# Double slit solution solved, time is 3 dimensional

## Recommended Posts

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

Edited by Oldand Dilis
Spelling mistake formerly read or amended to of

• Replies 68
• Created

#### Posted Images

5 minutes ago, Oldand Dilis said:

different﻿ time dimensions so cannot be recorded using traditio﻿na﻿l mea﻿ns﻿.

I have a few questions; first can you define the model for multiple time dimensions?

5 minutes ago, Oldand Dilis said:

A﻿﻿ particle accelerator is nee﻿ded to confirm the theory.

I think current accelerators work in one time dimension using ”trditional means”. What kind of accelerator are you refering to?

##### Share on other sites

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.

##### Share on other sites

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.

##### Share on other sites

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

##### Share on other sites

The current description of interference in a double-slit works very well. You need to show that you have a more compelling model.

##### Share on other sites

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?

5 hours ago, Oldand Dilis said:

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.

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.

5 hours ago, Oldand Dilis said:

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

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

##### Share on other sites

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.

##### Share on other sites

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

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.

##### Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Oldand Dilis said:

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.

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:

4 hours ago, Oldand Dilis said:

I am a visual thinker my maths and physics terminology need a lot of catching up.

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

4 hours ago, Oldand Dilis said:

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.

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.

*) I have limited formal training in quantum mechanics so this may lack precision.

##### Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Ghideon said:

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?

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):

Quote

As the electromagnetic fields oscillate in the wave, the charges in the material will be "shaken" back and forth at the same frequency.[1]:67 The charges thus radiate their own electromagnetic wave that is at the same frequency ...

and nobody seem to be bothered abut "how is energy conserved?" ... (Many physicists were more bothered by the fact that I asked the question: see 1, 2, 3).

Edited by DanMP
##### Share on other sites

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

##### Share on other sites

22 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):

The slits are not a medium. There is no situation where new photons are required in this experiment, with mainstream physics.

3 hours ago, Oldand Dilis said:

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.

New waves ≠ new photons. They are different explanations, with different implications.

3 hours ago, Oldand Dilis said:

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

Mere explanation is insufficient. It needs to be falsifiable. ("it's magic" is an explanation, but not science)

##### Share on other sites

On 6/28/2019 at 4:57 PM, 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):

Correct, and indeed interesting! But that situation is not connected to dual slit experiments as far as I can see? There is for instance no reference to dual slits in the link you provided. But that said, I think there are other similar situations such as wavelength shifter*. One incoming photon may cause one or more new photons to be emitted. But again, not connected to dual slit or the ideas in OP.

6 hours ago, Oldand Dilis said:

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

Sorry, my bad. Maybe you can explain in detail where the numbers come from? Why these numbers? What do they explain?

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?

6 hours ago, Oldand Dilis said:

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. ﻿

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

6 hours ago, Oldand Dilis said:

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

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).

##### Share on other sites

On 6/29/2019 at 12:05 PM, Oldand Dilis said:

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

I'm sorry to disappoint you but what I posted was a theory (not experiment) about waves of light through a medium, not single photons passing through slits, so I don't think it can support your "theory".

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

Correct, and indeed interesting! But that situation is not connected to dual slit experiments as far as I can see

Indeed. The reason I posted it was the fact/idea that many physicists are not really interested in "how is energy conserved" ... But they should be. You can't create photons/energy without consuming/absorbing an equal amount ...

On 6/29/2019 at 4:01 PM, swansont said:

New waves ≠ new photons

Quote

In physics, the term light sometimes refers to electromagnetic radiation of any wavelength, whether visible or not.[...] Like all types of EM radiation, visible light propagates as waves. However, the energy imparted by the waves is absorbed at single locations the way particles are absorbed. The absorbed energy of the EM waves is called a photon, and represents the quanta of light.

so, if "The charges thus radiate their own electromagnetic wave that is at the same frequency" and "The light wave traveling in the medium is the macroscopic superposition (sum) of all such contributions in the material: the original wave plus the waves radiated by all the moving charges", the resulted wave (the sum) appears to "contain" more photons than the original/incident wave but, as I wrote above, you can't create photons/energy without consuming/absorbing an equal amount, so something is wrong ... What is wrong?

[This is a bit off-topic (sorry!), so maybe we should move it (and continue) in another location.]

##### Share on other sites

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). ﻿﻿﻿

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.

Edited by Oldand Dilis
Adding which axis (z) in the last sentence
##### Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Oldand Dilis said:

Perhaps this makes the importance of counting the hits clearer

Unfortunately not.

26 minutes ago, Oldand Dilis said:

tpf1000 = 900hfw +100hbw
When not recorded to see which slits the photons pass through
tpf1000 = 900hfw +100hbw+2(900)hbw

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

##### Share on other sites

On 6/27/2019 at 4:31 PM, Oldand Dilis said:

like Einstein was with time dilation I have been thrown every insult, ridicule and disgust by people who won't look seriously

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...

Edited by Eise
##### Share on other sites

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.

##### Share on other sites

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.

##### Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Oldand Dilis said:

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. ﻿

##### Share on other sites

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.

##### Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Oldand Dilis said:

"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.

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.

##### Share on other sites

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?

##### Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Oldand Dilis said:

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.

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.

22 minutes ago, Oldand Dilis said:

You really do and unfortunately no offence but I haven't seem to have found any great thinkers able to grasp THE CONCEPT yet.

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.

##### Share on other sites

This topic is now closed to further replies.

×