[Physics] Physics Digest, Vol 1, Issue 2

[Doug Marett]

Hi Carl Johnson,

     You said:

"I was very  impressed that "little me" could CREATE an electron and a
positron, out of "nothing" except a specific amount of energy.
(Constructive interference).  We also did experiments with both electron
beams and photon beams passing through "Double Slit apparatus" where
(destructive interference) occurred where the electrons or the photons
"vanished" as black line patterns on the rear screen."

   Do mind elaborating on how this particle creation experiment was
performed? I am curious how electrons and positrons are created by
constructive interference. Thanks!

Doug

On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 11:41 AM, <cj at mb-soft.com> wrote:

> Message 3
> I suspect that you were never a Physics student, who was required to do
> Lab Experiments.  I DID have to do many such experiments in the 1960s.  I
> was very  impressed that "little me" could CREATE an electron and a
> positron, out of "nothing" except a specific amount of energy.
> (Constructive interference).  We also did experiments with both electron
> beams and photon beams passing through "Double Slit apparatus" where
> (destructive interference) occurred where the electrons or the photons
> "vanished" as black line patterns on the rear screen.
>
> As to the "fourth" experiment I referred to, I am not sure that I
> personally did that one, but being around Professor Richard Feynman was
> handy, as he developed the Feynman Diagrams based on "time being able to
> pass in either direction" where he even occasionally mentioned to us
> students about a photon and an out-of-phase photon could "appear" out of
> "nothing", like in a "backwards double slit experiment" (his comments
> really impressed me).
>
> That is the entirety of the "concept" I present, a group of rather mundane
> Physics student experiments.
>
> NO "assumptions or speculations" are needed at all, and it all fully
> complies with the Laws of Physics.
>
> In contrast, the "accepted" Big Bang claims require many assumptions where
> the entire history of Physics had to be abandoned.  Even time and space was
> abandoned, because they could NOT keep nearly any parts of Physics and
> still make their claims.
>
> All of Euclidean space and logic was also abandoned, where some proponents
> claim that "Hyperbolic non-Euclidean Geometry" is the basis of their
> claims, while others claim  that "Elliptic non-Euclidean Geometry" is the
> basis for their claims.  I happen to be familiar with Riemannian and around
> 40 other variations of non-Euclidean Geometry, and I have found that the
> majority of proponents of each Big Bang variation is NOT familiar with how
> to do the math FOR THEIR OWN approach.
>
> In addition to all this, I have always been troubled with the claims of
> the Inflationary Theory, where 10^-32 second is claimed as the timem
> involved for the Universe to expand to billions of light years in size.
> Whenever I bring up that they require "solid objects" would have to
> accelerate to countless billions of times faster than the speed of light
> (and then slow back down), they invariably change the subject.
>
> I consider this to be VERY simple, and easily comprehensible.
>
> "I" did not develop ANY of the "four basic Physics experiments" upon which
> my concept is based.  I was merely a STUDENT who had to do those
> experiments.
>
> I am not aware that ANYONE has ever considered any Double Slit experiment
> to be "mathematics", except for the Geometry that we students had to apply
> in determining path-lengths.
>
> I guess I ask you to consider a NON-EXISTENT universe (BEFORE their big
> bang) and a Physics student doing a SINGLE experiment which resulted in an
> electron and a positron, or in a proton and an anti-proton.
>
> All "Big Bang" claims ignore the fact that they REQUIRE a massive amount
> of energy to start with.  I don't need any energy at all.  I start off with
> an empty Universe, and soon have two identical photons heading out in
> opposite directions, one of which is out-of-phase with the other.  NO
> energy to begin with, and now a single pair of photons (which still add up
> to exactly zero energy).
>
> The very end of your note finally explains to me that "you have your own
> theory" so it is unlikely that you could ever accept mine.  Can YOUR
> concept exist in a Euclidean Universe?  Which of the 40 non-Euclidean
> Geometries do you use?  Are you prepared to provide proof regarding any of
> the dozens of inconsistencies in all the Big Bang ideas?  I would certainly
> be interested in anyone who can actually solve mathematical problems in
> hyperbolic space.
>
> Carl Johnson
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Physics mailing list
> Physics at tuks.nl
> http://mail.tuks.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/physics
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.tuks.nl/pipermail/physics/attachments/20161019/d8cc0391/attachment-0001.html>