Home

ARCUS:  The World Formula and its Solutions

Consequently constructed using the results of Albert Einstein and Max Planck leading to the Unified Field Theory

 
Articles
The Preaching
 
 
 
 
  
The error at the Dual-slit experiment

The old resp. the present interpretation:

“When an electron beam is led on two slits parallelly located, then one gets a diffraction picture at the screen behind that dual-slit, at which maxima and minima of intensities are changing. This result shows the wave properties of electrons: from every slit circular waves start running and overlapping. Intensity maxima and intensity minima of diffraction pattern are given like with electromagnetic waves of light by this interference.

If intensity of electron beam is decreased, that picture dissolves into single points. This only can be interpreted, if one thinks the electron to be a particle. Every point on the screen then corresponds to one hit of an electron. (This is the cardinal error!)

One cannot predict exactly when a determined electron hits at one determined position. But one can make probability statements. They correspond to the distribution of intensity of diffraction pattern."1

This opinion the high school students are learning. So they are early confused. Later they don't understand nothing any more. Why don't they? The complete text is wrong. How should it be right, if one would correct it following my solutions?

My new resp. the correct interpretation:

"When an electron beam is led on two slits parallelly located, then one gets a diffraction picture at the screen behind that dual-slit, at which maxima and minima of intensities of interactions are changing. This result shows that special property of electrons, they could emit waves (and receive them): from every slit circular waves start running and overlapping (corresponding to the principle of Huygens). Intensity maxima and intensity minima of diffraction pattern are given like with electromagnetic waves of light by this interference.

If intensity of electron beam is decreased, that picture dissolves into single points. This only can be interpreted if one thinks every hit to be the interaction between the wave quanta. Every point on the screen then corresponds to the hit of an effect of the wave quanta of the electron.

One cannot predict exactly when a determined interaction hits at one determined position. But one can make probability statements. They correspond to the distribution of intensity of diffraction pattern."

However, the electrons fly undiscovered and unflustered on their invisible orbit. They don't have any hits directly able to be indicated!

In this fine difference the cardinal error of the quantum physics is well-founded!

Where are the electrons gone after hitting then? They were caught by the interaction of their wave quanta - invisibly!

Summary: Hit points while small intensity are not the reflection of particles themselves. But they are the reflection of the interaction of their wave energy fields! Therefore there isn't any problem. The present problem is only made by wrong postulate going without reason from the observation of wave functions with high intensity to the observation of "particles" when intensity decreased, although this must be wave functions, too! The whole generation of physicists was confused by that observation of dots. But those dots are not the particle reflection themselves!!

The basic question however is: Why should this suddenly be particles when above in illustration there were still waves?

There's already one proof if you correctly interpret this facts:

When a single electron is accelerated to the dual-slit then the reflections on the screen behave just as you see when one single photon was flying there. Both seem to have the same behavior. If the electron was a wave itself then it seems to distribute itself to the slits and to interfere with itself. A real particle as a corpuscle cannot part itself. Just a wave like the photon as an electromagnetic wave can part itself. The electron has a quality which is a wave. Where does the quality come? Does the quality be the same as the particle?

Following my theory, the electron makes its own waves while its movement receiving and sending them. Expressed in quanta, these are the photons of the electromagnetism and the fallons of the gravitomagnetism. The photon and the fallon can make elementary waves at different slits which interfere then with each other. Therefore the electron is the oscillator of the waves. It is not the wave itself although it is just flying!

Photons are not particles! Electrons aren't waves! Photons are wave quanta. Electrons are particles, which in movement produce and exchange gravitational waves made by their moving masses (gravitomagnetic waves) and electromagnetic waves made by their moving electric charges.

Let's compare it simply:

  1. A handy telephone was to compare with a light transmitter. I hold it tight, and it transmits and receives the waves which are running through the double slit. This was to compare with photons and their interference.
  2. Another handy was to compare with the flying electron. I throw it through one of the dual-slits while it is in transmission - while it transmits and receives waves. And these waves behave just like the photons above.

Who still lacks here understanding?

We need a transmitter and a receiver for the light. Both are standing still. The waves are free. We examine their behavior by the examination of the photons.

We need a transmitter and a receiver for matter waves. The elementary particle itself is this oscillator. It produces the matter waves while it is flying. We examine the behavior of these waves. However, we haven't really taken the particle into consideration at all! You may not think the particle away, and you may not explain it to be the wave itself!

1 - Schroedel: Chemie heute, Sekundarbereich II, illustration "Exkurs", page 33

 
 
· All rights reserved: Arcus (Heinz-Joachim Ackermann, since1998) ·