scifimath

19 hours ago, Mordred said:

Wave particle duality is highly tested. Your false assertions are not. 

Your also thinking of particles as little solid objects. They are not, 

QFT applies Relativity and uses spacetime it isn't seperate from it.

give me the tests

QFT needs updated. Spacetime can morph the Quantum field but it isn't using it.

19 hours ago, uncool said:

Presumably, they no longer are unrelated, then? Otherwise, how do you ensure that two "unrelated" waves have the same phase?

give me whatever results you have

19 hours ago, swansont said:

Nope. 

This makes no sense. Wave-particle duality does not say that wave and particle behavior will be observed at the same time. If you tell me it’s a matter wave, I can’t show you particle behavior.

But in interference, you get the wave behavior, and later on, when you detect, you get particle behavior.

 

No, the experiments have been done. We know what the model predicts and know the results. No guessing or assuming needed.

 

Sorry, “spacetime object” isn’t a thing in mainstream physics. Your own pet theories are not a part of this discussion.

!

Moderator Note

Since you’ve decided to teach/preach, I have moved this to speculations. 

Give us your model, predictions and/or evidence. You should be familiar with the rules by now.

 

lol, oh so all of a sudden duality isn't a duality

18 hours ago, Mordred said:

So how does electron flow work in copper wire ? It seems you are thinking electrons as a physical object so please explain that.

I can name other matter particles that can readily pass through solid objects.

I don't care about electrons

17 hours ago, studiot said:

 

Perhaps you could explain why there is so much shielding around nuclear reactors or how hydrogen, helium and methane gases can pass through several feet thickness of solid concrete?

They would be smart to put a camera inside and outside. Waves can go through barriers. 

Fringes are not a sign of particles bouncing off each other.

If they are both that would mean the waves would bounce and land at odd places far from the original last screen.

Matter waves can go through barriers it's just very rare. You can fluctuate the barrier to get more to pass through it.

That's pretty lame if they don't bounce off each other? Cause that means they are Matter OR Waves ..not both at the same time..

One of these days you guys are going to accept this.

waves can go through barriers, physical objects can not

Physical objects use spacetime, not the quantum field.

The state of a particle is decided before it starts moving on its path.

You can't ignore the realms of the observed vs unobserved anymore.

Two unobserved matter waves with the same phase and frequency are set to collide somehow.

See my additional experiment details in my last comment

I was being sarcastic about matter disappearing ..that's ridiculous.

I was being sarcastic.

This is fine, it just doesn't answer the main question because no one has tried it.

Place two double slit experiments facing each other. Remove the final screen the particles would normally collide against. Set a dome over both experiments that can act as the final screen.
Run the experiment
..see if you get dots in weird places.

5 hours ago, Mordred said:

Constructive interference if they have different phases destructive interference. I did post a link describing this. See the link on wave interference.

oh so matter can disappear ..neat.

2 hours ago, swansont said:

You will see wave behavior if your experiment is set up to see that, and particle behavior in an experiment designed to see particle behavior.

It’s not like a quantum particle acting as a wave can never exhibit particle behavior in some other interaction.

Observing isn’t an issue - this isn’t related to wave function collapse

Show me an unobserved quantum matter wave acting like a particle.

Observing is an issue because you are only guessing/assuming what will happen.

Wave function collapse happens when a quantum wave hits a spacetime object and can't move on. Observation (placing a detector that a particle can pass through) does decide if the particle will be cohered or not.

if they pass through each other without interacting.

I don't care about observed atoms.

Okay, two matter waves with the same frequency and phase. What happens?

I just want to know if they ghost each other. You could tell if you had detectors in spots where they would only land if they bounced off each other.

Shooting electrons at a surface is supposed to satisfy my question of what happens when you shoot two matter waves at each other?

you are going back to orbitals?

but it does have to be matter waves

because we, apparently, have never tested with them before.

I have a plausible theory in this forum, but I'd be banned if I mentioned anything about it here.

So, statistically, what happens?

How about two unobserved double slit experiments pointed at each other?

I want them to be quantum waves when they "hit" each other.

An unobserved atom smasher is what I need.

Well, the point I'm heading to is that they aren't physical.

I want two atom cannons pointed at each other. Shoot a million at random angles, one of them is bound to hit another one ..right? Or do the two waves just ghost eachother?

I think orbitals go by a slightly different set or rules. :/

why would you generate them by the same source?

15 minutes ago, Mordred said:

All particles are field excitations which is a wavefunction. All fermionic particles count as matter this includes electrons.

This is great (guess?), but do have any results besides orbitals?

I guess I want something more substantial. Thinking electrons represent whole atoms seems dangerous.

You consider an electron a matter wave?

I don't think the double slit should count as there is a good chance those two waves going through the slits are entangled. What do you know about unobserved quantum wave behavior?

I've posted these ideas on other sites longer ago than the book. I really wish someone had an account.

..are you saying the book may support my claims?

That book came out 4 months ago, what makes you so sure it is from the book?

I wonder if the article has mathematics.

Getting you guys to look at something plausible has been impossible.