The Present State of Physics, Mathematics, and Science

Hi Robert, I'll try to use an information theoretic approach. The results of the double slit experiment have to be participatory, in that the signal, channel and receiver are assembled and operated by human actions. The binary question, 'did it (the elements of the signal) go through one or both slits?' is a question emanating from the human mind. Participation is integral to the product 'reality'.

When a working 'which way' detector is included, I'm suggesting it is the kind of noise encountered by the signal in the channel that is changed. Which is not an effect of consciousness beyond placement of the detector and choosing on or off. The effect of the noise is independent of consciousness. Maybe the apparatus can be tested to see if the detector is the source of a field/fields. If undetectable that has no greater significance than the undetectability of superposition. This is contrary to the notion that the mind is creating underlying reality.

Robert and Georgina,

Your exchange illuminates an aspect of the Present State of Physics that continues to treat the physical form of any frequency of EMR as a binary choice of the (observer) theorist. Either its a particle or a wave, mutually exclusive. So a bit of information then becomes subject to being a binary choice as well, between detection of either a ballistic response (mathematically; a parabolic function) or sinusoidal response (mathematically; a hyperbolic function). The conundrum of Wave/Particle duality, superposition writ large.

Suppose that we premise superposition to be time dependent? The duration of any frequency's wavelength being a cyclic variation of velocity effecting the density of the Quantum's physical form, such that at the lower limit of velocity the density exhibits inelastic properties and registers as a discrete mass while at the upper limit of velocity the density of the physical form exhibits elastic properties and registers as an energy field. The obvious objection would immediately present itself that this scenario would require that at peak periodic velocity, the physical form would have to be travelling in excess of the speed of light. A counter argument can be proposed that Light Velocity is a measurably universal constant precisely because that measurement is the consequence of a continuously changing rise and fall of velocity and as such Light Velocity would by definition be the Root Exponential Mean between nil and peak periodic velocity. Without getting into the math, that peak periodic velocity can be empirically derived as (c^1/e)c = 2.143^14 cm/sec.

This would satisfy both demands of information in detection, As a low velocity particulate form the photon would interact with the inherent fields of the atomic aggregate composing the material the slits are cut into, and statistically the results would be what could be expected if it were to be constrained to passing through or being deflected by only one slit. While at higher velocity which would be for appreciably greater periods of duration, the photon in the form of a physical 3 dimensional soliton wave packet with large enough cross-section could pass through both slits. The technical capability to actually make countable the real numbers of photons still limits what we might theorize, but this hypothesis would be doable in experimental protocols statistically. best jrc

Hi John, I think the variation of velocity idea is nice, providing both manifestations, but problematic. The photon is said to pass through both slits, wavelike but a screen just after the slits always finds a singular slit is being used. Assuming all the photons being alike rules out an undetectable sub population traversing two slits each. At low intensity a more distant screen has the interference caused pattern built up gradually by individual particle like photon collision. Taking that at face value, your varied velocity idea would need the photons to accelerate after the slits to become waves and interfere, then decelerate to collide with the screen as 'ballistic' particles.

How is there an interference pattern already there, to serve as a guide? Possibilities: a). maybe from previous photon's travel using both slits but individually only one each. It requires interference of the effect of different photons and persistence of the disturbance; long enough to affect another. b) It is an effect due to the apparatus structure. Maybe miniscule vibration is enough to create 'environmental waves from the slits. c) An environmental disturbance (undetectable except by consequences) travelling ahead of the detectable photon passes through both slits/interferes, followed by detectable photon passing through just one.

Non of these have a photon taking two paths but could result in an 'as if ' appearance.

I'm unclear about the effect of a switched off detector. I read somewhere that the interference pattern is only lost if on. Is that so, or pop misinterpretation? If the 'which way detector is a polarizer ( rather than detection chamber or tube with a voltage),used asymmetrically it is altering the proposed environmental interference pattern that affects what the detectable photon does.

Georgi,

Just an offering, there is no lack of explanatory ideas out here. I'm not clear about an interference pattern being produced by a single slit, I'll have to browse up on that. The hype for the build up of single dots would be explained by the detection element of the apparatus naturally slowing the soliton to relative rest by its encounter with the EM fields of the material screen; hence it would become inelastic and particulate in effect. The model gets involved and being a personal endeavor doesn't deserve my beating my own drum on this topic. It definitely is not a conventionally accepted approach in the Present State of Physics. :-) jrc

Thank you John, your idea makes more sense to me now. I like it.

An interference pattern affected result is not produced from a single slit. Yet a particle can not be detected taking two slits, always one.

Double slit experiment: Current physics-maths shows the 'particle superposition' taking both paths. That's okay if its only representing not knowing which path. However it is used to claim matter is wavelike (and all that follows from that.)

With the premises 1. there is a local environment (base existence) surrounding and in contact with actualized matter particles and waves even in a vacuum 2. The actualized entity has an effect on the base existence, that may be called a field. The field can pass through both slits undetected and interfere but the measurable particle itself always takes one slit. The field is easily divided but the particle stays together. The effect of encountering the field interference can happen for small matter particles because relative size of the field disturbance compared to size of particle. Allowing retention of classical notions of matter, while fitting with the experiments results.

A raw egg is the only analogy springing to mind. I can imagine pouring it over two slits in a baking tray, over a sink. The white is the runny, less gelatinous kind . It easily slips through both slits. The yolk unbroken takes just one of the, bit smaller than flattened yolk diameter, slits.

The yolk represents the detectable particle. The white represents the surrounding undetectable, base existence, environment that ha been affected by the presence of the particle...the particle's field.

This doesn't need 'Many worlds'. Doesn't need giving up on classical ideas of matter. Does need the previously assumed superposition to be a not knowing if a path is taken by particle OR effect of particle in single particle double slit, and delayed choice experiments; And evaluation of when that kind of scenario is relevant in other circumstances.

John, thank you, I'm glad the analogy works.

My description of 'field' is of course very different from the 'particle field of QFT. That has the particle generated by the field, or rather what the existent field does. Whereas I have the particle as a particular type of concentration of existence, that acts upon base existence around it, forming a field (disturbance pattern); which can in turn affect what the particle does, as in the interference pattern guide scenario.

Physics has given us a fundamentally wrong view of the world, a male view of the world [1], a view of the world where every current aspect of climate change, and every future outcome of climate change was determined from the beginning of the world, and where people are just epiphenomena, i.e. people are not responsible for causing outcomes like flying planes into the twin towers.

Physics has looked at the experimental evidence and decided that it confirms its male biases about the nature of the world, if only they could get the mathematics just right. And all round the world millions of men are doggedly working on the mathematics of their special theories of the world, theories that all presuppose that every current aspect of climate change was determined from the beginning of the world, and that people are just epiphenomena, i.e. people are not responsible for causing outcomes like flying planes into the twin towers.

It's not a matter of tweaking the edges of the male theories of the world, or making the theories equally androcentric and gynocentric: physics has given us a fundamentally wrong and heavily biased view of the world, a view of the world born and developed in the minds of men over a period of hundreds if not thousands of years.

This primitive, male view of the world is that consciousness and agency are so extremely unimportant that they can be regarded as superficial appearances, epiphenomena resulting from the operation of the laws of nature. This primitive, male view of the world is that consciousness and agency are not fundamental and necessary aspects of the world.

1. Physics is more than 80% men, but until very recently, physics was almost all men.

Bigotry and sexism.

Curvature if spacetime us not the cause of gravity. Despite the popularity of the idea and illustrations. Spacetime is a product not source reality. A curved mapping of results is not the cause of the curvature mapped. Relativity relates to what is observed. The spacetime visible universe is what is observed. EMr signals are curved, by the uni-temporal (Same time everywhere -Now) existent environment they travel through. That existent base existence environment getting more concentrated closer to the Earth or other massive body. From which cones the inverse square law. This way gravity can be understood as the result of thee effect of bodies of matter on base existence. And electric and magnetic forces the effect of charges or charged bodies on base existence.

. And electric and magnetic forces, are the effect of charges or charged bodies on base existence.

Unifying electromagnetic forces with curved spacetime won't work as that is trying to unite models ( inverse square law and vector field) reflecting the underlying Object reality with an Image reality product.

Are the foundations of the world doing high-level mathematics that only a human mathematician can do? Obviously not. But physicists, mathematicians and philosophers (approximately 80% men) believe that the foundations of the world ARE doing high-level mathematics!

What has been experimentally shown to exist at the foundations of the world are relationships, and "number jumping", which people symbolically represent by equations and the assignment of new numbers to variables respectively.

But this doesn't mean that the foundations of the world are doing high-level mathematics. What it DOES mean is that relationships between categories exist and that new number assignment relationships are continually being created (i.e. primitive agency). What it DOES mean is that the foundations of the world discern relationship (i.e. primitive consciousness).

Instead of the foundations of the world doing high-level mathematics, the foundations of the world discern relationship and create new relationships.

Curved Spacetime is given by Einstein as the underlying cause of gravity and the associated curvature of light. However he muddles existent things and observation products. An observer's reference frame is not actually a slice of the spacetime continuum but what is generated by the observer from EMr signals 'light 'that has been emitted or reflected from existing material objects. A Virtual spacetime product is generated. We know that from study of vision and visual systems and optics. Spacetime is not the underlying source reality. So curvature of spacetime can not be a cause. It can be a way of representing the product. ------Electromagnetic forces are due to effects actualized in the base existence. Representable as a vector field. There can not be a field hosted by nothingness. This is about underlying source reality. Hopefully I have made clear why it is categorically different from curved spacetime.

Physicists, mathematicians and philosophers visualise the people who flew planes onto the twin towers, and they see automata, epiphenomena of the laws of nature.

Physicists, mathematicians and philosophers look at their own children, laughing and playing in the sun, and they see automata, epiphenomena of the laws of nature.

Physics has absolutely no way of, and no possible pathway towards, crediting human beings and other living things as entities that have a genuine presence and a genuine effect on the world. Laughably, physics would only be looking for yet more equations and rules to box in and define the world as automata, epiphenomena of these rules.

But in fact the world is genuinely free: the children, adults and other living things are genuinely free entities; and the stale and stupid men [1] of physics, mathematics and philosophy are backing a losing horse.

What does it mean to be a free entity? It means that the entity (as opposed to the laws of nature) is genuinely assigning the numbers to its own variables, OBVIOUSLY in a non-lawful way, in response to the situations that the entity encounters. (More correctly, assigning numbers to variables is the way to SYMBOLICALLY REPRESENT the agency/ "free will" aspect of the world).

1. Physics is more than 80% men, but until very recently, physics was almost all men. It's pretty much the same for mathematics and philosophy.

More grandstanding and irrelevant sexism.