Space and time (final)

[Klaynos]

I am not trying to show i am right (your shifting the goal posts). I am trying to show what i am saying is possible and therefore build on that.

 

OK, then you've not done that.

 

The evidence is not in question, what is infered from that evidence is.

You infer wave/particle daulity where i am infering just the wave, i put foward the case for you to show how it could not possibly be the way.

 

Physics doesn't care much for wishywashy word descriptions of things.

 

Your wobbly logic seems to be you can infer wave/particle daulity is absolute proof. You seem to have made up your mind on this and any other way needs to not only be shown to be possible but needs to be proved.

 

To be taken seriously your 'theory' needs to be as good as the current one, probably better as the current one is already there, that is the only way anyone is going to believe it is possible. Until then it is useless.

 

Also:

I believe that the maths and predictions only use the wave.

 

Probability waves are fundamental in quantum mechanics, but they are not the only thing it has.

 

My hand waving says if you wish (and it is completely up to you) to help show it's not even possible then the burdon is yours.

 

Urmm, nope that's not how science works, sorry, the burden is on you to show it is better than the current theory.

 

The purpose of the detector is to show which slit the electron actually goes through, the final results show the nature of the electron, i.e. wave-particle.

 

If you place a detector to detect which slit a particle goes through you do not get an interference pattern...

 

You would not think you can apply universe scale ideas to quantum scale events because you have already made up your mind and that's a shame.

 

No, I think this because the universe is a special case which has no centre because of it's nature, spherical wavefronts are not like that.

[OneSpace]

Physics doesn't care much for wishywashy word descriptions of things.

It seems wishywashy to you because you won't take a position on what is possible so you can build on it.

 

To be taken seriously your 'theory' needs to be as good as the current one' date=' probably better as the current one is already there, that is the only way anyone is going to believe it is possible. Until then it is useless.

[/quote']

Science investigates all possibilities, the current top ten or more QM theories are due to science saying it cannot prove it is not a certain way. (your trying to shift the goal posts again)

 

Probability waves are fundamental in quantum mechanics, but they are not the only thing it has.

Intuitive or Non-intuitive? If you can't explain it then you have to work with what is possible, if you won't try and build on a possibility then your not doing science. You have to prove that what i am saying is not possible, these one liners of yours don't cut it.

 

Urmm, nope that's not how science works, sorry, the burden is on you to show it is better than the current theory.

And if all the current theories are non-intuitive?

 

If you place a detector to detect which slit a particle goes through you do not get an interference pattern...

That's right, you get a single band, and this is the same result you would get from a wave starting at the opening of the slit. You appear to be saying i said it would be an interference pattern which is the opposite of what i said. (your trying to shift the goal posts again)

 

No, I think this because the universe is a special case which has no centre because of it's nature, spherical wavefronts are not like that.

You seem to be taking a wishy washy position that the universe has no fixed center, but i think it is only your opinion that it is a special case.

 

I think the universe not having a fixed center is the nature of the wave.

I think every reference point is always at the center of a reference frame and never moves from this position, this is the base of the hypoyhsis.

 

To build on this possibility, every particle is always at the center of the universe and never moves from this position.

 

The movement I suggest is time passing through the center of the particle at "c" and at this relative center moves out in a wave in infinite possible directions.

Every 0D reference point has a spherical 3D wave of 1D time.

 

The Double Slit Hypothsis:

The electron in the double slit experiment travels from the firing reference point to the observing reference point in a wave, then from the observing reference point to the hit reference point also in a wave.

 

Because (building on the possibility)every reference point is the center of the wave.

 

If the wave begins at the opening of one slit it will only go through that slit and hit as a single band.

If the wave begins at the firing point, and is not observed, it will go through both slits and hit as an interference pattern.

 

This will be the final post that battles shifting goal posts, and wobbly definitions of science, maybe a public forum is not a suitable place for this afterall.

 

PS edit

It should be plainly clear in this experiment;

If your following the logic; why the laser appears as a beam up to the point of appearing like a wave.

[Klaynos]

I honestly can't be bothered to reply to you properly right now.

 

But the difference between you're idea and the current theory of quantum mechanics with that experiment is that it will predict the single slit result perfectly using maths, and the double slit experiment etc... you're idea will not.

 

And who says the universe has to be intuitive? It doesn't.

 

Oh and the centre of the universe is everywhere, the universe is a special case because the space is expanding from a singularity, at speeds faster than the speed of light. Nothing we can discuss other than the universe can do this.

 

To be frank, you don't have a good enough understanding of the current maths/theory/experiments to be able to decide it's not intuitive or wrong.