Talk:Superconductivity - Revision history

Farred: /* Superposition */ improved wording

2011-11-11T00:18:27Z

Superposition: improved wording

Farred: improved wording

2011-11-11T00:13:03Z

improved wording

Farred: /* Superposition */ fixing omission

2011-09-09T19:33:50Z

Superposition: fixing omission

Farred: talk

2011-09-09T19:30:29Z

talk

Farred: reward for confirmation or nonconfirmation

2011-07-28T18:48:56Z

reward for confirmation or nonconfirmation

New page

==Reward for experimental confirmation or nonconfirmation of the giant free electron theory==
The first one to report to this discussion page the experimental confirmation or nonconfirmation of the giant free electron theory will be rewarded with the fact of that first result being recorded here. [[User:Farred|Farred]] 18:48, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

@@ Line 2: / Line 2: @@
 The first one to report to this discussion page the experimental confirmation or nonconfirmation of the giant free electron theory will be rewarded with the fact of that first result being recorded here. [[User:Farred|Farred]] 18:48, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 ==Superposition==
-A significant difference between the giant electron theory's interpretation and phantom particle theories' interpretations of the dual slit experiment is in the interpretation of the meaning of the superposition of sine waves that indicate the probability of an electron being detected at a particular spot.  In the phantom particle theories there are several phantom electrons that approach the detectors.  Only when one of them is actually detected is the number of phantoms reduced to one real electron.  In the giant electron theory there is only one quite real electron at all times.  The superimposed sine waves indicating probability of detection are a description of the likelihood of the one electron being deflected to one course or another.  In the description of electron orbitals of an atom there is not the likelihood of finding an electron in a particular region of an electron cloud making up the orbital, rather the electron is in all parts of the orbital at once and the varying intensity that is calculated indicates the likelihood of the electron participating in one or another reaction.
+A significant difference between the giant electron theory's interpretation and phantom particle theories' interpretations of the dual slit experiment is in the interpretation of the meaning of the superposition of sine waves that indicate the probability of an electron being detected at a particular spot.  In the phantom particle theories there are several phantom electrons that approach the detectors.  Only when one of them is actually detected is the number of phantoms reduced to one real electron.  In the giant electron theory there is only one quite real electron at all times.  The superimposed sine waves indicating probability of detection are a description of the likelihood of the one electron being deflected to one course or another.  In the description of electron orbitals of an atom there is not the likelihood of finding an electron in a particular region of an electron cloud making up the orbital, rather the electron is in all parts of the orbital at once.  The varying intensity that is calculated for varying positions within the orbital indicates the likelihood of the electron participating in one or another reaction for particular positions.
 Personally I consider phantom particles hard to believe in and would require good evidence before acknowledging that such a thing might be.  What evidence do the proponents of such theories provide?  They say that if you look you will only see the end result never the multiple phantoms.  At the point the a detector enters into the experiment there is "decoherence" so the phantoms will never be seen.  Is this some sort of joke?  You can not prove them wrong because the evidence disappears when you look at it.  I may be missing something in my understanding of the theory of phantom particles in the dual slit experiment.  Anyone is welcome to set me straight by submitting edits to this talk page. [[User:Farred|Farred]] 00:13, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

@@ Line 2: / Line 2: @@
 The first one to report to this discussion page the experimental confirmation or nonconfirmation of the giant free electron theory will be rewarded with the fact of that first result being recorded here. [[User:Farred|Farred]] 18:48, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 ==Superposition==
-A significant difference between the giant electron theory's interpretation and phantom particle theories' interpretations of the dual slit experiment is in the interpretation of the meaning of the superposition of sine waves that indicate the probability of an electron being detected at a particular spot.  In the phantom particle theories there are several phantom electrons that approach the detectors.  Only when one of them is actually detected is the number of phantoms reduced to one real electron.  In the giant electron theory there is only one quite real electron at all times.  The superposition of sine waves indicating probability of detection are a description of the likelihood of the one electron being deflected to one course or another.  In the description of electron orbitals of an atom there is not the likelihood of finding an electron in a particular region of an electron cloud making up the orbital, rather the electron is in all parts of the orbital at once and the varying intensity that is calculated indicates the likelihood of the electron participating in one or another reaction.
+A significant difference between the giant electron theory's interpretation and phantom particle theories' interpretations of the dual slit experiment is in the interpretation of the meaning of the superposition of sine waves that indicate the probability of an electron being detected at a particular spot.  In the phantom particle theories there are several phantom electrons that approach the detectors.  Only when one of them is actually detected is the number of phantoms reduced to one real electron.  In the giant electron theory there is only one quite real electron at all times.  The superimposed sine waves indicating probability of detection are a description of the likelihood of the one electron being deflected to one course or another.  In the description of electron orbitals of an atom there is not the likelihood of finding an electron in a particular region of an electron cloud making up the orbital, rather the electron is in all parts of the orbital at once and the varying intensity that is calculated indicates the likelihood of the electron participating in one or another reaction.
-Personally I consider phantom particles hard to believe in and would require good evidence before acknowledging that such a thing might be.  What evidence do the proponents of such theories provide?  They say that if you look you will only see the end result never the multiple phantoms.  At the point the a detector enters into the experiment there is "decoherence" so the phantoms will never be seen.  Is this some sort of joke?  You can not prove them wrong because the evidence disappears when you look at it.  I may be missing something in my understanding of the theory of phantom particles in the dual slit experiment.  Anyone is welcome to set me straight by submitting edits to this talk page. [[User:Farred|Farred]] 19:33, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
+Personally I consider phantom particles hard to believe in and would require good evidence before acknowledging that such a thing might be.  What evidence do the proponents of such theories provide?  They say that if you look you will only see the end result never the multiple phantoms.  At the point the a detector enters into the experiment there is "decoherence" so the phantoms will never be seen.  Is this some sort of joke?  You can not prove them wrong because the evidence disappears when you look at it.  I may be missing something in my understanding of the theory of phantom particles in the dual slit experiment.  Anyone is welcome to set me straight by submitting edits to this talk page. [[User:Farred|Farred]] 00:13, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:33, 9 September 2011
Line 4:		Line 4:
	A significant difference between the giant electron theory's interpretation and phantom particle theories' interpretations of the dual slit experiment is in the interpretation of the meaning of the superposition of sine waves that indicate the probability of an electron being detected at a particular spot. In the phantom particle theories there are several phantom electrons that approach the detectors. Only when one of them is actually detected is the number of phantoms reduced to one real electron. In the giant electron theory there is only one quite real electron at all times. The superposition of sine waves indicating probability of detection are a description of the likelihood of the one electron being deflected to one course or another. In the description of electron orbitals of an atom there is not the likelihood of finding an electron in a particular region of an electron cloud making up the orbital, rather the electron is in all parts of the orbital at once and the varying intensity that is calculated indicates the likelihood of the electron participating in one or another reaction.		A significant difference between the giant electron theory's interpretation and phantom particle theories' interpretations of the dual slit experiment is in the interpretation of the meaning of the superposition of sine waves that indicate the probability of an electron being detected at a particular spot. In the phantom particle theories there are several phantom electrons that approach the detectors. Only when one of them is actually detected is the number of phantoms reduced to one real electron. In the giant electron theory there is only one quite real electron at all times. The superposition of sine waves indicating probability of detection are a description of the likelihood of the one electron being deflected to one course or another. In the description of electron orbitals of an atom there is not the likelihood of finding an electron in a particular region of an electron cloud making up the orbital, rather the electron is in all parts of the orbital at once and the varying intensity that is calculated indicates the likelihood of the electron participating in one or another reaction.

−	Personally I consider phantom particles hard to believe in and would require good evidence before acknowledging that such a thing might be. What evidence do the proponents of such theories provide? They say that if you look you will only see the end result never the multiple phantoms. At the point the a detector enters into the experiment there is "decoherence" so the phantoms will never be seen. Is this some sort of joke? You can not prove them wrong because the evidence disappears when you look at it. I may be missing something in my understanding of the theory of phantom particles in the dual slit experiment. Anyone is welcome to set me straight. [[User:Farred\|Farred]] 19:30, 9 September 2011 (UTC)	+	Personally I consider phantom particles hard to believe in and would require good evidence before acknowledging that such a thing might be. What evidence do the proponents of such theories provide? They say that if you look you will only see the end result never the multiple phantoms. At the point the a detector enters into the experiment there is "decoherence" so the phantoms will never be seen. Is this some sort of joke? You can not prove them wrong because the evidence disappears when you look at it. I may be missing something in my understanding of the theory of phantom particles in the dual slit experiment. Anyone is welcome to set me straight by submitting edits to this talk page. [[User:Farred\|Farred]] 19:33, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:30, 9 September 2011
Line 1:		Line 1:
	==Reward for experimental confirmation or nonconfirmation of the giant free electron theory==		==Reward for experimental confirmation or nonconfirmation of the giant free electron theory==
	The first one to report to this discussion page the experimental confirmation or nonconfirmation of the giant free electron theory will be rewarded with the fact of that first result being recorded here. [[User:Farred\|Farred]] 18:48, 28 July 2011 (UTC)		The first one to report to this discussion page the experimental confirmation or nonconfirmation of the giant free electron theory will be rewarded with the fact of that first result being recorded here. [[User:Farred\|Farred]] 18:48, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
		+	==Superposition==
		+	A significant difference between the giant electron theory's interpretation and phantom particle theories' interpretations of the dual slit experiment is in the interpretation of the meaning of the superposition of sine waves that indicate the probability of an electron being detected at a particular spot. In the phantom particle theories there are several phantom electrons that approach the detectors. Only when one of them is actually detected is the number of phantoms reduced to one real electron. In the giant electron theory there is only one quite real electron at all times. The superposition of sine waves indicating probability of detection are a description of the likelihood of the one electron being deflected to one course or another. In the description of electron orbitals of an atom there is not the likelihood of finding an electron in a particular region of an electron cloud making up the orbital, rather the electron is in all parts of the orbital at once and the varying intensity that is calculated indicates the likelihood of the electron participating in one or another reaction.
		+
		+	Personally I consider phantom particles hard to believe in and would require good evidence before acknowledging that such a thing might be. What evidence do the proponents of such theories provide? They say that if you look you will only see the end result never the multiple phantoms. At the point the a detector enters into the experiment there is "decoherence" so the phantoms will never be seen. Is this some sort of joke? You can not prove them wrong because the evidence disappears when you look at it. I may be missing something in my understanding of the theory of phantom particles in the dual slit experiment. Anyone is welcome to set me straight. [[User:Farred\|Farred]] 19:30, 9 September 2011 (UTC)