Mordred

Do yourself a favor take two spray cans of paint spray it against a wall. What pattern do you see ?

Oh really the very people that proposed VP in the first place couldn't consider it's application in a two slit experiment. Feymann for one example that showed how to model VP as an internal line on his diagrams couldn't think of how to apply this to the two slit experiment which he himself examined and specifically stated no classical solution is possible. Yet you can without doing a single calculation

Anyone can understand their own imagination land it's perfectly suited to the individual imagining the scenario. Proving it to others is a different story.

Take the mean average energy density then calculate the mean average energy of the VP. There is a formula that then corresponds this to the mean average lifetime that in itself depends on the mean average energy per particle. It is literally one of the calculations used to calculate the range of a force. You can believe pink unicorns fills magic wands with their urine if you want. That doesn't validate your model

When you make no effort to supply the mathematics to support your claims? Why should I believe any of your claims when you can only supply words and pictures ?

You can also account for VP with the mean average lifetime You still haven't supplied a single equation that shows you can use classical scattering to account for the two slit distribution. Posting a picture isn't a solution.

Do you want to try that one again ? As I am not buying it. At 2 7 K the mean average number density of photons would be roughly 400 /cm^3 that includes the antiparticle. You don't understand that thousands of physicists would have considered everyday particle number density in the two slit experiment. They would have considered such a mundane possibility Even Feymann considered a classical solution impossible and he is certainly well aware of Brownian distributions.

Sorry phone spell check Brownian Again you still need to still account for temperature to number density. Unless your particles are not standard model particles. The SM particles are all in Planck units so... they are all quantized via planck units.

How high is this density that somehow magically avoids contributing to temperature ? I told you one can take a black body temperature and calculate the number density of particles. Yet your higher density is not detectable by the same means ? You give a picture of essentially Brownish motion and think that is providing the solution to the two slit experiment ? Do the flipping math.

The math is contained in those links I have provided the math showing you the interference patterns from the two slit. It is your turn to show the math to support your vaunted claim you can get your classical particles into the correct interference patterns with a central emitter and two slit on either side as per the first link. I have been the only poster providing math this thread it's your model it is your responsibility to provide the math to support your model not anyone else's. You claiming you can do it is not proving you can do so I know I can show the interference patterns under waveforms usage as the very formulas are in those links provided.

Yes precisely the particles themself has a wavefunction the Compton wavelength and the DeBroglie wavelength. The former for bosons such as the photon the latter for fermions. This is part of wave particle duality. Your model specified never ever apply a frequency. You were very clear about that throughout your thread but in the same breath claim the mathematics is the same as the mainstream views. Which it cannot be because the mainstream view accepts waveparticle duality. This is a contradiction to your premise. By the way I did have a student try the experiment in a vacuum as opposed to open air. The results don't change under density change. The number density of particles contribute to the temperature so how does your vacuum not contribute to temperature ? Oh trust me I know more about how particles contribute to temperature than you do. You can calculate the number density of each particle species of a blackbody temperature via the Bose Einstein and Fermi Dirac statistics.. I was asking you because I want you to explain how your model accounts for this factor. At 2.7 k the blackbody temperature correlates to roughly 5 protons per cubic metre. You can run the numbers for photons but the number density is quite low. Though significantly higher than protons. I still want to know how you distinquish your model vacuum from the SM model. Without changing the temperature. Before you state antiparticles those statistics account for those as well the degrees of freedom for photons is S=2 in terms of the Bose Einstein statistics as a result. Please note the difference in interference patterns if light consisted of particles vs if light consisted of waves. You still haven't answered why the slit size matters... http://cs-exhibitions.uni-klu.ac.at/index.php?id=254 self interference has been tested well beyond the Young experiment. here is the two slit with the interference pattern mathematics via Hyugens Principle http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~djmorin/waves/interference.pdf it details interference and diffraction something that doesn't involve a corpuscular theory of light. you can read up on to different tests on this link where it shows that diffraction and interference are described by waves while the photoelectric effect by the particle view. It then details the Complementary Principle. https://web.phys.ksu.edu/fascination/Chapter17.pdf I am not aware of any classical explanation that can cover quantum tunnelling all explanations I have ever come across involve require the wave nature of a particle.

Ah yes this mysterious pool you agree particles contribute to temperature right ?

So how do you get two hits onto the detection screen when you send only one particle. This experiment has been done using electron microscope transmitters and narrowing the frequency down to remove fringes and reducing the quanta to a single photon. Why does the slit size change the interference patterns dependent on the beam frequency ?

You invited a discussion on a forum that includes all members. Keep that in mind. Can you explain the two slit experiment with a billiard balls view only ?

Why should I when it's not a standard model you haven't a single formula that can be tested to ensure its validity ? I can quantantee you cannot get the results of the two slit experiments without the wave nature of a particle. Nor can you explain a Bose/Fermi condensate state without using DeBroglie wavelengths.

Not under the quantum description of a particle you haven't. Ever heard of the standing DeBroglie wavelength? You did it thinking a particle is some corpuscular ball QM taught us otherwise google waveparticle duality. Ever hear the expression a particle is a field excitation ?

Oh boy how to describe particle scatterings without waveforms or constructive destructive interference. In the the quantum regime lol don't think that's possible Here if you don't to believe me read https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://arxiv.org/pdf/1108.3135&ved=2ahUKEwiDjveuxKTkAhWeJzQIHSkqCjIQFjABegQIBBAB&usg=AOvVaw05EY_qwsM-dbttcYZaZIPs It's the Arxiv I mentioned.

Actually I can post an Arxiv article detailing the nature of Fourier transforms and the HUP but it's heavily math intensive. Good reply earlier Migl +1

What about a field of particles that has no charge ? Every particle contributes to temperature even charge neutral particles such as neutrinos

You can have field energy densities that has nothing to do with charge. For example temperature Please do it would save alot of headaches with other readers.

Correct but better to use the terms vacuum or field as space is simply volume ie the three spatial components of spacetime 4d with time as the fourth independent variable (dimension or degree of freedom) Your incorrect definition of a void is just that Edgard.

Do a Fourier transform on a wavefunction then tell us the uncertainty doesn't exist.

Considering one of those rules also include the proper rigor in terms of a predictive and testable model which requires the math under physics I concur. There is a difference between metaphysics and physics. Metaphysics is how to interpret a model etc. It isn't a model methodology

So you preach to me that I don't understand the mathematics and neither does other physicists when you don't even know how the equations are derived ?

Oh really my job involves exercising testing and teaching those mathematics.