Jump to content

The Double Slit Experiment Reexplained.


Willem F Esterhuyse

Recommended Posts

 

33 minutes ago, Willem F Esterhuyse said:

The particles don't go through both slits but as a particle goes through one slit, its virtual antiparticle goes through the other. The predictions of this is that the particles form an interference pattern on a screen.

What is the antiparticle of a photon in your idea?

 

(Rhetorical question to highlight basic issues of the idea. Some particles, such as the photon, are their own antiparticle. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiparticle)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Willem F Esterhuyse said:

The particles don't go through both slits but as a particle goes through one slit, its virtual antiparticle goes through the other. The predictions of this is that the particles form an interference pattern on a screen.

What if it’s an electron? How do you form the virtual antiparticle, and obey conservation of charge and angular momentum?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Willem F Esterhuyse said:

The field of a positron goes through the other slit (how else are the waves to cancel?).

That’s not what I asked. 

How do you form the virtual positron, and obey conservation of charge and angular momentum?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The opposite excitation must happen in order for the waves to cancel. And the opposite excitation is a positron.

The second sentence above is to be invalidated if other ideas of wave-canceling are to pertain. The conservation laws seem to indicate this sentence is invalid and it is another kind of opposite excitation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think you fully understand Swansont's question. All particle creation must obey all conservation laws. That list includes the following. (charge, lepton number, linear and angular momentum, isospin, color, flavor, mass) you must apply all the applicable conservation laws in your examination.

You cannot choose one and ignore others. 

That would be rather tricky to do with your proposal once you consider the experiment has also been done using quantum dot emitters (single quanta aka photons) 

Edited by Mordred
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Willem F Esterhuyse said:

It doesn't need to: it is a virtual particle. I ask again: how else is the wave to cancel?

By being out of phase. Nothing to do with charge.

2 hours ago, Willem F Esterhuyse said:

The opposite excitation must happen in order for the waves to cancel. And the opposite excitation is a positron.

The second sentence above is to be invalidated if other ideas of wave-canceling are to pertain. The conservation laws seem to indicate this sentence is invalid and it is another kind of opposite excitation.

What nonsense. The same wave (i.e. a single excitation) passing though 2 slits will form an interference pattern on the far side. This is basic. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Willem F Esterhuyse said:

The opposite excitation must happen in order for the waves to cancel. And the opposite excitation is a positron.

The second sentence above is to be invalidated if other ideas of wave-canceling are to pertain. The conservation laws seem to indicate this sentence is invalid and it is another kind of opposite excitation.

But you can’t just summon a charged particle into existence by itself. Or a particle with spin. That’s magic, not science.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Willem F Esterhuyse said:

So the position is untenable.

Yes, your position is untenable 

7 hours ago, Willem F Esterhuyse said:

Then there must be a Positron Field and an Electron Field. The Electron Field must be able to have a negative amplitude without being an excitation of a positron.

!

Moderator Note

I’m not sure what this means. But this, like your earlier conjecture, lacks sufficient rigor to make predictions. We shouldn’t have to ask you for your model; if you have one you should have presented it.

As it is it looks like you are just spouting buzzwords without regard for any of the associated physics principles. And that doesn’t comply with our requirements for speculations

 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.