Getting interference from single photons in double slit expt. and from recombination of paths from half silvered mirrors seems to be showing that there is a source of interference that affects the paths the particle might take. It isn't necessary to assume the interference caused pattern of results is due to self interference. Rather it would seem to be another example of the effect of existent concentrations of existence, particles or bodies of matter, on base existence around them. Like the field effects of charged particles and gravity. They are not just disembodied numbers or vectors. These effects are showing something is affected even if not directly visible. Seen this way the double slit results are not strange; almost to be expected. They can be reconciled with classical physics. Single photon, half silvered mirrors recombination of paths results and singe particle double slit expt. results can be regarded as unextraordinary 'field effect' classical physics

See Georgina Woodward replied on Nov. 9, 2021 @ 20:03 GMT re Curved spacetime. I am not ignorant of it. it has a big problem [category differentiation error].

You haven't got much choice when it comes to what's causing outcomes in the world:

1) Nothing is causing the numbers for the variables to change, the numbers just miraculously change in accordance with the necessary law of nature relationships;

2) The laws of nature are causing the numbers for the variables to change, where the laws of nature are a type of entity that somehow has mathematical oversight, and makes sure that all number outcomes are in accordance with the law of nature relationships; or

3) Matter is assigning new numbers to the variables, independent of the laws of nature, whereby other numbers for other variables change, not due to mathematical calculations being performed or mathematical oversight being required, but due to the fact that both numbers and the laws of nature are relationships.

Physics baulks at something like option 3, because that would mean that people and other living things are NOT epiphenomena of the laws of nature; something like option 3 would mean that people and other living things are genuine entities that have agency.

But arrogant physicists don't seem to care that their view of the world (options 1 or 2) requires extreme doublethink:

If physicists weren't engaging in doublethink, they'd give accolades and Nobel Prizes to the laws of nature, because the laws of nature are the only responsible entities. If physicists weren't engaging in doublethink, they'd give jail sentences to the laws of nature, because the laws of nature are the only responsible entities.

    P.S.

    I should add that physics is more than 80% men, but until very recently, physics was almost all men.

    The 5 of men in physics is irrelevant. Your continued insinuation is not welcome.

    Evidence of wave passing through both slits and guiding of particle that only passes through one.

    https://youtu.be/WIyTZDHuarQ

    Is This What Quantum Mechanics Looks Like? Veritasium

    This provides a working macroscopic model. When photons, subatomic particles or miniscule bodies of matter are used, the wave is not in water. There has to be a 'something else' for then to be in. The similarity of the behavioral outcomes seems good evidence in favour of similar process involving a not directly knowable, not generally acknowledged, environment (actual). Assuming a good vacuum and very dim light so stray particles do not form significant, behavior affecting environmental components too

    Unlike Georgina, I actually studied physics, maths and computer science at university. Perhaps that's why I don't have blind faith in the holy purity of physics and physicists. Or mathematicians and philosophers for that matter.

    I never criticise the work of experimental physicists: its only in the area of interpretation of the world that physics gets extremely, EXTREMELY, dodgy.

    The (mainly) boy's clubs of physics, mathematics and philosophy are willing to believe that their own mothers and their own children are automata. This is what the physics interpretation says about the nature of the world and its inhabitants.

    Yet the (mainly) boy's clubs of physics, mathematics and philosophy haven't done their homework: they haven't said what (what we would represent as) numbers are; they haven't said why the fundamental-level numbers are moving/ jumping; and they haven't explained how the fundamental-level world is able to differentiate itself.

    Unfortunately, without ever analysing, articulating or explaining why, Georgina seems to believe that "energy" (something symbolically representable by an equation, a single letter symbol and a number) has a personality; "energy" is the miracle answer which can explain all the problems of how to interpret the nature of the world.

    But the concept of "energy" does not explain what (what we would represent as) numbers are; it doesn't explain why the fundamental-level numbers are moving/ jumping; and it doesn't explain how the fundamental-level world is able to differentiate itself. THESE are the issues that are relevant to human agency and consciousness.

      Lorraine,

      kindly refrain from jumping to ridiculous conclusions about what other people think and then posting that rubbish (trash talk).

      Topically speaking;

      the category of "energy" is rather ambiguous. Physics has traditionally treated energy as a potential product of some measurable observed action. The 'potential energy' of gravitation, for instance. Yet it is also implied in GR and various other field theoretical paradigms as existing as a physical property whether continuous or quantized. So despite the present state of anyone's physics holding forth here, in the current conventions of the profession "energy" is among that class of indefinite characterizations. "Inertia" and "mass" are other conspicuous examples, and let's not forget that there is no general definition of what physically constitutes "charge".

      Plenty of opportunity, gender non-specific, for rational epistemological and metaphysical discussion towards a general consensus on the physical nature of these and other outstanding examples. - discuss - jrc

      Energy is fundamental to the nature of material existence. Take away enough energy from atomic matter, making a Bose-Einstein condensate-and the individual atoms loose their identity and the subsistence behaves strangely. Cf. the walking oil droplets. Energy is required to prevent assimilation into the bath of oil. Energy is essential for matter as we know it; Thereby existence and the structure of the world 'as we know it.'( Stuff happening at atomic and sub atomic scales)-------Energy is also the measurement value that denotes the ability to do work. It can be stored as potential energy. The many different forms of energy have in common the ability or potential to do work. The type of energy can be transformed when work is done.(Stuff happening again but usually being considered at larger scales).Existence is dynamic at all scales, Its energy is as much what it is as the material form. In my opinion.

      Georgina,

      and there-in lay the crux of the matter. Yes, take away enough energy and atomic structure not only ceases moving, it behaves as if each atom is identical to the others (theoretically). and etc., no quibble from me.

      But that brings us back to the point of energy being associated with matter not the stuff matter is made of. And we are stuck with that if we adhere strictly with deductive reasoning because logically we cannot point to an observable proof.

      That is the fall-back argument for the QM methodology, and realists have yet to come up with an experimental protocol that solves the naive problem that; If e=mc^2, and a proton at rest or at less than relativistic velocity behaves as a measurable mass but behaves as a measurable energy quantity at relativistic velocities, how do we get a square proportion of equivalence from one magnitude of light velocity acceleration? What's the matter? If it's made of energy, then how does the action of accelerating it to light velocity result in that square proportional increase?

      I am personally of the persuasion that energy is the stuff of matter and electric, magnetic and gravitational fields are distinctive behavioral characteristics of density ranges each being a c magnitude of difference. A greater density magnitude will exhibit the characteristic of lesser densities but not vice-versa. But strictly speaking under pain of penalty of scientific discipline, I have no proof. It is and will likely remain, my preferred choice of paradigm. :-) jrc

      Georgina,

      The (mainly) boy's clubs of physics, mathematics and philosophy are willing to believe that their own mothers and their own children are automata. This is what the physics interpretation says about the nature of the world and its inhabitants.

      Physics DOES say that the world and its inhabitants are automata.

      Prove me wrong. But actually, you can't prove me wrong because it is true. But you are not interested in truth. So all you can say is that I'm making "ridiculous conclusions about what other people think" and "rubbish (trash talk)".

      It is up to you to argue that physics DOESN'T say that the world and its inhabitants are automata.

        Re Energy:

        In physics, energy, position, mass, charge etc are all symbolically represented in exactly the same type of way, i.e. they are all symbolically represented by equations, and letter symbols, and in addition they are all assigned number symbols. In other words, energy, position, mass, charge etc are all the same TYPE of thing.

        If a person wants to claim that one of the above categories (e.g. energy or spatial position) is a special type of thing that has special behaviours or qualities that are not covered by the abovementioned symbols, then they will need additional symbols to represent these special behaviours or qualities.

        So, it is up to that person to:

        1) Describe these supposed special behaviours or qualities that are NOT covered by the abovementioned types of symbols (equations, variables and numbers); and

        2) Recognise that they will then need additional symbols (NOT equations, variables and numbers) to represent these supposed special behaviours or qualities.

          Re Energy (2):

          The whole point of physics is that what, on the surface of reality, seems to be strange and amazing behaviours or characteristics, has been shown to be due to nothing but fixed relationships between fundamental-level categories (like energy or position), which physics symbolically represents by equations, variables and numbers.

          The issue is: are there aspects of the world that are NOT representable by equations, variables and numbers, i.e. are there aspects of the world that require other symbols to represent the aspect? And clearly, there ARE.

          I'm saying that the aspects of the world that are NOT representable by equations are:

          1) The necessary aspect of the world that discerns difference in (what we would represent as) the equations, variables and numbers; and

          2) The necessary aspect of the world that assigns (what we would represent as assigning) new numbers to the variables.

          I repeat. The issue is: are there aspects of the world that are NOT representable by equations, variables and numbers?

          Lorraine,

          So what you are getting at is something like this (?) ... let's consider laminar flow, velocity difference and viscosity are principal determinants, but how does the medium itself physically differentiate that there is a non-zero boundary condition and why does it develop? jrc

          Re Energy (3):

          Georgina and John seem to believe that energy has a personality, that energy is an actor with a mind of its own, that energy has behaviours that are not fully covered by the laws of nature.

          But any foundational aspect of the world that is not fully covered by, not fully representable by equations, variables and number symbols, must therefore be represented by other symbols.

          These other symbols must represent the type of foundational procedures followed, and how they relate to the existing foundational situation that is represented by variables and numbers. In other words, you need to use Boolean and algorithmic symbols.

          But in fact, energy doesn't have a personality, energy is not an actor. Energy, position, mass, charge etc are all symbolically represented in exactly the same type of way, i.e. they are all symbolically represented by equations, variables and number symbols. In other words, energy, position, mass, charge etc are all the same TYPE of thing.

            John, I'm saying that the following aspects of the world:

            - The aspect of the world that discerns difference; and

            - The aspect of the world that moves/ changes the world

            can't be viewed as relationships. I.e. these aspects of the world can't be represented by equations.

            Another ridiculous conclusion -this time what you think John and I am thinking.

            Energy, mass, position, charge etc. are all variables in the equations. Their quantified value can vary. That does not mean they are the same type of thing in nature. If you use a dictionary you will see each word name for each variable has a different, unique meaning.

            An unmotorized trolley that has been pushed will travel some distance and then stop. The kinetic energy of the trolley is converted to heat due to friction and air resistance; as the Work of travelling is done. Velocity changes, position (distance) changes, as KE changes and heat changes. This happens without the necessity of consciousness (to discern: recognizing, finding out, distinguishing) of road and/or trolley. You are correct in saying "energy is not an actor" but it is what an actor (such as the trolley) requires in order to act.