Strange

As long as the distance between the slits is a several times larger than the wavelength of the electron then I'm not sure what the problem is. No. Protons and neutrons are made of quarks. Electrons are elementary particles (ie not made of anything smaller). You need to add energy to the electron to free it from the electrode and then you need to accelerate it to make it fly through the dual slit apparatus. So, yes, you need to add energy. This will, as explained above, change the wavelength.

This is the only thing I can think of: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonoluminescence

Please stop posting until you are off the meds. You are going to be rather embarrassed otherwise...

The distance between the interference fringes is given by [math]\Delta y = L\lambda / d[/math] (see here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young's_interference_experiment) The wavelength of an electron depends on its energy (how fast it is going): http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/quantum/debrog2.html This page says that electrons in this sort of experiment are accelerated to about 120,000 km/s: http://www.hitachi.com/rd/portal/highlight/quantum/doubleslit/index.html That should let you calculate a rough estimate for the distance between the slits to get reasonable size fringe spacing. Electrons don't decay. There is nothing lighter for them to decay into (unlike muons, for example).

You need to present your theory here (according to the rules you agreed to when you joined - you did read them, didn't you ) I'm not sure I can make much sense of what you are claiming. You claim we see an increasing velocity with distance, and that this is real velocity away from us. But that the galaxies are decelerating over time. Is that right? This raises all sorts of questions: what causes the galaxies to all be receding from us? why are we in the centre of the universe? why do you think they are slowing down? what is causing them to slow down? how is it possible for there to be galaxies moving faster than light? why do we observe that the recessional speeds started increasing a few billion years ago? you claim that there was no Big Bang and yet you say that galaxies are all receding from us and so they must have all been "here" at some point in the past; how do you explain that? you also seem to agree with the video that shows a simulation of the large scale structure of the universe forming from an early hot dense state - that IS the Big Bang model, so how can you also deny it? I have also asked the mods to move your post to the correct place ("Speculations") as it seems to be non-standard physics.

Wikipedia has a handy summary of the main properties in the graphic on this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elementary_particle There are several other properties not included here (isospin, weak isospin, and others). Not sure where to find a complete list for all particles. But you could try here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_number

Or one of a number of different people spoke the words and later they were written down and credited to (the real or apocryphal) Jesus. Or the person writing the story made it up. Or ...

Which is more likely: that water could turn not wine, defying the laws of physics, or that it is a story to highlight importance of integrating and converting all members of the population? On the balance of probabilities of probabilities, I will go with the one that is (a) physically possible and (b) we know has been done before.

I think there is a big difference between personal experiences (which are, by definition, real to the person who experiences them) and the "physically impossible" miracles such as walking on water or changing water to wine. It is slightly ironic that a-theists (anti-theists) can be more literal-minded about religious texts than the faithful. Are you saying that writing is never metaphorical? Or that if it is religious, we cannot assume it is metaphorical; that we have to take it literally so we can "debunk" it? We have fairy tales that often have a moral element but we don't say they must be ignored because a wolf could never disguise itself as someone's grandmother (to pick a random example). It's a friggin story, for god's sake! The author took poetic license to make a point.

What does that mean? We can define an coordinate system without considering the origin of the universe (if that is what you are implying). This doesn't seem to have anything to do with your question. I think you need to focus on one subject at a time. If you want to discuss whether the universe has always existed or not, start a thread on that. If you want to discuss quantum theory, then start a thread on that. (There are no "glaring inconsistencies" in quantum theory.) You can define two "points" (events) that exist at the same time, for example (x1, y1, z1, t) and (x2, y2, z2, t) but they must be in the same frame of reference (ie. not in relative motion). It really isn't clear what you are asking, or what you are trying to say. You need to develop a mathematical model instead of relying on such vague statements. I don't see how that is relevant. (And in General Relativity, the universe has not always existed; if you go back to t=0 you end up at a singularity; a single zero-sized point. But that is irrelevant to special relativity, which is what your question seemed to be about.) You have just introduced wave-particle duality, which wasn't part of your OP, with no explanation of how it is relevant. SR says nothing about wave-particle duality.

Neither do I. But I have known people who had studied theology and I don't think any of them thought the miracles had to be taken literally as accurate descriptions of historical events.

You don't have to believe in them to believe in God or Jesus, either.

I think it is because of the lack of direct contact (rather like posting on an Internet forum!) that rather "dehumanises" the other person in these interactions. My approach, when I lived in a country with particularly insane driving, was just to sit back and enjoy the show. As long as I kept my distance, I didn't have to worry about what others did.

I think the best one could do (as a layman) is to understand the results (eg beta decay, etc)

I'm not sure I agree with that. The electron was discovered long before quantum theory was developed.

(D_i)d) (hE)? As you claim this, my starting assumption has to be that it is not true. But, even if he did, so what? That is not the modern definition. No they don't. No it hasn't. But even if it had been, it wouldn't matter because the two definitions are equivalent. And note: "watt" not "Watt". (Details mater in science, which is why you are doomed to failure.) And you do realise watts are a unit of power, not energy? There is no law of conservation of power. Ignorant nd incoherent gibberish. Nonsense. Not knowing what dark energy is does not mean we don't know anything about energy. That is like saying that because we don't know what dark matter is we don't know anything about chemistry or physics. That isn't what you said. You can't pretend to be correct by lying. But if you are so proud of you ignorance of cosmology, I suggest you start a thread to show it off, rather than polluting this one with even more irrelevant and ignorant ramblings. I really don't know why you post on a science site: you are almost totally ignorant, you are unwilling to learn (because you believe your ignorant guesses trump years of theoretical and experimental science) and you have a very poor opinion of scientists. Perhaps you should find a more appropriate forum. Perhaps one about sewage engineering. Emmy Noether was a woman. And of course you don't know about her, I wouldn't expect you to. You would need to study science, which you are unwilling to do. You prefer to just make up random nonsense.

Thank you. Annoyingly, I think I used to know that!

I guess (a) you don't know what you are talking about and (b) you are unable to express yourself clearly.

Then your "idea" is clearly wrong.

As always, the problem is with your lack of knowledge of physics. Nonsense. https://www.bipm.org/utils/common/pdf/si_brochure_8_en.pdf#page=52 This is not a "facit". Ignorant nonsense. Nonsense. " It turns out that roughly 68% of the universe is dark energy." (https://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/focus-areas/what-is-dark-energy) Nonsense. Nonsense. You are saying that physical systems will behave differently with changes in time and space (Noether's Theorem). This is not what we observe. We can also measure conservation of energy and momentum directly. So all the evidence shows that you are wrong. You are the only one getting that.

Well, I'm relieved it isn't something more serious. Why don't you replace it.

Is there something wrong with the keyboard on your computer? I don't know what "emogies" are, but I don't think there were any. Just a pisstake of your idiotic writing style.

This was the first result Google gave me: http://www.jimal-khalili.com/blogs/2016/9/7/do-we-have-free-will-a-physicists-perspective This was followed by several other similar articles by or about different scientists.

I *ca&n't! U n d e ... rst (an)yth(i)n[g] u w-r-i-t-e

You are being bizarrely irrational in this thread. I'm not sure what point you are trying to make, but you are failing brilliantly. The last sentence doesn't follow from the previous ones. There are many possible reasons for stories of miracles, none of which prove or disprove the existence of the historical Jesus.