Do you like the new crackpot policy?

[jcsd]

I think that perhaps a less eupheminstic title for 'Theory Development' would make a more clear signpost as to the actual contents of the forum. Something like 'Crackpot's Corner' perhaps? :)

 

[ZapperZ]

"The basic element of quantum theory is the double-slit experiment. It is a phenomenon which is impossible, absolutely impossible to explain in any classical way and which has in it the heart of quantum mechanics. In reality it contains the only mystery ... the basic peculiarities of all quantum mechanics." Richard Feynman

How many quantum wells can I place between the electron gun and the double slits, in the DSE, without affecting to outcome of the expertment?

Stone me...or bring me to my senses, if you can.

I have spoken, meet and corresponded to some of greatest minds in physics, every agrees the theory is correct, but they will not express an option of whether my interpretation is a valid solution to the DSE, or not.

Regards

Terry Giblin

You have a very delusional idea on how an idea in physics gets evaluated for any kind of validity. Do you honestly think that "spoken, meet, and corresponded" qualify as a valid process for your idea to be (i) taken seriously and (ii) to be considered and evaluated seriously? SERIOUSLY?!

Send your idea into be published in a peer-reviewed journal. If you cannot get it to be accepted in a lower-tiered journal (forget Nature, Science, and PRL), then I strongly suggest you stop whinning the fact that no one will take you up seriously, especially when you think physics can be done (or impressed upon) simply by knowing what to quote.

And oh, before you go off on the deep end about these so-called "quantum well", I also suggest you look up the effects of various types of quantum wells in nanostructures such as quantum wires and see for yourself how much of a difference you get between that, and the double-slit pattern! Maybe you asked the wrong "greatest mind", or maybe they just didn't understand what you were spewing considering, based on your postings on PF, you are apt to mix-and-match terms in physics into something that make no sense.

If you want to be taken seriously, publish it in a peer-reviewed journal. If not, look in the mirror - that's where the problem lies.

Zz.

 

[Gokul43201]

How many quantum wells can I place between the electron gun and the double slits, in the DSE, without affecting to outcome of the expertment?

Pray, tell me how you plan to place quantum wells in your electron path. What are your wells made of ?

 

[Terry Giblin]

What's to write up? Draw one line - a quantum well

I accept my methods of announcing my finds could be improved, but what do I do.

As far as I am concerned I solved the DSE by drawing a single line, between the electron gun and the double slits, calling the line a quantum well and using accept QM. - I was therefore able to eliminate the only unknown in the experiment, ie the electron and hence proving Bohr was correct, nothing exists until it is observed as an electron or photon, the rest of the time its a quantum electron.

For example what would happen if,

We used a positron gun instead? - This would not change the outcome of the experiment, from electrons to humans the physics is the same.

We used an electron and positron gun at the same time, pointing in the same direction and then in opposite directions, in the same time phase and out of phase.

Positron interference pattern, double slit, electron gun, multiple quantum wells, positron gun, double slit, electron interference pattern!

Attack my physics not my method of getting my message across, its a very simple message, which everyone who has ever studied QM should agree with, its the interpretation which is important.

Regards

Terry Giblin

What is a quantum well? - I don't exactly know but let's assume its a wall or a lift door they all work just as well we just have to be patient and wait, according to probability and QM, eventually an electron will appear.

You have a very delusional idea on how an idea in physics gets evaluated for any kind of validity. Do you honestly think that "spoken, meet, and corresponded" qualify as a valid process for your idea to be (i) taken seriously and (ii) to be considered and evaluated seriously? SERIOUSLY?!

Send your idea into be published in a peer-reviewed journal. If you cannot get it to be accepted in a lower-tiered journal (forget Nature, Science, and PRL), then I strongly suggest you stop whinning the fact that no one will take you up seriously, especially when you think physics can be done (or impressed upon) simply by knowing what to quote.

And oh, before you go off on the deep end about these so-called "quantum well", I also suggest you look up the effects of various types of quantum wells in nanostructures such as quantum wires and see for yourself how much of a difference you get between that, and the double-slit pattern! Maybe you asked the wrong "greatest mind", or maybe they just didn't understand what you were spewing considering, based on your postings on PF, you are apt to mix-and-match terms in physics into something that make no sense.

If you want to be taken seriously, publish it in a peer-reviewed journal. If not, look in the mirror - that's where the problem lies.

Zz.

 

[chroot]

Terry,

No offense, but you have no idea what you're talking about. Your last post makes that quite clear. This is also not the appropriate place to debate with Zz. Nor is this the appropriate site to espouse your tenuous "theory."

- Warren

 

[Gokul43201]

Terry,

No offense, but you have no idea what you're talking about. Your last post makes that quite clear. This is also not the appropriate place to debate with Zz. Nor is this the appropriate site to espouse your tenuous "theory."

- Warren

So I can't respond to " As far as I am concerned I solved the DSE by drawing a single line, between the electron gun and the double slits, calling the line a quantum well" ?