This
above mentioned hypotheses, the high school students are learning. So they are
early confused. Later, they don't understand nothing anymore.
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 is:
"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 that they
could emit waves, wavequanta (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, then that picture
dissolves into single points. This only can be
interpreted if one thinks every hit to be the interaction between the wavequanta. Every
point on the screen then corresponds to the hit of an effect
of the wavequanta of the electron,
but not of the electron itself.
One
cannot predict exactly when a determined
wavequantum 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 orbits (tracks, paths). They don't have any hits directly
what could be 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 of their wavequanta? They were caught by
the interaction of their wavequanta - 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 wavequanta with high intensity to the observation of
"particles" when intensity decreased, although this
must be wavequanta, 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 of the image there were still waves
(wavequanta)?
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 would be 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 wavequantum can part itself.
The electron has a quality in movement which is a wave. Where does the
quality come? Does the quality be the same as the particle?
According to
my theory, the electron makes its own secondary wavequanta 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
wavequanta. It is not the wave itself although it is just flying!
Photons
are not particles! Electrons aren't waves! Photons are pure wavequanta. Electrons are particles, which in movement
produce and exchange gravitational wavequnanta made by their moving
masses (gravitomagnetic wavequanta) and electromagnetic wavequanta made
by their moving electric charges (e. m. waves).
Let's
compare it simply with a moving mobile telephone!
- A
mobile telephone is the comparision to a light transmitter. I
hold it tight, and it transmits and receives the waves
(wavequanta)
which are running through the double slit. This was to
compare with photons and their interference directly.
- Another
mobile telephone was to compare with the flying electron. I throw the
mobile
through one of the dual-slits while it is in transmission
- while it transmits and receives wavequanta. And these
waves behave just like the photons above although the mobile
is flying now. Compare it with telephoning while driving
your car!
Who
still lacks here understanding?
For a
light transference, we need
a transmitter (sender, emitter) and a receiver. Both are standing
still, so one thinks at all. 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
