neuvophysics.com   neuvophysics@Gmail.com

 

ELECTRON BEAM SLIT BEHAVIOR--- ANALYZING THE QUANTUM MECHANICS AND PHYSICS BEHIND THE 'DOUBLE SLIT BEAM ' EXPERIMENT UNDER THE AUSPICES OF G-THEORY.

 

Before we even address this subject I would strongly suggest that the following experimental conclusions regarding correlated emissions in electron beams should be examined.

The web link below connects to the report which is headed:

 

GALILEAN ELECTRODYNAMICS

 

CORRELATED EMISSION OF ELECTRONS

 

BY Piestrup,Puthoff and Ebert

 http://www.earthtech.org/publications/correlated_emission.PDF

 

The popular fascination with the electron beam double slit experiment is legendary. With so many eager minds analyzing such a phenomenon it becomes difficult to understand why there has been no real resolution regarding the interpretation of the observed results.

At first I treated the proposal that both light and electrons were able to change from being particles in a beam to some sort of emf wave-front with such a degree of suspicion that I considered the interpretive conclusions to have been arrived at with a good dose of the curious lack of reasoning typified in most conspiracy theories. After giving the subject some consideration I fully intended not to add my voice to the already rowdy throng.

However as the G-theory matrix began to reach out and spread into every corner of physics, and seemingly without logical default; I then surmised that the predicates of the theory itself could be of paramount assistance in providing a logical answer. I believe I turned out to be correct in that assumption and I fully expect to be justified in reaching such a seemingly self serving conclusion.

Before I begin this analysis, I will first ask some probing questions. How on earth have millions of scientist and students continued to treat slits as though they were actually just diagrams on sheets of paper and not the perturbable/tive slits existing in real matter that they truly are? Surely it should also be obvious to all and sundry that the slits are formed in matter which is made of FERMIONS which (in the extreme near field) exhibit behavior that is constrained to be in accordance with quantum laws? Those laws demand concepts that aren't too hard to understand. E.g. quantum stepped behavior and real physical motion caused by atomic 'ringing', being an attenuating vibration  caused conditionally by either/or direct particle (photon-electron) involvement as well as perturbative field affects from near misses. Refer to quantum definition.

Also; how on earth are those same people able to consider that photons and electrons are considered to be like hard 'marbles' traveling through those supposedly sterile slits, and thereupon magically morphing into some fluid like wave front format after passing though without a thought being given to the electrons/photons that were stopped by absorption into the matter close to the slits?

Like I suggested earlier (in both the thesis and the introductory book), many things may not be well understood, and as such they appear to work by some kind of magic. Physics is permitted to allow that to be the case -so long as the laws are upheld- until a rationally valid explanation or discovery is made. Until such a time, any attempts to explain such perceived magic with additional NON EMPIRICAL magical solutions -apart from being illegal- is probably irrational as well as illogical. Applied relativity evidences a  philosophy  that typifies this.

For a rational explanation of the supposed quantum mechanics problem caused by the introduction of observing instruments into the experiment, simply search the 'Electron double slit experiment' on Wikipedia; scroll to the bottom of the page and read the 'Rational explanation' by Carlo Rovelli. Richard Feynman is likely to  be wrong  once again--- This phenomenon   is  able to be explained in "---any classical way"!

This contentious experiment is therefore open to logical investigation. Any forensic investigation demands requirements. One is the necessity of setting the scene and timeline. The other is to gather all possible clues. Once that has been achieved then a logical conclusion is usually able to be drawn if the clues are of sufficient value and quantity, and after eliminating every other possibility, no matter how improbable, what ever is left must be the reason.   I think I'm quoting someone else here.

In this particular case there is no requirement for discovery of a timeline which is already well understood. There is however a conditional requirement for the clues to be truly valid, and that is that the experiment under analysis must have been carried out in a vacuum.

Both contemporary science and G-theory sources provide several clues which have been listed below.

1/ the shadow that can be observed in the center of the dot of light being shone through a pinhole. This may be interpreted as demonstrating beam divergence caused by the hole. The single slit experiment also shows this divergence as well as other clues yet to be presented. It is important to note that the beams cast an image that strongly infers perturbative eigenstate vector changes and not wave motion which would NOT be capable of being beamed in any manner because of the lack of a wave propagation medium.

2/ the photo electric effect. This experiment demonstrates the particle nature of electrons of electrons in particular, as well as their perturbability by an AMO in the near field. (AMO Atomic matter object--- nucleons and above)

3/ both photon and electron beaming capability. This also shows the particle nature of those phenomena. Note: an electron beam needs to be focused.

4/ the quantum effect. This declares the necessarily pulsed (digitized) nature of fermions as well as the known fact that atoms 'ring'.

5/ Einstein's ring effect, ('gravitational' lensing) as well as multi-refringence. These phenomena both demonstrate the ability of AMO's to perturb the path of photons. Extreme near field grazing angle observances should also exhibit this effect.

6/ entanglement. Refer to the definition.

7/ the electron clustering effect. This phenomenon concluded in the linked experiment supports the theory of the quantum stepped nature of these fermions, and that it is 'clusters' of electrons* which are actually emitted and likewise travel in beam lines. These clusters actually show ATTENUATING emission HARMONICS which (in deference to all the other restricting data) is singularly able to allow an electron beam to be subjectively considered to be 'wavelike'**.

Of course such a phenomenon as this is easily able to lead to the facile interpretive conclusion of wave front propagation but only so long as the 'missing medium' and the fact of the existence of a beam is conveniently ignored. Ditto for light.

An electron 'cluster' beam directed through a small aperture actually demonstrates a strong disturbance on the perceived harmonics in particular.   Note: Refer to the web link provided above: Here we have harmonics which have been derived without a fundamental. This can't be wave motion. It must be by another phenomenon entirely. We need to move on from childish principles and the offering of totally unrelated phenomena proposing any idea that the macro or observable world around us is somehow supposed to represent the micro world.

8/ synchrotron 'beam' geometrical target patterns show definite particle characteristics.

And last but not least, a negative clue---

9/ any expectation of the ability of any instrument to be able to empirically cause or prevent the emission or cause a disturbance of either a single electron or photon by just analyzing some occurrence is intuitively doubtful and the Carl Sagen dictum is in effect here.

P.S. 10/ has an experiment been carried out which isolates the slits from the universe? This may be possible for electrons but for photons you will need to free fall the slits in a vacuum.

The reason I suggest the last condition is that everything in the quantum world is connected and I even doubt that isolation in a vacuum is going to stop or otherwise abrogate that connection because the vacuum is in fact full of multiplex stress tensors as well as particles. When it comes down to it the electrons and photons interact in ways that are determined by interactive quantum states.

It is likely that electrons and photons in beam lines have quantum entanglement 'buddies'. When the entanglement becomes broken at the slit. The quantum data link doesn't become broken for a fleeting instant and the particles continue to communicate*** even while one is travelling at 'c' and the other has stopped.

The result is an obvious a perturbative eigenvector bend by the free particle towards the slit where the buddy was trapped. This bend occurs AT THE SLIT whereupon the free particle was 'dragged' slightly which predicts a 'force' relatable to entanglement, and there must be a quantum stepped proportionality relating to the distance of the entangled photon from the side of the slit and this is predictable. Therefore the variations in slit width will produce proportionally modified slit patterns. That is predictive as well.

The pattern is actually produced -not by any wave interference; because there is none- by the quantum resolution of the bending and even though the whole pattern is 'noisy' there is sufficient data left to be effectively recovered.

*Only the G-theory electron structure can allow clustering without violating Coulomb's force law of repulsion.

**This begs the question. Do photons propagate in bunches like electrons also? G-theory predicts a process in atomic matter called photon quanta accumulation similar to electron accumulation before emission and a temporary emission surface particle depopulation post emission. This is a quantum digital delay which may possibly be controllable by externally applied photon beams (lasers) in both cases.

***entanglement at a distance which is a noted phenomenon but not by any perceivable intelligence!

 

 

CONCLUSIONS

In the single beam experiment the only effect is a banding of the beam by the slit because of the just proposed phenomenology. The patterning comes about because of the 'quantum buddy' effect which causes quantum related harmonic resolutions.   Note: The quantum buddy or entanglement dynamics is not constrained to physical proximity although there should be a statistical probability of proximity (Schrodinger's equation) otherwise this proposed phenomenology can't work.

In the single electron/photon experiment the particles are alone -supposedly- and have a perturbative connection which has far field reach*. The two will switch tines (stress tensor eigenvectors) in proportion to the quantum force moment. This will be the same bend as noticed before because of the quantum law digitization of forces. That is the reason for the bars that were observed in the first experiment.

*Action at a distance is a puzzling concept which is explained by G-theory.

 

When a measuring device is inserted in the path of one electron or photon (as the case may be). The entanglement becomes broken after a fleeting instant and the other electron/photon is no longer perturbativly affected and its path will no longer bend (statistically averaged). There is no ethereal mystery here. Its just physics. Entanglement is broken when either particle comes in contact with a nucleon. That is a prediction from elsewhere in G-theory because of other noted observations.

If the detector does allows the particle to go through then it has now become entangled with a different particle in the detector and it is no longer under any mutual entanglement perturbation with the first particle. It appears that entanglement must be able to be promoted simply by common near-field proximity to any object/particle.

 

It probably isn't lost on many of you that what we have here with the double slit is a basic data gate. If it's light we are using we have a photon or quantum switch. This might be basic now but we know that from small things big things grow. This effect needs a lot more careful experimentation and data gathering.

With other predictive technologies proposed only in the thesis I can see the likelihood of the development of the most powerful tool in the data processing arsenal. That is a light switched quantum inverter. Yes; Photons in--- photons not-out and vice versa. Also a bidirectional quantum photoelectric converter is not out of the question also. That is seriously important for converting high bit-rate data from light to charge and visa versa. This technology promises to exhibit super high speed capability as well as zero delay and no Vdd delay in the light propagation switch path.

Significant    sections of data management could be carried out by light/light processes with just light/charge conversion at each end. High bit-rate data transmission over distance is also a prediction.

Some processing needs to be possible at the photo-electric conversion end and such things as 'RW photon memories' are not out of the question. Photon/electron  switched- refraction, diffraction, reflection, cold-photon-plasma, photostasis/fermiostasis, birefringence, laminate grazing angle photon-photon photo-electric effects as well as photon spatial displacement in TIRa. Also group entanglement should be able to be utilized to affect electron flow in a digital manner as well.

See; perhaps we don't have to create quantum logic gates: They are perhaps already there waiting to be corralled and utilized. From all this we can get the idea of instantaneous data transportation (not transmission) as well.    All we need then are solid state slits. It seems likely that the slits only require to simply be an abrupt change in a suitable medium. I can see opportunities for tons of research here.

G-theory also predicts a phenomenon called 'group entanglement' and a likely truth table for slit phenomenology is in my grasp; and probably the grasp of many others AS WELL. I have stated this much at the risk of just giving away intellectual property to the aether but it is perhaps in the best interest of the forward progression of science and technology that many become involved in such research.

 

PS

The future of computing looks very bright indeed. The discovery of the transistor was a watershed moment for technology. This discovery led inexorably towards the computing power we have at our fingertips everyday. The inadvertent discovery of a light switch called a 'double slit' was recently made and along with media manipulation and photo-voltaic technology; the light inverter is not far away. In computing; a logic inverter is extremely crucial for data processing because that allows the functioning of the data gates that control the flow of information.

The growing realization that the quantum world is already digital -rather than analogue- might hopefully galvanize the scientific community to cease attempting to make quantum gates and learn how to manipulate the ones that already exist. Quantum entanglement holds hope of even more breathtaking advances because the quantum connection is without propagation delay and is not preventable in a vacuum. The upshot is that entanglement may be able to be controlled at the quantum level by similar technology applicable to the subject at hand.

But for now, the beauty about light data processing is in the low power and hyper high processing speeds imaginable. The limited processing speed and heat losses are the greatest drawback of ' transistor technology ' going forward. Power rails (Vdd) are limited to about 1.8 volts before severe propagation delays kick in and data propagation speeds and rates are approaching a wall going forward.

Those delays are a function of the quantum digital world interacting with the macro analogue electrical world as proved in the G-theory thesis. If we can do away with most of the delays caused by that interaction and go straight to the digital fundamental system, we bypass the limitations faced under the current technological paradigm and other neuro-synthetic systems currently under analysis. Of course such ' rubbery ' data crunching methods is useful in certain areas.

 

HYPOTHETICAL

Since the discoveries of the still dubious 'quantum mechanics', it's still highly likely that there is another existing communication pathway even within our own bodies and more importantly minds. The ' Frankensteinian '  ideas of heads covered with sensors to control brainwaves as well as 'implant technology' may become bypassed completely if science can get a handle on the quantum entanglement phenomenon. This extremely interesting and valuable area of research is going to drive technology into new dimensions without a doubt.

The idea of thought control might seem far fetched and more than a little dangerous but if such a technology can be censored and controlled by permission then we might have a way to mentally control not only devices and processes but to have information in both intelligible and straight data forms able to be input into our brains, instantaneously and from afar. Imagine watching a video that looks as real as the real world; one which you just selected by thinking a code and a command.

This idea of course means refuting Einstein which is being undertaken far and wide as I write. Note: Refer to the home page essay. The science fiction style, and faltering theories of the past have never been a waste of time and neither has Einstein's relativity. They have been instrumental in paving the way towards exhilarating technologies but in moving forward from the post Newtonian paradigm into the 'post Einsteinian'--- I don ' t think words can express the coming age of science. If we can get our act together by developing some communal altruistic behaviour---that is; and by even developing some sense of common purpose and even destiny perhaps.

Maybe some philosophies that the previous generation held to weren't so dumb after all. Science needs to tear physics out of the hands of those who are usurping it to promote their own agenda of atheism. I could care less about that but those folks are a real drag on progress. People who cling to guns and religion aren't the ones holding back science but quite ironically it seems that those who cling to Darwin and Einstein probably are. 

neuvophysics.com   neuvophysics@Gmail.com