Originally Posted By: finiter

Electrons have finite masses and radii. That is an indication that it is a solid particle.


Sorry they most definitely have neither they have a range we call a probibity of distribution.


Originally Posted By: finiter

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.



See where you walked headlong into is actually interesting as we have direct observational proof that electrons, protons, nuetrons are waves we have absolutely no proof they are solid.

The idea of duality was born mainly from chemistry which convinced science that there were these little things called atoms and they painted this picture of it.

Now even chemistry has given up on that view.

QM is posing you to the very big question was DUALITY EVER REAL ... do particles actually exist.

This presents the backdrop to why your theory is at odds with QM and you have to dismiss it.

The reality is we can prove QM and that what you call particles are most likely virtual particles but there is absolutely no scientific evidence of any sort of solid particle that is as they say science myth and your theory is founded on a myth.


Originally Posted By: finiter

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.


Only we can actually take the thing down to a single electron, proton, nuetron these days so what you have just explained is rubbish (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/02/110224091619.htm)

You can't have statistical interference on a single object the object is interferring with itself. This argument is dead and buried.

See your explaination simply doesn't wash it's a historic argument when we couldn't settle the science.

So I am emitting a single photon, electron, proton how do I get an interferrence pattern if said thing is not a wave.


Everything I have told you here is factual observation I have not added in theories or what I believe I am simply asking you to consider the observations.


The problem I pose is does DUALITY exist ... I have observational evidence for wave like behaviour I have absolutely no obseravtional evidence for solid particle like behaviour .... even though it might play with your sensibilities they are the facts.

Modern QM is posing the question is there such thing as a solid particle the answer keeps coming back time and time again .. NO.

So you pose that QM is a mistake ... QM asks of your theory is it built on a mistake that is wrong at science.

It's understandable why you don't like QM :-)

Last edited by Orac; 11/01/11 05:45 AM.
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.