0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Why would you post this? This obviously has nothing to do with electrons?

So how does this explain the wavelike properties?

How can we take this answer seriously? If it's so easy, please demonstrate how your proposal produces the appropriate Stern-Gerlach magnet effects. It looks like you are merely trying to avoid answering the question, but surely that cannot be the case.

Quote from: PhysBang on 22/02/2010 02:02:22How can we take this answer seriously? If it's so easy, please demonstrate how your proposal produces the appropriate Stern-Gerlach magnet effects. It looks like you are merely trying to avoid answering the question, but surely that cannot be the case.Take a look at my first post on this thread where I talked about two-dimensional spin. If something keeps changing its spin direction, you can only distinguish between two alternatives. It's all simple stuff, PhysBang, you should look into it properly.

Yes, but they aren't mine, see ...sorry, you cannot view external links. To see them, please REGISTER or LOGIN

Take a look at my first post on this thread where I talked about two-dimensional spin. If something keeps changing its spin direction, you can only distinguish between two alternatives. It's all simple stuff, PhysBang, you should look into it properly.

It does. Two dimensional rotation offers only two alternatives.

It's tricky Physbang.

PhysBang: the empirical evidence is in the electron angular momentum, magnetic moment, et cetera. The lack of an adequate mathematical description for say pair production is something else.

I saw that an electron in a atom could be superpositioned and so have two orbitals simultaneously. That seems somewhat different from superimposed in that quantum logically you now have the possibility to store four numbers. That's due to that you can define the first orbital as .0. and the other as .1. Then you can combine those into 00, 01, 10, 11.

Vern, there's plenty of experimental evidence to support superposition. The two slit experiment with electrons, for example. The electron has to be described as passing through both slits in order for an interference pattern to emerge.

The answer is yes. The maths are Maxwell's equations as they apply to adjacent points in space as Lorentz suggested.

Whatever your opinion on Vern's particular details or the adequacy of the mathematics, don't forget the evidence of pair production and annihilation along with angular momentum and magnetic moment. The bottom line is this: what else can the electron be?

The bottom line is this: what else can the electron be?

Quote from: Farsight on 28/02/2010 16:55:41Whatever your opinion on Vern's particular details or the adequacy of the mathematics, don't forget the evidence of pair production and annihilation along with angular momentum and magnetic moment. The bottom line is this: what else can the electron be? But, of course, we must also remember that you have never provided any details about this magic process of yours, details that you alternately say are either simple or tricky. There is no choice but to conclude that you really have no complete theory and no evidence.As it is now, an electron is an electron. If one wants to say otherwise, one has to demonstrate how saying otherwise actually captures the facts about the measured behaviour of electrons.

PhysBang: you still don't seem to have picked up on the fact that evidence isn't in mathematics, it's experimental.

Go back to Newton and he says Are not gross bodies and light convertible into one another?.