Unbelievable velocity mass variation!

[martillo]

They're called "electromagnetic" calorimeters because they trigger electrons and photons into starting electromagnetic showers. In the end all the energy from a single electron or photon gets converted into a cascade of lower energy electrons and photons, and it's actually the energy of all these lower energy particles that's measured.

Measured how? through a direct or indirect intervention of the electric and magnetic fields with their classical definition? Then we are returning to the same subject again.

May be you didn't see what I was editing in the previous post.
I will repeat something here:
"You know, everything in the CERN, LHC etc is strongly based in the classical definition of the electric and magnetic fields. As I said, the Lorentz's factor in the electric and magnetic fields can change it all!"

 

[przyk]

Well, I really cannot analyze this. I have no clue what you are talking about I admit. I can just wonder how their masses was measured. May be through some intervention of the electric and magnetic fields what makes us return to the same subject again?

The main point wasn't the masses. The mass of the W boson was known from previous accelerator experiments (it was first observed experimentally in the Super Proton Synchrotron in 1983), and the energies of accelerator experiments is exactly what you're disagreeing with, so that's not the point. The point is that they thought they were increasing the energy and saw something change: they saw new events, and they started seeing them roughly where you would expect to start seeing them based on theory. According to you if the electrons and protons were already going near the speed of light, they couldn't have increased the energy and they shouldn't have seen anything different.

 

[OnlyMe]

I didn't express it well. You referred to Particle Physics what is more associated to the Standard Model features derived from the study of particles' collisions (what CERN and LHC are devoted to) and that's what I intended to refer while writing "subatomic particles".

But please remain on topic. I'm talking about a direct experimental verification of De Broglie law at some relativistic speeds something that seems to haven't been done or nothing have been published since is not mentioned specifically anywhere in the web. I think is something interesting and important thing to do in Physics.

You are not understanding the flaw in your arguement, that I am trying to point out. The original experiments used essentially relativistic electrons. What it could not do, is accurately describe the precise energies/(relativistic velocities) involved. In the original experiment, the electrons were not moving at classical velocities!

I cannot say that I completely understand exactly what you expect to discover. What I can say, is that from my limited understanding, to know with any greater certainty than in the original experiments, the relativistic characteristics of the electrons in your proposed experiment, you will need to do the experiment in a manner that the relativistic energies/(velocities) can be determined. For that, again from my limited understanding, you would need to conduct the experiment with a linear accelerator, where you can calculate those relativistic aspects with some degree of accuracy.

Forget the LHC, it is called the Large Hadron Collider because that is what it is designed to work with, protons and bare nuclei, not electrons. If you are willing to accept, that the same wave/particle duality exists for protons etc.., as for electrons, then przyk is absolutely correct, though you may not find the information published in a form to your liking, it is a certainty that the researchers working at any of these accelerators, already understand this issue at "relativistic" velocities.., or energies...

If this does not adress the issue you wish answered, instead of restating the same things again, explain just how you would recreate the experiment differently, without a particle accelerator, which could provide the data you are looking for.

There is another, option. One I have used in the past, on occassion to my embarrasement. Many of the researchers or research groups have email addresses, and suprizingly very often promptly reply to reasonable questions, even those, obviously from lay persons with a limited understanding of their work. (This I know from experience.) It is almost always the case that any reply you do get will be courteous. If you choose this approach, make your question simple and direct. No essays.., a question. These people generally have a real desire for public understanding of the work they do daily, but limited available time.

 

[martillo]

The point is that they thought they were increasing the energy and saw something change: they saw new events, and they started seeing them roughly where you would expect to start seeing them based on theory.

I'm not able to analyze those events at least at this times but you must agree that your argument is very very indirect and should agree that it actually could be not so decisive as to discard my propositions at this time.

 

[przyk]

Measured how? through a direct or indirect intervention of the electric and magnetic fields with their classical definition? Then we are returning to the same subject again.

From here:

In the course of showering, eventually, most of the incident particle energy will be converted into ``heat'', which explains the name calorimeter (calor = Latin for heat) for this kind of detector; of course, no temperature is measured in practical detectors, but characteristic interactions with matter (e.g. atomic excitation, ionization) are used to generate a detectable effect, via particle charges. Calorimetry is also the only practicable way to measure neutral particles among the secondaries produced in a high-energy collision.

I might be wrong but I have a vague recollection that electromagnetic calorimeters used in the CMS experiment (one of the detectors at the LHC) basically just measure how much light was produced (from photons produced by the electromagnetic shower).

Why do you keep assuming everything is done with classical electric and magnetic fields? A lot of the detector technology is based on our understanding of the interaction between particles and matter.

 

[martillo]

You are not understanding the flaw in your arguement, that I am trying to point out. The original experiments used essentially relativistic electrons. What it could not do, is accurately describe the precise energies/(relativistic velocities) involved. In the original experiment, the electrons were not moving at classical velocities!

You are wrong. Read better about the experiment and you can see that they used the classical definition of energy K=(1/2)mv2 to deduce the velocity of the electrons. This means "classical velocities" as you call them.

I cannot say that I completely understand exactly what you expect to discover. What I can say, is that from my limited understanding, to know with any greater certainty than in the original experiments, the relativistic characteristics of the electrons in your proposed experiment, you will need to do the experiment in a manner that the relativistic energies/(velocities) can be determined. For that, again from my limited understanding, you would need to conduct the experiment with a linear accelerator, where you can calculate those relativistic aspects with some degree of accuracy.

Forget the LHC, it is called the Large Hadron Collider because that is what it is designed to work with, protons and bare nuclei, not electrons. If you are willing to accept, that the same wave/particle duality exists for protons etc.., as for electrons, then przyk is absolutely correct, though you may not find the information published in a form to your liking, it is a certainty that the researchers working at any of these accelerators, already understand this issue at "relativistic" velocities.., or energies...

If this does not adress the issue you wish answered, instead of restating the same things again, explain just how you would recreate the experiment differently, without a particle accelerator, which could provide the data you are looking for.

Come on, do you know how Davisson and Germer accelerated the electrons? Just with two parallel plates and applying just 50 volts on them! Some relativistic velocities could easily be obtained with just more voltage. This is nothing near like the huge accelerators that seems you are asking.

There is another, option. One I have used in the past, on occassion to my embarrasement. Many of the researchers or research groups have email addresses, and suprizingly very often promptly reply to reasonable questions, even those, obviously from lay persons with a limited understanding of their work. (This I know from experience.) It is almost always the case that any reply you do get will be courteous. If you choose this approach, make your question simple and direct. No essays.., a question. These people generally have a real desire for public understanding of the work they do daily, but limited available time.

In about 2005 I sent a copy of my first manuscript to about 15 Theoretical Physics researchs groups of different countries and I had not any answer. I sent about 150 e-mails twice to different people at many researches I could find in that area without any answer. So I gave up to this approach.
May be I should try now with the much more specific subject I'm proposing here but you know I really don't believe too much in that way at this time...

 

[Grumpy]

martillo

the difference is that currently the Lorentz's factor is not being considering belonging to mass as you stubbornly insist.

But it is a distinction that makes absolutely no difference to the system. Slice it up any way you want to, it's still pie, the mass is still there. Whether the rest mass remains the same and the energy mass is then added to it(as you say), or the mass increases with relative velocity(as Relativity says), the mass of a particle increases with relative velocity.

Grumpy

 

[przyk]

I'm not able to analyze those events at least at this times but you must agree that your argument is very very indirect and should agree that it actually could be not so decisive as to discard my propositions at this time.

What? It seems pretty conclusive to me: new events where you'd expect them theoretically (as well as more energy detected in the calorimeters, incidentally), while according to you there should be little to no difference. You can't just sweep problems like this under the rug.

And this is just scratching the surface. The whole point of accelerator experiments like these is to measure how frequently certain interactions occur and how this depends on various parameters, including energy. Different accelerators using different particles can also compare the results they're getting. For example as I said earlier the W and Z bosons were first detected experimentally in the early 1980s in the SPS, which was being used as a proton-antiproton collider at the time. The Z boson has a mass just above 90 GeV. It's not a coincidence that that's the energy the LEP was operated at for much of its life: one of the goals at LEP was to further study the Z boson, and LEP was operated at the energy that would maximise the production of Z bosons. If the energies weren't the same as expected, comparing the results of proton-(anti)proton collisions with those of electron-positron collisions is another place discrepancies should show up. Nowadays the Z boson peak is so well known that it's actually used in the calibration of new accelerators and detectors.

Basically, to anyone with any idea of how sophisticated accelerator experiments are and what kind of experimental data gets collected and how closely it fits theory, it's clear that your explanation requires a lot of coincidences. You'd need a lot of things to go wrong in just the right way in order for no-one to have noticed anything odd, and you don't come anywhere near showing that's even possible, let alone worth serious consideration.

 

[OnlyMe]

You are wrong. Read better about the experiment and you can see that they used the classical definition of energy K=(1/2)mv2 to deduce the velocity of the electrons. This means "classical velocities" as you call them.

You will have to do better than this! What was the CLASSICAL velocity of the electrons? I could be wrong but I am not sure that an electron would even be detectable should it not have some form of relativistic momentum, which implies a relativistic velocity. So what was the classical velocity you refer to?

Come on, do you know how Davisson and Germer accelerated the electrons? Just with two parallel plates and applying just 50 volts on them! Some relativistic velocities could easily be obtained with just more voltage. This is nothing near like the huge accelerators that seems you are asking.

Electrons move through a conventional conductor at relativistic velocities, less than the speed of light, with as little as milliamperes of voltage. So how does the above demonstrate any clasical velocity?

In about 2005 I sent a copy of my first manuscript to about 15 Theoretical Physics researchs groups of different countries and I had not any answer. I sent about 150 e-mails twice to different people at many researches I could find in that area without any answer. So I gave up to this approach.
May be I should try now with the much more specific subject I'm proposing here but you know I really don't believe too much in that way at this time...

You start out by saying, "... I sent a copy of my first manuscript...". A manuscript is not a simple question or comment. You probably did not hear back because, it was likely not even read. Memos and general correspondence should be short and concise, not in manuscript form. Most of the posts we read and post here are far too long and involved, for any serious consideration, if they wwe presented as a question to a research scientist.

So the simple question, because I have not found it on my own, what was the classical velocity of the electrons in the original experiment?

 

[martillo]

So the simple question, because I have not found it on my own, what was the classical velocity of the electrons in the original experiment?

Seems you haven't read properly posts above. I posted more than once that the velocities of the electrons in the original Davisson_Germer experiment were about 0.2% of c perfectly "classical" ones. No way the classical formula for the Kinetic energy could have been applied if the classical assumptions were no valid. Seems you don't know properly about the experiment: Here is a link I mention as reference in my manuscript: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/davger.html#c1.
You should read my earlier posts with more attention.

 

[martillo]

And this is just scratching the surface. The whole point of accelerator experiments like these is to measure how frequently certain interactions occur and how this depends on various parameters, including energy. Different accelerators using different particles can also compare the results they're getting. For example as I said earlier the W and Z bosons were first detected experimentally in the early 1980s in the SPS, which was being used as a proton-antiproton collider at the time. The Z boson has a mass just above 90 GeV. It's not a coincidence that that's the energy the LEP was operated at for much of its life: one of the goals at LEP was to further study the Z boson, and LEP was operated at the energy that would maximise the production of Z bosons. If the energies weren't the same as expected, comparing the results of proton-(anti)proton collisions with those of electron-positron collisions is another place discrepancies should show up. Nowadays the Z boson peak is so well known that it's actually used in the calibration of new accelerators and detectors.

Now I understand. The maximum energy of a proton is something less than 1Gev (E=mc2). Then the problem is how particles of about 90 Gev could be generated with protons of 1 Gev?. The point is that those particles are generated with beams of protons and so in principle (just a theoreticall example) you can collide a beam of 45 protons of say 1Gev with other beam of 45 protons of 1Gev to generate a unique particle of 90Gev energy. And you can have beams of a lot of more quantity of particles.
The same could be applied to beams of electrons. In principle you can have a beam of 45Gev of electrons with 90x10exp6 (90 millons) electrons. This could be accomplished with dense beams.

Basically, to anyone with any idea of how sophisticated accelerator experiments are and what kind of experimental data gets collected and how closely it fits theory, it's clear that your explanation requires a lot of coincidences. You'd need a lot of things to go wrong in just the right way in order for no-one to have noticed anything odd, and you don't come anywhere near showing that's even possible, let alone worth serious consideration.

Sensical possible justifications to all the features you have throwed to me were found. The unique exception is that of the "rough" changes you say would exist in the labs something I don't understand well enough. May be this could also be explained with the considerations above and considering for example that at LHC much more dense or thick beams could be produced. But you know, since the LHC begun operating nothing really surprising found in it was commented in Physics forums. May be only the FTL neutrinos were commented but now it is said that they actually are not FTL.

I think my chances are good...

 

[OnlyMe]

Seems you haven't read properly posts above. I posted more than once that the velocities of the electrons in the original Davisson_Germer experiment were about 0.2% of c perfectly "classical" ones. No way the classical formula for the Kinetic energy could have been applied if the classical assumptions were no valid. Seems you don't know properly about the experiment: Here is a link I mention as reference in my manuscript: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/quantum/davger2.html#c1.
You should read my earlier posts with more attention.

I fail to find reference in the above link to any classical velocity for the electrons involved. If the reference you are referring to are your own calculations, I would require some external reference for verification. I admit I have read through only a few web sourced references, but have not seen any such description of the photon velocities. I could have missed it or just did not look at the right resources.

But, any electron moving at a classical velocity would be contrary to my understanding of reality. I have read where researchers claim to have stopped a photon? But not of anyone stopping an electron, or even slowing one down to classical velocities.

Provide a link to a credible reference, supporting your position.., other than your own calculations.

To be honest, while there was a time some 40 years ago I might have been considered to have some functional expertise in the math, that time has long past with disuse.

 

[martillo]

I fail to find reference in the above link to any classical velocity for the electrons involved. If the reference you are referring to are your own calculations, I would require some external reference for verification. I admit I have read through only a few web sourced references, but have not seen any such description of the photon velocities. I could have missed it or just did not look at the right resources.

But, any electron moving at a classical velocity would be contrary to my understanding of reality. I have read where researchers claim to have stopped a photon? But not of anyone stopping an electron, or even slowing one down to classical velocities.

Provide a link to a credible reference, supporting your position.., other than your own calculations.

To be honest, while there was a time some 40 years ago I might have been considered to have some functional expertise in the math, that time has long past with disuse.

Yes I made my own rather simple calculations from the data available of the experiment. I wil not do your home work. Do them yourself if you want. If you want other references look for them in your own.
Sorry for being someway rude but you are too stubborn and I don't have time for your unbelievable doubts.
I don't know if I would answer your posts anymore.

 

[martillo]

Just to point out here that I have just edited post #131 because of something important I have realized.

 

[przyk]

Now I understand. The maximum energy of a proton is something less than 1Gev (E=mc2). Then the problem is how particles of about 90 Gev could be generated with protons of 1 Gev?.

No, you're confusing what I told you: in the past we've used both electron-positron and proton-(anti)proton colliders. Of some of the accelerators I've mentioned:

• LEP was an electron-positron collider operated at a centre of mass (CM) energy of 90 GeV for much of its life. In its last few years of operation its CM energy was gradually increased to a maximum of 209 GeV.
• The LHC is a proton-proton collider intended to eventually operate at a CM energy of 14 TeV. Currently I think it's operating at 7 TeV.
• The SPS is an accelerator that was used as a proton-antiproton collider in the early 1980s. More recently it was used as a particle injector for LEP and now the LHC.
  
  

  The point is that those particles are generated with beams of protons and so in principle (just a theoreticall example) you can collide a beam of 45 protons of say 1Gev with other beam of 45 protons of 1Gev to generate a unique particle of 90Gev energy. And you can have beams of a lot of more quantity of particles. The same could be applied to beams of electrons. In principle you can have a beam of 45Gev of electrons with 90x10exp6 (90 millons) electrons. This could be accomplished with dense beams.

  You could imagine something like that, but it'd affect the event statistics in an observable way. The problem is that N body scattering processes rapidly become increasingly unlikely as N increases. So if that's what was happening, you would expect events to show a distribution dropping rapidly in frequency with CM energy. Instead what happened at LEP (note: from memory) was that most of the time nothing happened, then sometimes you got an event with an energy often in the range of about 60-90 GeV for most events depending on the interaction type (the exception was with muons, which usually escape from the detectors while losing very little of their energy).
  
  

  Sensical possible justifications to all the features you have throwed to me were found. The unique exception is that of the "rough" changes you say would exist in the labs something I don't understand well enough. May be this could also be explained with the considerations above and considering for example that at LHC much more dense beams could be produced.

  No, this doesn't work, because every possible collision already involves a large number of particles crossing the collision point at the same time anyway, very few of which interact. Electrons at LEP arrived in bunches of 250 billion for example. That's 250 billion electrons crossing 250 positrons coming the other way all at the same time. So if the only thing that changed was the beam density, then the frequency of e.g. W[sup]+[/sup]W[sup]-[/sup] events should have scaled in a simple way when the energy was changed, and they should have been observed at 90 GeV, only less frequently. Instead they were seen above 160 GeV and, as far as I know, weren't seen below that at all, even though more than enough energy was available. The sensible explanation is that it's the individual electrons that had more energy, not just that there were more of them.
  
  And I don't think the idea that it was really the number of electrons that was being increased is really plausible anyway: the obvious way to increase the CM energy is just to accelerate the same electrons in the ring for longer or more intensively. There's no reason that should result in denser beams.
  
  

  But you know, since the LHC begun operating nothing really surprising found in it was commented in Physics forums.

  And we wouldn't necessarily have expected to. As I said earlier, the LHC is still in its early days of operation and isn't even operating at full power yet. And a perfectly reasonable possibility anyway is that nothing really new gets discovered and the LHC just continues confirming the Standard Model at higher energies.

 

[martillo]

“ The point is that those particles are generated with beams of protons and so in principle (just a theoreticall example) you can collide a beam of 45 protons of say 1Gev with other beam of 45 protons of 1Gev to generate a unique particle of 90Gev energy. And you can have beams of a lot of more quantity of particles. The same could be applied to beams of electrons. In principle you can have a beam of 45Gev of electrons with 90x10exp6 (90 millons) electrons. This could be accomplished with dense beams. ”

You could imagine something like that, but it'd affect the event statistics in an observable way. The problem is that N body scattering processes rapidly become increasingly unlikely as N increases. So if that's what was happening, you would expect events to show a distribution dropping rapidly in frequency with CM energy. Instead what happened at LEP (note: from memory) was that most of the time nothing happened, then sometimes you got an event with an energy often in the range of about 60-90 GeV for most events depending on the interaction type (the exception was with muons, which usually escape from the detectors while losing very little of their energy).


“ Sensical possible justifications to all the features you have throwed to me were found. The unique exception is that of the "rough" changes you say would exist in the labs something I don't understand well enough. May be this could also be explained with the considerations above and considering for example that at LHC much more dense beams could be produced. ”

No, this doesn't work, because every possible collision already involves a large number of particles crossing the collision point at the same time anyway, very few of which interact. Electrons at LEP arrived in bunches of 250 billion for example. That's 250 billion electrons crossing 250 positrons coming the other way all at the same time. So if the only thing that changed was the beam density, then the frequency of e.g. W+W- events should have scaled in a simple way when the energy was changed, and they should have been observed at 90 GeV, only less frequently. Instead they were seen above 160 GeV and, as far as I know, weren't seen below that at all, even though more than enough energy was available. The sensible explanation is that it's the individual electrons that had more energy, not just that there were more of them.

And I don't think the idea that it was really the number of electrons that was being increased is really plausible anyway: the obvious way to increase the CM energy is just to accelerate the same electrons in the ring for longer or more intensively. There's no reason that should result in denser beams.

Seems you didn't consider what I was really thinking may be it was not expressed well. From what you say I infer you assume that with more dense or thick beams just more events of the same kind would be obtained. That's not what I thought. I think in the possibility that an entire compact beam of several particles can deliver the total energy of the entire beam to just one or two particles for the production of an event of one more massive and/or energetic particle. You can think in a collision of two trains of wagons where the total energy of the trains is the sum of the energy of the individual wagons and in the collision the total energy is delivered to the headers of the trains both forming a strange thing.
This way bigger beams of the same particles can produce different "bigger" events. I'm assuming the experiments in the labs are made with "bursts" of compact beams with some lenght and thickness.

By the way, the concept of trains of particles is very important in my theory. This concept can explain the diffraction of particles phenomena, I mean it solves the "wave-particle duality" mystery in favor of the particles approach. The waves would not exist, just a wave-like behavior is present.

 

[przyk]

Seems you didn't consider what I was really thinking may be it was not expressed well.

Ditto. You ignored that I told you that collisions at LEP already involved bunches of 250 billion electrons and positrons all crossing at the same time. That's enough energy for e.g. W[sup]+[/sup]W[sup]-[/sup] production many times over even if you thought all the electrons and positrons only had the nonrelativistically expected energy. You also ignored that there's no particular reason to believe there could have been more electrons in the beams when the energy was increased. That's just a wild guess from you that ignores how the particles are actually accelerated.

And even ignoring these issues, you still have the problem that we're not just measuring any large energy for collisions, but we're measuring energies that are consistent with the theoretically expected collision energy. In every accelerator ever built. What's your explanation for that? Coincidence?

By the way, the concept of trains of particles is very important in my theory. This concept can explain the diffraction of particles phenomena, I mean it solves the "wave-particle duality" mystery in favor of the particles approach. The waves would not exist, just a wave-like behavior is present.

To use your own earlier complaint, this is just pure speculation. You don't even have a comprehensive model that actually predicts particles forming trains or how trains should interact with one another. You just assert it happens and assert that it all works out in such a way that we get interference fringes. And even there your speculation is limited to the specific example to consider. You don't consider the implications this might have for other experiments involving particles, and you do nothing to indicate how this is supposed to be consistent with or even recover the whole of quantum physics, to which there's a lot more than double slit interference.

 

[przyk]

I just noticed this:

Yes I made my own rather simple calculations from the data available of the experiment. I wil not do your home work. Do them yourself if you want. If you want other references look for them in your own.

My homework? So you can just post any wild guesses you like, and it's everyone else's job to show that they're consistent with the body of experimental knowledge you're ignorant of? It doesn't work that way, and nobody will ever take you seriously with that attitude. You've misplaced the burden of proof here. It's not everyone else's job to prove you wrong or else believe everything you say. It's your job to prove yourself right.

Otherwise, why couldn't I be as lazy as you? There's a lot about experimental physics I don't know. If I don't know something, why can't I just assume it works out in whatever way is convenient for me from now on, instead of actually having to look it up? After all, that's what you're doing.

 

[martillo]

You ignored that I told you that collisions at LEP already involved bunches of 250 billion electrons and positrons all crossing at the same time. That's enough energy for e.g. W+W- production many times over even if you think all the electrons and positrons only have the nonrelativistically expected energy.

No I didn't ignore. Don't you understand what I write? I told you about trains of lot of particles. I think you didn't read the post properly.

You also ignored that there's no particular reason to believe there could have been more electrons in the beams when the energy was increased. That's just a wild guess from you that ignores how the particles are actually accelerated.

But why not?

And even ignoring these issues, you still have the problem that we're not just measuring any large energy for collisions, but we're measuring energies that are consistent with the theoretically expected collision energy. In every accelerator ever built. What's your explanation for that? Coincidence?

I didn't understand the point.

To use your own earlier complaint, this is just pure speculation. You don't even have a comprehensive model that actually predicts particles forming trains or how trains should interact with one another. You just assert it happens and assert that it all works out in such a way that we get interference fringes.

Of course I have. Chapter four of the manuscript:
Photons interference and diffraction: http://www.geocities.ws/anewlightinphysics/sections/Section4-2_The_photons_interference_and_diffraction.htm
Electron diffraction: http://www.geocities.ws/anewlightinphysics/sections/Section4-5_The_electron_diffraction.htm

And even there your speculation is limited to the specific example to consider.

They are not examples. They are the general case. Or are you referring to something else?

You don't consider the implications this might have for other experiments involving photons, and you do nothing to indicate how this is supposed to be consistent with or even recover the whole of quantum physics, to which there's a lot more than double slit interference.

I cannot make it all. I have a good start-point. Many things remains to be developed further of course. What would you expect? Some kind of divinity to have a Theory of Everything solved and written ready for you to just sit and read the rest of your life?

 

[martillo]

My homework? So you can just post any wild guesses you like, and it's everyone else's job to show that they're consistent with the body of experimental knowledge you're ignorant of? It doesn't work that way, and nobody will ever take you seriously with that attitude. You've misplaced the burden of proof here. It's not everyone else's job to prove you wrong or else believe everything you say. It's your job to prove yourself right.

Otherwise, why couldn't I be as lazy as you? There's a lot about experimental physics I don't know. If I don't know something, why can't I just assume it works out in whatever way is convenient for me from now on? After all, that's what you're doing.

That wasn't to you. It was to onlyme who can't believe that in the original Davisson-Germer experiment the electrons had slow velocities present to the classical assumption and formulas apply. I got tired in explaining it to him. He believes electrons can only exist travelling at relativistic speeds. He just doesn't believe electrons could be at rest or with slow velocities. How that can be?