Originally Posted By: Orac

Provide me observations of these thing called electrons, protons and nuetrons are finite solid particles please.

You go of into a whole pile of stuff about numbers of electrons, protons etc ... really not in the argument

I will get you started standard "double slit electron experiment" we do it with every student (http://www.upscale.utoronto.ca/PVB/Harrison/DoubleSlit/DoubleSlit.html) as it's an easy experiment. Explain away please how does your theory cover this.

Electrons have finite masses and radii. That is an indication that it is a solid particle. How such solid particles (electrons and positrons) integrate into neutron, another solid particle, having a finite mass was explained earlier; it is indeed a part of the argument: solid particles integrating into heavier solid particles in a deterministic way is a proof to show that they are indeed 'solid particles'. Actually, my theory predicts the mass of neutron by taking the particles to be 'solid'. It must be remembered that the existing theories do not predict the mass of neutron.

Regarding the double slit experiment:

With a single slit, if the electrons were always ejected parallel to the slit and there were no interactions at the edges of the slit, we will get a 'clear image of the slit with well defined boundaries' on the screen. But what is observed is a spread out image indicating that the source is not a point source, the electrons are ejected in different directions and there are interactions at the edges of the slit. The interactions are gravitational electrostatic and magnetic. In my model, the electrons have real spins; they spin clockwise or anticlockwise with respect to the direction of the motion, and the spin is always in a plane perpendicular to the direction of motion.

In the case of a double slit, the usual explanation is that since there are two slits every part of the screen will receive electrons from the two slits, and hence we may expect a uniform increase in the intensity, but what is observed is an interference pattern, thereby indicating that electron is a wave. However, I will see it in a different way. There is only one slit, the central part of which is blocked, thus making it a double slit. 'With that block' and 'without that block' the images on the screen will be different. The block will have its own affect on the image, by preventing the electrons from reaching some regions.

Let each electron be sent one by one. When there are statistically sufficient number of electrons, the slits and the block in between the slits will receive a uniform distribution of electrons. Nearly half of the electrons will have clockwise and the rest anticlockwise spins. The magnetic fields of these will be opposite, and these will be deflected towards or away from the edges of the slits. Thus the pattern formed on the screen will resemble the interference pattern of waves.