Strange

! Moderator Note You can post the code to support your description and discussion of the algorithm. Just posting a code listing is not useful.

! Moderator Note Then provide a link to the source. That is the honest thing to do.

! Moderator Note This forum does not exist for you to advertise your inventions.

! Moderator Note This is a discussion forum. What do you want to discuss? What is the point of posting this code? People should not have to reverse engineer your code to know what you are talking about. If this is a new way of generating pseudo-random numbers, then describe the technique.

You have a "theory" but: So it seems you have no understanding of the underlying physics but believe you have a new "theory". I am sceptical. To say the least. Apart from which, a theory requires a mathematical model and supporting evidence, neither of which you have provided. Unless you can provide those, this thread will be closed for not meeting the standards required by the rules.

! Moderator Note Do not quote large quantities of text from other people without attribution.

Defensive? Just an attempt to explain. What only matters when the particle is moving? But then again, if it is not moving it has hit the detector to form the pattern.

All that matters is whether there are one or two slits available. (Measuring “which slit” information effectively forces it to go through a single slit.) The way the interference pattern is detected is not really relevant. You get the same with any wave phenomenon. BTW there is a lot more to science. Why don’t you discuss something else?

Many thousands, possibly millions of experiments have been done to confirm quantum theory. So "give me the tests"is a rather silly request. A quick search brings up this, it may or may not be relevant to what you want (but as you are so vague about what you want...): https://www.forbes.com/sites/chadorzel/2015/07/20/three-experiments-that-show-quantum-physics-is-real/ Probably. But so far there is zero evidence that is not consistent with the current model. And the various extensions that have been proposed have no evidence. That is obviously a lie as you have been told (repeatedly) that quantum field theory includes relativity and therefore spacetime. You should. Because they are the main thing that gives matter its material properties. They explain why solids are solid, why metals conduct, how chemistry works, etc.

Electrons do not really move in orbits. Perhaps the video was saying that if they did, then they would have to move faster than light? This is just one of many problems that quantum theory solves. (If they were moving in orbits, they would radiate and lose energy and fall into the nucleus, neither of which happen.) Spin is important. It is what dictates the structure of electron shells in atoms. And a main contribution to why solid materials feel ... well, solid. (Both because of the Pauli exclusion principle.)

Why isn't it used, then?

No. Things with mass cannot travel at or above the speed of light. Photons and electrons are not made of quarks.

Apparently, Marcus Aurelius commented on Pascal's wager about 2,000 years ago:

Does Canada have a proportional voting system or first past the post?

Who says they don't? What does? Waves cannot go through barriers. Shine a torch at a brick wall: can you see any light on the other side? No. On the other hand, the fact that particles are described by wave functions does mean they can tunnel through barriers. But that is nothing to do with matter waves.

I didn't ask you for physical evidence. But philosophy doesn't give you license to make things up and claim them as fact though, for example:

OK. So nothing to support it. I will have to assume you just made it up, then.

Then they will interfere (constructively and destructively, at different places). See the previous posts with details of this. You keep saying "no one has done this" after being provided examples of people doing it. So I am going to request this thread is closed.

Really? Reference to support this?

About what. What is fine? No one has tried what? (It might be helpful if you quoted the pots you are responding to.) You have been given multiple examples of experiments involving matter waves of unrelated particles and atoms. So what are you looking for? If you can't be more specific, then no one can answer your question.

Again, that is not how destructive interference works (with any sort of wave). If it is unobserved, you won't see it acting like a particle or a wave. If it is observed in a way that will show wave properties you will see wave properties. If it is observed in a way that will show particle properties you will see particle properties.

! Moderator Note This is a discussion forum, not your blog or a place to publish scientific papers. I left the abstract. If you want to discuss your idea you are free to do that. If you want your paper published then submit it to a journal. ! Moderator Note Moved to Speculations. Please read the special rules for this section of the forum.

Are you sure: https://www.canada.ca/en/canadian-heritage/services/crown-canada/about.html https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/commonwealth

What do you mean by “ghost”? And what do you mean by “bounce”? Atoms bounce of each other all the time. And that doesn’t necessarily imply wave-related behaviour. Waves (in general, not just matter waves) don’t normally bounce off one another. They pass through each other and may interfere if the frequency/phase are right.

There are lots of experiments that demonstrate this. One is the stopped clock illusion, where the brain fills in the missing information while the eyes were moving from what it can see now (not what it saw before). And so you think you had a period looking at the clock as it is now, and therefore stationary. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronostasis As saccades (eye movements) occur all the time, the brain is constantly making up stuff you "saw" in the past to fill the gaps. And then there is the fact that it takes a hundred milliseconds or more for touch senses to reach the brain than it does vision. So, when you pick up a cup of tea, the brain has to fool you into think that what you see and what you feel happen at the same time. And are happing now, rather than a fraction of a second in the past.