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.

          Lorraine,

          I think the connotation of the word "discerns" implies cognition, and I don't believe that is what you wish to convey. Perhaps "animism" is closer, apart from its historic religious significance common in primitive societies since long before the advent of monotheism. However, it does offer some insight in that animism generalizes existence as being animated by a universal associative precondition which in spiritual belief is expressed as the whole of the world and each individual thing in it being alive. It is an attractive philosophy and has many modern day adherents, giving a sense of each thing being individual yet not isolate.

          In a continuous field paradigm, given theoretical upper and lower bounds and a postulate for a universal proportional maximum density in an inertially bound unitary field (particle), it is possible to generate a distributive rationale mathematically which accounts for energy quantity across a gradiant range of density with interesting results. The properties of a sphere produce results that at the lower density range a much larger quantity of energy is required to account in distribution for that density range volume, and miniscule quantities of energy in the very tiny volume of upper density range. This suggests that the conventional mantra that gravity is the least powerful of primary forces is physically backwards! After all its the amount of energy in the interaction that manifests in action. So it naturally follows, that the distribution theorem applied to a larger atomic mass would have a larger volume and greater energy quantity in distribution across the respective radial range boundaries of the primary force effect volumes, than that of corresponding volumes in a smaller atomic mass. So we can easily envision a material interface between molecules of lager atomic structure and molecules of smaller atomic structure with that interface at a distance of separation of atomic centers consistent with observed measurable electrostatic repulsion. The electrostatic density in both molecular samples of the repulsivity would be equal but the energy quantities producing that density is vastly different in the respective substances. Density wise there should be no distinction so why don't the fields meld into one? And if its the energy quantity difference which prevents that, how could that be translated between the two samples? And it is that aspect of differentiation that you are arguing as being best related algorithmically. Look at the length of this paragraph to get that across. :-) jrc

          4 days later

          Re Energy:

          Georgina,

          You've got it all dreadfully mixed up again.

          Energy (and position etc.) are FULLY COVERED by the law of nature relationships, i.e. they are fully representable by equations, i.e. there's nothing more that can be said about them.

          But you are claiming that energy is somehow MORE than a thing that can be represented by an equation.

          If you want to claim that energy is MORE than a relationship, MORE than a thing that is represented by an equation, then you are implying that energy is a voodoo entity with a personality.

          You've got your mathematics mixed up. You have mixed up categories (like energy and position) with numbers. Categories are represented by variables and equations; categories are not numbers; numbers are not categories.

          The actual issues are:

          1) It is NECESSARY that the world moves itself. What aspect of the world is assigning the numbers that apply to the categories? Examples of categories are position and energy, things that are represented by variables and equations.

          2) What is a number? Mathematically, real-world numbers can only be relationships, just like the laws of nature are relationships, but numbers are relationships where the numerator and denominator categories cancel out, leaving a thing that has no category.

          3) It is NECESSARY that a differentiated world can differentiate (discern difference in) itself. What aspect of the world differentiates (discerns difference in) the aspects of the world that we would represent by equations, variables and number symbols?

          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.

          Are you going to argue that physics DOESN'T say that the world and its inhabitants are automata?

          John,

          First, define what YOU mean by "cognition" and "consciousness". Can you do it? What do you mean by "cognition" and "consciousness"?

          I AM saying that differentiation (the discerning of difference) is basic consciousness.

          I am saying that consciousness is a NECESSARY aspect of a system, because it is necessary that a differentiated system (differentiated into what we would represent as equations, variables and numbers) can differentiate (discern difference in) its own equations, variables and numbers (more correctly, what we would represent as its own equations, variables and numbers).

          "Energy (and position etc.) are FULLY COVERED by the law of nature relationships, i.e. they are fully representable by equations, i.e. there's nothing more that can be said about them." Lorraine ford | FALSE

          "If you want to claim that energy is MORE than a relationship, MORE than a thing that is represented by an equation, then you are implying that energy is a voodoo entity with a personality." Lorraine ford | NON SEQUITUR

          Numbers are quantitative descriptors. They can be used to quantify. That is describe how much or how many of something, The various categories that are the variables used in equations can be represented by a symbol or can be quantified. When quantified the number represents an amount of the variable. So the relations of the variables in the equation still applies.

          Lorraine,

          People have been struggling to explain 'consciousness' since antiquity, but generally it is agreed to be a product of mental processes however limited our understanding of how those might develop. That doesn't limit it to humans, but certainly narrows it down. 'Cognition' as defined by Webster is the process of knowing, or the capacity to gain knowledge. A rose by any other name is still a rose, not a mentality. It may well be observed to open its petals toward the sun but that doesn't mean it has a capacity to know it.

          It is actually quite difficult NOT to anthropomorphize word meanings in discussions of physical fundamentals and foundations, perhaps that is why the dry empirical artifice of mathematics (a product of mental processes) is preferred by most in the physics community as a means of removing oneself from the equation. jrc