result or it doesn’t. If it doesn’t, it’s wrong. In any event, you bear the burden of showing how your model is consistent with what we know.

No its you who claimed that this has been done before not me. You should provide evidence to back your claim or its obvious I am correct. It hasn't been analysed as I direct.

Au contraire, it is well known that the theory of gravity is NOT well known, how to measure it is fairly well known (still not exact). There is NO MODEL EXCEPT MINE which even attempts to provide an explanation of gravity mechanics, mine does. What scientists are repeatedly saying almost everywhere is that science needs an all encompassing field theory to make sense of  what the maths are suggesting that's what I have done and everyone seems to bebe discussing MATHS. I have even seen it said we are at a point where maths cannot go further we need to step more into philosophy (if I can find that quote I will paste it here). That's how I came at this... by visualisation, philosophy whatever term is preferred yet everyone still seems to be focusing on the maths. I think rigid thinking scientists are resistant because it suggests that there are realms that cannot be measured but are real. Traditional thinking is if there's no maths its not science its not real, this is clearly incorrect, For example love the most powerful thing ever cannot be measured but few serious people would deny its VERY REAL. scIentists may not like to face the fact that some dimensions cannot be measured but its clear what the DSE shows is the maths I provide will prove that there are dimensions but science cannot necessarily access them as it wishes. Again philosophy NOT maths is what is needed to break the quantum deadlock, I have done it now as you correctly say the burden is mine, finding someone able to think with an open non defensive, non resistant mind and able to grasp it is truly hard. This I know too well just as many others in history I mentioned did. 

37 minutes ago, swansont said:

That’s your job, not mine. 

I’m saying the existing theory works. It matches experiment. Either your model gives the same result or it doesn’t. If it doesn’t, it’s wrong. In any event, you bear the burden of showing how your model is consistent with what we know.

No its you who claimed that this has been done before not me. You should provide evidence to back your claim or its obvious I am correct. It hasn't been analysed as I direct.

Au contraire, it is well known that the theory of gravity is NOT well known, how to measure it is fairly well known (still not exact). There is NO MODEL EXCEPT MINE which even attempts to provide an explanation of gravity mechanics, mine does. What scientists are repeatedly saying almost everywhere is that science needs an all encompassing field theory to make sense of  what the maths are suggesting that's what I have done and everyone seems to bebe discussing MATHS. I have even seen it said we are at a point where maths cannot go further we need to step more into philosophy (if I can find that quote I will paste it here). That's how I came at this... by visualisation, philosophy whatever term is preferred yet everyone still seems to be focusing on the maths. I think rigid thinking scientists are resistant because it suggests that there are realms that cannot be measured but are real. Traditional thinking is if there's no maths its not science its not real, this is clearly incorrect, For example love the most powerful thing ever cannot be measured but few serious people would deny its VERY REAL. scIentists may not like to face the fact that some dimensions cannot be measured but its clear what the DSE shows is the maths I provide will prove that there are dimensions but science cannot necessarily access them as it wishes. Again philosophy NOT maths is what is needed to break the quantum deadlock, I have done it now as you correctly say the burden is mine, finding someone able to think with an open non defensive, non resistant mind and able to grasp it is truly hard. This I know too well just as many others in history I mentioned did. 

Andrew Jaffe talks about time from 45 seconds and ends with saying that in order to understand it "..we step more into the realm of philosophy than physics"

13 hours ago, Ghideon said:

14 hours ago, Oldand Dilis said:

Perhaps this makes the importance of counting the hits clearer

Unfortunately not. 

No extra hits on the front wall signifies they are ALWAYS peaks of waves hitting the wall. For extra hits on the back wall they must have been coming from secondary waves passing on from after their crest hit the front wall. They arrive later so they are not recording in the first time dimension, not just mechanically but mentally also. MindsI are focusing on the first time dimension

4 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

I simply ask questions about things i don't understand to be able to improve my analysis, here as in other situations. If you are not interested in a genuine attempt at a scientific look at your idea then this discussion can end here. If you just look for some support for your ideas then you are in the wrong forum and I'm the wrong individual.

 

Given your ability to explain and style of explaining your ideas so far it make perfect sense that great thinkers (and all other others) are unable to grasp.

 

 

I would say it's again too easy to criticise,  you answered straight away, obviously didn't take the time I am asking, begging, imporing people to take to THINK about it. Its clear you didn't.

Can someone on a lab perform the double slit experiment counting the hits as specified below please, I am certain this is the solution, 

Where tpf = total photons fired
hfw = hits on front wall
hbw = hits on back wall
If we assume a certain percent of photons always get through the slits say 10% then if 1000 photons are fired
When recorded to see which slit they pass through the amount of hits will be
tpf1000 = 900hfw +100hbw 
When not recorded to see which slits the photons pass through
tpf1000 = 900hfw +100hbw+2(900)hbw  or
tpf1000  = 900hfw +100hbw+3(900)hbw or
tpf1000 = 900hfw +100hbw+5(900)hbw or
tpf1000 = 900hfw +100hbw+7(900)hbw
Etc depending how far back the back wall is
Showing the extra photons are arriving at the back wall in different time dimension when not recording which slit the photon is passing through.

I give a full explanation as to why this is happening and why it indicates different time dimensions on my website doubleslitsolution.weebly.com

13 hours ago, Ghideon said:

What kind of math is that? 1000=900+100+2*900 ?

You omit the character markers, is it really not clear to you? Do you really not understand? If you are genuine I will elaborate but I honestly think you are being pedantic. I don't want to waste your time or mine if this is about scoring points if its about knowing academic protocols you win, I don't even care about if I'm perceived as being intelligent or not to be honest Id much rather be seen as kind than intelligent. Ghideon have you looked at my Unified Field Theory? It makes sense of all the unknowns, just about everything, it too is hard to accept that EVERYTHING we know as matter is vibrations it blows my mind still but it makes sense of everything.

2 minutes ago, zapatos said:

To have any hope of winning over others, you really need to quit complaining and focus your efforts on convincing people that your IDEAS are correct. Answer questions, address concerns, provide additional data, work hard. If you are unable to convince anyone you are correct, then you have either not provided a convincing argument, or you are wrong.

I am, I do, I provide as much data as I can, I am working night and day believe me. Your last point I disagree with it seems to me my arguments are not in traditional academic terminology so I face extra resistance and it is not that I am wrong I think its because no one is seriously THINKING about it. Please seriously read the papers the IDEAS are exactly what I am trying to get people to focus on they are simple to read but hard to grasp and/or accept, please try to overlook my lack of formal education and meditate seriously on the THEORY..... Someone ...please!!

19 minutes ago, zapatos said:

To have any hope of winning over others, you really need to quit complaining and focus your efforts on convincing people that your IDEAS are correct. Answer questions, address concerns, provide additional data, work hard. If you are unable to convince anyone you are correct, then you have either not provided a convincing argument, or you are wrong.

If I appear to be complaining its because the main barrier I seem to be facing is people throwing my lack of formal academic training. In the last two months NOT ONE PERSON has made any kind of discussion about the THEORY. NOT ONE. If it is wrong WHERE? WHY? 

12 hours ago, Eise said:

2 Side remarks: 

• Einstein knew his physics very well, and pretty shortly after he published his first article on special relativity he was visited by Max Planck, already a well known physicist those days. When Einstein got ridiculed, it was by people who just could not imagine such 'outrageous' phenomena like time dilation, mass increase,  or length contraction. But special relativity was in the air: many physicists were aware of the contradiction between Newtonian mechanics and Maxwell's theory of electromagnetism. People like Fitzgerald (length contraction is sometimes called Fitzgerald contraction), Voigt, Larmor, Lorentz (Lorentz-transformations!), Poincaré etc. were already very close, but their explanations were all still based on the existence of a frame of reference that is in absolute rest. The formulas were correct, the explanations were not. That was Einstein's feat. (See History of special relativity).
• Such comparisons with Einstein are preferable made by people who do not know their maths and physics. And I would say, per definition, their ideas are always wrong. And then I did not talk about the hubris in such comparisons...

 

"By people who do not know their facts and figures" hmmmm too quick to criticise perhaps?. I would say Intelligence is not a matter of how much knowledge one has but how one uses the knowledge one has.  Its the easiest thing in the world to criticise and feel justified backed by history but to break new ground in history usually means fighting ridicule, set ways, complacency, anger, violence  etc. Everybody in hindsight would say I would have ecognised the truth if I were there at the time but that too is easy to say. It took Tim Berners Lee 3 years for someone to take a serious look at his design for the internet. It took Ada Lovelace 10 years for someone to take a serious look at the first computer algorhythm. All I am looking for is someone with an open mind who keeps their criticisms until after they have taken a good serious look at what I show AND THINKS ABOUT IT. I don't have the high level maths and physics training and I make that clear, I really don't understand why that is the main thing people criticise me for its not a failing on my behalf, there is no high level maths and physics needed to understand the theory. What I have been fortunate to have is plenty of time alone uninterrupted to meditate deep into the foundations of reality. You really have to think about the concept to grasp it. You really do and unfortunately no offence but I haven't seem to have found any great thinkers able to grasp THE CONCEPT yet.

9 hours ago, swansont said:

The experiment you describe is actually very hard, since it would not be easy to make a photodetector array that would fit (the slits and structure are really small), but you could do a proxy of it by comparing the transmitted energy with and without the apparatus, and do this for different size slits and slit spacing. But we already know what the answer is, because people have done this experiment with the different conditions, and everybody agrees that the equation is correct.

The location of the interference peaks depends on the slit spacing and the wavelength. The diffraction envelope depends on the slit size. And that's all.

 

Really?? Please show me where my equation has been thought of let alone verified. I think you assume it must have been but you are incorrect. 

On 6/29/2019 at 5:48 PM, Ghideon said:

 

Also answer the questions in my previous post. I do not know how to “record” photons; how does it differ from counting the hits at each wall by some means? What does “not recorded” mean? Where does the “other points” come from?

In addition to what @swansont pointed out, in what way does that give support to multiple time dimensions?

 

What is your definition of teleportation and how is it related to dual slits? I provide you with an opportunity to explain your ideas and discuss them in a scientific context; introducing Star Trek technology references and requiring evidence for such things may not be the best way to drive that discussion. Also note that we are very far from a theory to be either resisting or supporting, a few ideas with limited definitions and explanations is all there is (so far). 

 

*) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wavelength_shifter

 

Perhaps this makes the importance of counting the hits clearer..I hope (when recorded means when we record to see which slit the photon passes through)

Where tpf = total photons fired
hfw = hits on front wall
hbw = hits on back wall
If we assume a certain percent of photons always get through the slits say 10% then if 1000 photons are fired
When recorded to see which slit they pass through the amount of hits will be
tpf1000 = 900hfw +100hbw 
When not recorded to see which slits the photons pass through
tpf1000 = 900hfw +100hbw+2(900)hbw  or
tpf1000  = 900hfw +100hbw+3(900)hbw or
tpf1000 = 900hfw +100hbw+5(900)hbw or
tpf1000 = 900hfw +100hbw+7(900)hbw
Etc depending how far back the back wall is
Showing the extra photons are arriving at the back wall in a different time dimension when not recording which slit the photon is passing through.

The reason this supports my theory is because my theory is that the space time fabric is made up of a lattice of invisible particles and strings at rest, when vibration is created or passes through this creates matter and time which are proportional. Everything we perceive as matter is simply vibrations passing through the fabric/field, as mind boggling as it is to contemplate it all works logically.

The reason this supports different time dimensions is because if we name the forward axis as z and the other two x and y the waves travel out along the x and y axes of time where they interfere so arrive later slightly behind the primary waves on the z axis.

18 hours ago, DanMP said:

This is a good point, in my opinion, but the microscopic explanation of how light is slowed in transparent materials suggests that new photons do occur (when we have a wave of light, not one photon at a time):

 

Thank you. I wasn't aware of this but it is very welcome to see previous experiments support my theory.  

On 6/27/2019 at 9:18 PM, Ghideon said:

That sounds like some kind of variant of “Particles are epiphenomena arising from fields”, see this 2012 paper: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1204.4616.pdf for a detailed description.

 

I have read through the rest of the answer thoroughly and unfortunately there is not much to comment regarding my question about multiple dimensions of time. There seems to be no common ground to base a scientific discussion upon at this time. Note that it is not a matter of "need to think outside the box" of the mainstream science; there seems to be no common language to begin to define “box”, “think” or “outside”. None of the definitions I am used to seem to apply, maybe caused by:

That said, there are some scientific things that can be commented* about the described experimental setup:

I do not know how to “record” photons; how does it differ from counting the hits at each wall by some means? What is “not recorded”? Where does the “other points” come from?
The idea described above seems to imply one of A or B below. I can't see how the description above results in the same amount of photons being sent and detected, there seems to be more photon detections that transmissions.

A: Photons are split; one single missing photon at front wall will cause multiple hits on the back wall (your 2,3,4...). Doesn't that require a complete rewrite of quantum mechanics? 

B: New photons occur so there are a larger total count of hits than number of photons sent. Where does those extra come from? How is energy conserved? Needs even more new physics than case A?

So probably I've misunderstood? A more rigorous description is needed, since the proposed outcome seems not possible. 

 

Also note what was said in earlier posts. The behaviour is observed and understood already for one particle, and only using one time dimension. 

.

First you misquoted me, I said multiples of 2,3,5.... not 2,3,4...

As Dan points out it does not need any rewrite as previous experiments suggest new photons are made. There is no loss of energy the wave is merely split passing through the slits and new waves  are created via the interference. 

The only loss of energy would be what is absorbed by the wall from the curve of the wave arriving in different time dimensions. 

If you are still resistant to my field theory have you got another explanation as to WHY teleportation works? My theory explains it clearly

On 6/26/2019 at 12:59 PM, MigL said:

A single quantum particle will interfere in time as well as space.

You can fire off a single particle at a detector and get a single 'spot'.
You can repeat this at different times and different locations ( separated by years or miles ) multiple times, and when you overlay all the single spot detections they WILL form an interference pattern.

On 6/26/2019 at 10:01 AM, Ghideon said:

There are issues with the idea of multiple temporal (time) dimensions. There are no* models or theories that rely on more than one temporal dimension and no experiment* have hinted >1 temporal dimension. There are are also papers** stating that >1 temporal dimension leads to unstable atoms. I think the idea of >1 temporal dimension affects physics on an even more fundamental level than required for a new explanation of the result of the dual slit experiment.

In the context of the above you will have to provide some detailed instructions what to look for to confirm your idea. When running a dual slit experiment using regular equipment the scientist will confirm current models. What should the scientist look for, and what calculations are required, to show support for your idea?

The logic is not clear. If I would be prepared to run an experiment I would need to know what to measure to confirm your predictions about additional time dimensions.

 

There will be inference pattern when firing one particle at a time, and no hitting of a "front wall". See for instance single electron experiment at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4617474/ or http://l-esperimento-piu-bello-della-fisica.bo.imm.cnr.it/english/whatisabout.html.
So how can that be a "key"? What have been overlooked?

 

 

*) that is, no mainstream theory, model or experiment that I am aware of. I have not rigorously researched this.
**) From https://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/dimensions.pdf, dashed square added, highlights the OPs statement about 3+3 dimensions:

 

 

Slightly OT: If you want to read a more philosophical article about the single electron experiment: http://l-esperimento-piu-bello-della-fisica.bo.imm.cnr.it/Resources/The scientific sublime - physicsworld.com.pdf

 

Thank you for the links, what I see from the paper is that the photon waves is being interfered with by the metal coil. It still begins as a single wave. My phone isn't showing images but that's what I'm gathering it means which still supports what I predict. That there is no probability involved the recorded photon ALWAYS travels as the crest of a wave the only probability is if it hits the back wall or the front. I'll explain again how scientists should do in a minute first please think again on the theory.

What I am saying and have tried my best to explain clearly in the papers is that the quantum field is fixed and everything we percieve as matter is vibrations passing through the field. I have given the structure it has when at rest and when coiled tightly together in large astronomical bodies: planets, suns, black holes etc. The field is flexible and when stretched creates time along with mass. The properties of photons suggest that mass is directly proportional to time. The time dimensions I describe are identical to matter dimensions. X,Y and Z axes. This makes sense as to why C² is present in e=mc² I mean visually not mathematically. I couldn't understand why for a long time, I am a visual thinker my maths and physics terminology need a lot of catching up. It's because it describes mass accumulating along the x and y time axes like if we roll a snowball in a straight line down a hill it will end up like a disc because it accumulates snow along the vertical x and back to front y axes in order to make it round we must move it left to right along the third axis the horizontal left to right axis. [ I am convinced there is a perfect equation to describe gravity using the third dimension. This is what i have so far G=m x ? x C³ it comes up with numbers proportional to gravity but I cant figure out what it is yet. Whatever it is less of it leads to more gravity. if someone can complete this equation we can both take credit or even take credit yourself I don't mind as long as you always acknowledge my explanation of the DSE and the spacetime fabric field structure led to it. My head already hurts trying to figure it if someone else did I would be more than happy. This bit may indeed be quackery but the numbers seem to be proportional so it seems like theres something in it, maybe not.]

In terms of what one should do in the double slit: record EXACTLY how many photons are fired. Count all hits on BOTH walls. WHEN RECORDED all hits on both walls will total EXACTLY the same number as photons fired.

When not recorded fire exactly the same number of photons. The front wall will record exactly the same number give or take any small insignificant variation. But on the back wall the count will total all the hits missing from the front wall in the two areas expected when recorded PLUS there will be other points in multiples of 2,3,5,7 etc times the amount of hits on the front wall depending how far back the back wall is. Showing they are always waves with he secondary waves impacting later as they are travelling in the other two time dimensions.

The field I describe and the fact everything we perceive is vibrations explains WHY teleportation is possible. We are recording a vibration and reproducing it in another place similar to how we would with music. It gives mechanics for electromagnetism as the spacetime fabric is wound (charged) held (stored) and let unwind (discarged). It explains everything I can think of and I am trying to learn the physics terminology as fast as I can to explain what is clear visually. Again the page is

please stop advertising your site here

Thank you again for reading... like Einstein was with time dilation I have been thrown every insult, ridicule and disgust by people who won't look seriously at the mechanics and it has been thrown into pseudoscience without people looking at the maths. Its refreshing to see some mature responses. I hope someone here does give it a few proper reads and think about it, each paper only takes 5 minutes.

I mean use traditional means to verify my predictions then I can begin to explain more.

On 6/26/2019 at 3:57 AM, swansont said:

The first part seems irrelevant. The number of photons not passing through the slit are not part of the experiment. They have no direct impact on it. 

Why do you need a particle accelerator for photons? They always travel at c.

The "I will reveal details later" tactic is frowned upon here. It's in conflict with our rules for speculations.

That's exactly what has been overlooked the number of particles not passing through the slits are KEY to solving it.

I know nothing of the technology used to fire the photons, if it is not accelerators then whatever technology is used. As I explained I do not come from a scientific background but philosophy and visual thinking. 

I have spent many years living in the slums and ghettos in Africa where many people have no access to education. I do not want to support the global inequality in education by revealing everything to an unfairly advantaged richer set of nations leaving the poorer nations behind as usually happens. I will share when everyone has as a fair chance as possible to view how I arrived at the solution what else I solved on the way and thus giving a fairer chance to poorer nations to appreciate and work on the implications.  

Solving the double slit is newsworthy in itself. When verified we shall move onto the next step.

Pardon my ignorance a laser or any other coherent light source that is relevant (thanks wikipedia).

my time at this cafe is coming to an end. This is the website for admin to leave or hide, I ask you please leave it or at least save it if it violates any rules and share it when my predictions are shown to be correct. Please bear in mind it may be days before I can access wifi again. Hopefully not, I hope to be online later today for example but its a possibility. 

please stop advertising your site here

Please do not focus on my lack of formal terminology but rather on the concept mechanics.

Whichever accelerators are used to fire photons usually when performing the double slit experiment. 

Multiple time dimensions 3 to be exact exist in line with the "3 material dimensions". I don't have the time money or resources to stay online all day responding as I am homeless and close to penniless so I have to frequent cafes to get online. so rather than try answering multiple questions I suggest you look at the website and come back with questions after please. Otherwise it may prove frustrating for all parties considering how important it is.

I solved the double slit by visualising the structure of the spacetime fabric and working out the logic. The structure I describe also provides a logical framework to explain the mechanics of gravity, electromagnetism and more. Both concept papers are available to view online. I have no formal scientific training I am more a philosopher so I hesitate to call them scientific papers however the vital information is there.

The simple maths I used to solve the double slit experiment and reveal that time is three dimensional are as follows.

We must analyse the amounts of hits on both the front and back wall and count exactly how many photons are fired.

WHEN RECORDED the total number of marks on the front wall and back wall combined equal exactly the same number of photons fired. For example if about 90% of photons hit the front wall and 10% get through the slits and we fire 1000 photons altogether one at a time. 900 photons give or take any insignificant variation will hit the front wall and 100 will hit the back wall.

The same amount of marks will be left on the front wall WHETHER RECORDED OR NOT.

WHEN NOT RECORDED the amount of marks left on the back wall will equal the 100 on the corresponding slit paths PLUS marks in multiples of 900 x 2,3,5,7 etc depending how far back the wall is.

This shows that the marks are always left by the point of impact of the waves. The photons always travel as waves in the fixed spacetime fabric field. The primary waves arrive and impact the wall in the first dimension the secondary waves arrive later in the other two dimensions. We can only record using traditional methods in the first time dimension. Hence we are limited and can only see these results when we ourselves focus on the first time dimension. Even if we record at a trillion frames a second we still can only record in the first time dimension.

WHEN NOT RECORDING the secondary waves impact later than the primary waves in different time dimensions so cannot be recorded using traditional means. The detail and structure of the field is explained in more detail on the website and is too long to post here. I will share the link if requested. 

A particle accelerator is needed to confirm the theory. The mechanics are very clear and logical however.

There is a way to record which I will explain after a particle accelerator confirms my predictions.

Oldand