Orac, you say, "Google scientific proof please."

There is no disagreement regarding what 'scientific proof' means. What I said about 'proof' was contextual as a reply to your question what proof I have. The observational evidences can be explained in an alternate way, and I provide alternate explanations as a proof my theory. For example, I have explained how a neutron is formed from electron-positron pairs as a theoretical proof to show that electrons and neutrons are solid particles. Again, I have explained how an interference pattern can be formed by solid particles. However, you just maintained that I am not providing alternate explanations.

My alternate explanations may be wrong; but you have not pointed out where it has gone wrong. When it is an alternate theory, you cannot evaluate it based on existing theory. You say that electrons are not solid particles (based on QM), and hence my explanation of neutron formation is wrong (here is the actual disagreement).

Scientific proof is based on 'observational evidence' or right predictions. But therein lies the loop hole. It may be possible to explain the so-called observational evidences in many ways. You cannot say any explanation is better than any other, unless you are able to point out logical loop holes in the explanations. If you accept one explanation and evaluate 'the others' one the basis of the accepted one, naturally 'the others' will be wrong.

Again, you say "IT IS SCIENTIFICALLY PROVEN END OF STORY ... YOU CHOOSE NOT TO BELIEVE SO BE IT ... SAY THAT I CHOOSE NOT TO BELIEVE."

I do not agree with the above statement. The term 'SCIENTIFICALLY PROVEN END' is relative. Many 'scientifically proven ends' have later been disproved (sometimes, it may be proved again). At present, QM is the in-thing, ie, the present 'SCIENTIFICALLY PROVEN END' supports QM. As we have not reached 'the real end', I choose to question QM by providing an alternate set of concepts.

You say that you doubt Big-bang theory though the theory agrees with all observational evidences. That means you do not agree with the 'conclusions that have been arrived at' though you do not question the observations. But the degree of disagreement is rather small, and so you only 'doubt'. If you are more convinced, then you will say that Big-bang theory may be wrong for certain reasons. If you are still more convinced and have an alternate set of explanations, then surely you will say that Big-bang theory is wrong. So when I say that QM is wrong, it implies only 'that much', and my stand is not 'scientifically wrong'.

Regarding the mass of Neutron and the interference, I will verify your comments and reply later.