Adapted for the Internet from:

Why God Doesn't Exist

    3.0   Reverse time travel

    However, the most ludicrous explanations for the slit phenomenon are those of ‘cranks’ like Cramer [9] and Afshar. [10] These
    outcasts argue that the slit experiment can best be explained with particles or waves traveling backwards in time. Afshar’s
    experiment is significant (and politically sensitive) in that it attacks Bohr’s Complementarity. I will not evaluate the merits of
    Afshar’s physical interpretation (or of that of his critics) [11] [12]  because it requires two absurd assumptions unworthy of my
    time:

    •   that light consists of particles
    •   that these particles have the ability to travel to the past.

    Of much more value is Afshar’s odyssey. Sensing that he was defiling one of the most sacred icons of the Church, the ever
    vigilant QM Inquisition quickly moved in to silence him. Peer reviewer after peer reviewer rejected his manuscript. Defenders of
    the faith burned his arguments at the stake. The Council of Bishops of Quantum accused him of heresy. Considering that the
    idiocy of time-travel is right up there with the idiocy of many-worlds and complementarity you wonder why anyone would make
    a fuss over such matters any more. The answer is that QM’s inviolable ‘principle’ was at stake. If either Complementarity or
    Uncertainty is allowed to falter, Quantum Mechanics in its entirety collapses. Therefore, the mechanics guard these doctrines
    with utmost zeal. They simply cannot afford a successful challenge to Bohr because it would mean that they have been dead
    wrong for over 80 years. Einstein learned this lesson the hard way at Solvay. The monster he helped create with his stupid
    equations was now bigger than life and running amuck...


    4.0   The Einstein-Bohr debate at Solvay   

    Unable to accept the idiocy of Quantum Mechanics, Einstein devised a version of Young’s slit experiment that left his nemesis
    Bohr sleepless for a couple nights during the Fifth Solvay Conference of 1927.  [13]   Wick recounts how Einstein theorized that
    the electron would have to bounce against the side of the slit and push the double slit partition to the left as indicated by the
    arrow in Fig. 2A. [14] An accurate measurement of the partition’s displacement would reveal the slit through which the electron
    passed as well as the magnitude of the impact.  If the experiment were successful, both the momentum of the particle and its
    position could be calculated precisely and thus destroy Heisenberg Indeterminacy.

    “ if the momentum of the photon changes due to passing through the slit, the
       momentum of the slit changes by an exactly opposite amount (i.e. it recoils).”  [15]

    [Indeed, at the bottom of his web page, Dave illustrates the slit moving sideways when
     the photon strikes the window sill. You can see a better version of the shifting slits in
     Harrison  also illustrates the photons ricocheting before reaching their target.]

    Bohr replied that the Uncertainty Principle prevented knowing the initial position of the slit partition before the electron had a
    chance to displace it sideways. Consequently, the position of the electron could not be determined precisely either. Einstein
    had no further arguments, bit his tongue, and Bohr emerged the victor.


    5.0   Newton's Hair Experiment

    Einstein and Bohr could have saved themselves the trouble of debating a matter that had been settled two hundred years earlier
    by Young himself. They either forgot or were not aware that we do not need double slits to perform Young’s slit experiment!

    [I note that the idiots at Harvard and Cambridge teach you to do the slit
     experiment the hard way, using Young’s first arrangement. Young’s second
     experiment disposes of the slit altogether by showing that a human hair also
     produces fringes. Young reports that Newton was the first to perform this
     experiment; therefore, I will refer to it as Newton’s Hair Experiment.]

    Since it is evident from the Einstein-Bohr debate that the double-slit arrangement misleads the morons of Mathematics, I review
    the famous slit experiment in terms of Young’s second arrangement.

    In 1801, Young placed a wire measuring 0.083 inches in width in light’s path and also verified the appearance of fringes. [16]
    Young surmised that waves of light apparently bent around the wire as they did in the case of the double slits. If Newton’s Hair
    Experiment is correct, Einstein and Bohr’s photons (or electrons) would have nothing to bounce against! Their arguments were
    contingent on a particle bouncing off the window sill and pushing the entire slit partition sideways (Fig. 2B). Lousy physicists
    that they were, Einstein and Bohr apparently couldn’t tell the difference between diffraction and reflection. To a mathematician
    only concerned about numbers it is all the same.

    This example highlights what little understanding the mathematicians have of Physics. If Einstein and Bohr, the two pillars of
    modern Mathematical Physics made such fundamental mistake and nobody caught it in 80 years, what can we expect from
    lesser mortals?
Hair-splitting slit
theories of
Quantum Mechanics

Fig. 2   Newton’s hair experiment (B) overshadows the Einstein-Bohr slit debate (A)

    1.0   Young's slit experiment

    In 1801, Young carried out an experiment where he passed light through two narrow slits cut into a partition and projected the
    beam onto a screen. If light consisted of a stream of bullets as Newton had suggested, the observer would expect to see two
    bright lines of light reflected on the screen. Instead, Young observed an entire band of bright and dark stripes (Fig. 1). He reported
    his results in terms of waves, and was able to calculate the wavelengths of the beam. Young’s slit experiment became the first
    major observational milestone to place in doubt Newton’s corpuscular hypothesis. It appeared, after all, that Newton’s intuition
    about light not bending around corners was wrong.


    One of the reasons that the mathematicians gave up on 'classical' Newtonian physics is that they could never, even to this day,
    find a logical physical interpretation for Young's slit experiment. Nobel of Quantum Richard Feynman states the general frustration
    thus:

    “ a phenomenon which is impossible, absolutely impossible, to explain in any
       classical way” [17]

    [ In the religion of Mathematical Physics, the term 'classical' is a euphemism for
      rational, and 'quantum' is a euphemism for irrational. Therefore, when a mathe-
      matician says that such and such experiment cannot be explained in a 'classical'
      way, it means that he has no rational explanation for it. Yet he will not suspect
      his Quantum version because here he can bypass the rules of Physics and tell
      you anything. He can invoke magic and tell you that what is faulty is your intuition
      and common sense. He reinforces his argument by telling you that all the idiots
      who won Relativity Nobel and Christian Templeton Prizes in the last 50 years
      believe in his version and that it is also backed by impeccable Math. So now,
      because Einstein and Hawking and Davies and Falwell and Roberts and Craig
      believe in miracles, you have no choice but to accept their testimonials as truth.]

    Let’s assume that light consists of a pair of torqued threads and that every atom in the Universe is connected to all others via these
    ropes. The correct interpretation of the slit experiment now follows more naturally. Before we have ignition, the atoms constituting
    the flashlight, the hair, the air, and the screen are already interconnected by continuously torquing threads (Figs. 3 and 4). When you
    turn the laser pointer on, the atoms comprising the filament receive a stimulus and begin to pump faster (Fig. 5). An increase in
    frequency translates into shorter links and light comes within visible range. This signal travels to the atoms comprising the sides of
    the hair which relay them onto the screen. The signal traveling to the screen does so along EM ropes that bind hair atoms to screen
    atoms. If the ropes arriving at a screen atom from different sides of the hair are out of phase, the screen atom will not be stimulated.
    We have destructive interference (Fig. 5A). Otherwise, we have constructive interference (Fig. 5B).

Fig. 1   Young's slit experiment

Fig. 3   Rope version

Fig. 4   Side view of the rope version of the hair experiment

Fig. 5   
Destructive vs. constructive interference

    Note: How the rope interfaces with the atom and avoids getting tangled with other ropes is beyond the scope of the website.  

    If the source of light were a machine
    gun, we should observe only two
    slits marked on the wall where the
    bullets strike. This is what Newton's
    corpuscular theory predicted. Young
    observed, instead, a series of bright
    and dark bands (fringes).
Looking THROUGH a single hydrogen atom,
we imagine seeing two EM ropes coming into
our eyes. If the two strands of one rope are
positioned north-south when they touch
the electron shell while the other pair is
positioned east-west, we have destructive
interference. If both pairs face north-south
(or east-west), then we have constructive
interference.

The structure of the atom as well as the
meaning of the term 'electron shell' are
beyond the scope of this website.
Talking about splitting, I think I
need to get a haircut. I'll see ya
later about your theory, Newt!
    Young’s slit experiment has been a thorn in the side of Quantum Mechanics ever since this cult originated in the early 20s.
    Everyone from Bohr to Bohm and from Feynman to Penrose has had a crack at it. Today the mechanics have conflicting
    explanations for this formidable test, one more idiotic than the other. Let’s hear the first one from the experts themselves
    so that no one can accuse me of putting words in their mouths:

    “ The Copenhagen interpretation posits the existence of probability waves which
       describe the likelihood of finding the particle at a given location. Until the particle
       is detected at any location along this probability wave, it effectively exists at every
       point. Thus, when the particle could be passing through either of the two slits, it
       will actually pass through both, and so an interference pattern results. But if the
       particle is detected at one of the two slits, then it can no longer be passing through
       both - it must exist at one or the other, and so no interference pattern appears.”
       (pp. 15-16) [1]

    “ It would seem that we must come to terms with this picture of a particle which can
       be spread out over large regions of space, and which is likely to remain spread out
       until the next position measurement is carried out… A momentum state may seem
       hard to accept as a picture of the ‘reality’ of a particle’s existence, but it is perhaps
       even harder to accept as ‘real’ the two-peaked state which occurs when the particle
       emerges from just having passed through a pair of slits… then we must accept that
       the particle ‘is’ indeed in two places at once!” (p. 252) [2]

    “ The idea that something can be both a wave and a particle defies imagination, but
       the existence of this wave-particle 'duality' is not in doubt... The notion of a particle
       being everywhere at once is impossible to imagine.” [3]

    If these starling statements in regards to the slit experiment did not rock your boat, you simply did not understand them. The
    mathematicians are saying that a photon exists everywhere (like God?) and thus passes through both slits simultaneously to
    produce the interference pattern. They add that if you block the path through one slit, this particle cannot interact with its twin
    (which presumably is everywhere as well) and so the fringes seen in Fig.1  do not materialize. You wonder, then, why it is that the
    photon needs to travel at all if it is already everywhere. How could you block the ‘path’ of something that ‘exists at every point’?
    What can such ridiculous statements possibly mean? What do they have to do with physical reality? I can’t even draw for the
    benefit of the reader what the mechanics are describing.


    2.0   Many worlds

    A more hilarious ‘physical’ interpretation for the slit experiment that our bright mathematicians have come up with is the theory
    of Many Worlds. You may want to sit down to hear this one because I do not plan to take responsibility if you laugh so hard that
    you crack a rib and fall on your butt. Think of the probabilities that you may win the lottery. You don’t need to go to college to
    realize that they are very slim. Now let’s cross into the twilight zone and ‘nightmare’ a little. Let's visualize a scene where you buy
    lottery number 000000001 and lose. Or you could have visualized buying lottery ticket number 000000002 and lose, or number
    000000003, and so on. How many dreams will you have? Well, if there are 999999999 numbers, you have a total of 999999998
    nightmares and one dream. The mathematicians believe that all these probabilities exist in reality, each one in a different universe.
    Hence, when you went to the store today, you actually bought all the numbers in the lottery and, in one of these universes, you
    won. From each of these universes you fork further into countless more for every step you take in your life, like a chain reaction,
    splitting into ever more worlds. If you have a choice right now to move left, right, up, down, backwards and forward, you actually
    moved in all of these directions simultaneously, each time in a different universe:

    “ the universal state is a quantum superposition of several, possibly infinitely many,
       states of identical non-communicating parallel universes… every observation can
       be thought of as causing the universal wavefunction to change into a quantum
       superposition of two or more non-interacting branches, or ‘worlds’. Since many
       observation-like events are constantly happening, there are an enormous number
       of simultaneously existing states.” [4]

    “ A person is a set of copies in nearby parallel worlds. This comes out in his analysis
       of free will: I could have chosen otherwise is analysed as Other copies of me chose   
       otherwise…Many of those Davids are at this moment writing these very words. Some
       are putting it better. Others have gone for a cup of tea.” [5]

    The ‘many worlds’ version of Young’s slit experiment consists of a particle going through countless worlds:

    “ the single photon interference pattern observed in the double slit experiment, can
       be explained by interference of photons in multiple universes.” [6]

    “ If by 'object A exists' is meant 'object A is detected at point x,y,z,t,' then this object
       'exists' only at the point of emission and the point of detection. In between times it
       is completely out of sensible interaction with the things of our universe” [7]

    I think that someone has proven, mathematically of course, and I am not absolutely, positively certain about this, that the number
    of histories of the particle seems to grow in direct proportion to the number of beers a mathematician drinks. (This would certainly
    explain the urge some astronomers have of finding great clouds of alcohol in space. [8])  I believe that nothing more needs to be
    said about the ‘infinite’ universes in which relativists live. I just can’t figure out why in all the universes I go to, second upon
    second, I find the same idiots of Mathematical Physics with the same eye-popping ideas. I guess I must be stuck in a particular
    history for some reason.

    After 10,000 years of studying nature, this is what the morons of Mathematics have come up with as an explanation for reality.
    These are the deplorable physical interpretations they infer from their equations and from their insistence on particles. The
    mathematicians ask you to reject intuition and common sense, but then run bare-assed through the streets like Archimedes
    yelling ‘Eureka! Eureka!’ and creating imaginary competitors for Father Universe. The idiots of Mathematics are no longer in
    touch with reality. Clearly we need to wipe the board clean, lock these people up in padded rooms, and start all over, specifically
    without Mathematics. We don't need numbers, variables, or equations to explain why something happens.
My hair is so fine, it splits light
right down the middle. Half the
photons go this way and the
other half go that a way.
    Stick a 5¢ needle in a 5¢ cork and direct a 50¢ laser pointer at its tip. You will verify Young’s fringes
    on the wall. Without Einstein’s ‘window frames and sills,’ the electrons have nothing to bounce
    against, and the Einstein-Bohr debate is revealed for what it is: a dialogue between two numskulls.
    The needle version of the slit experiment shows that neither reflection nor refraction are the cause
    of diffraction  (i.e., the alleged ricocheting of a particle against a window frame). It is the
    mathematicians’ fanatic insistence on corpuscles that leads them to misconstrue their ‘gendanken’
    experiments.
 
    Einstein and Bohr discussed for
    hours how a photon would strike
    the window sill of the slit and push
    the partition sideways. Einstein
    and Bohr wasted their time
    discussing that the Slit Experiment
    was the result of reflection. In fact,
    we don’t need slits to generate
    fringes. You can do the experiment
    at home in a much  simpler  way  
    than  the  dimwitted professors who
    teach Mathematical Physics at
    venerable places like Caltech and
    MIT.
Al? I’m sorry to have to break the news to
you this way,
and I certainly hope you understand, but…
in that other life history I went to...
I slept with your wife.
It doesn't affect our business relations in
this Universe, does it?

All atoms in the Universe are interconnected by EM ropes. The atoms in
the filament are connected to the atoms constituting the sides of the hair
which are connected to the atoms that constitute the screen BEFORE we
turn on the light.

Theory:

Stimulated atoms in the filament emit torsion signals at a higher frequency
to atoms on the side of the hair which RELAY the signal to the atoms
on the screen. Where signals arrive out of phase (Fig. 5), we have
destructive interference. Where they arrive in phase, we have constructive
interference. These signals are re-emitted along EM ropes interconnecting
screen atoms with the atoms that constitute the observer's eyes

Young's Slit Experiment can be
explained with classical physics
(i.e., has a rational physical
interpretation) if we assume that
light consists of torque signals
propagating along EM ropes.

    ________________________________________________________________________________________


                                  Home                    Books                    Glossary            




        Copyright © by Nila Gaede 2008