About representation. Re. the measurement problem: when should the template potential (for alternative outcome products) due to existing, material, noumenal Object reality, be given up prior to manifestation of a singular observation/ measurement result (phenomenal product)?

Superposition of outcome states has neither noumenal nor phenomenal reality. It can be considered a place holder for unknown evolution of the configuration of the uni-temporal universe; A 'black box' happening.

    Using the rabbit from a hat analogy- the superposition of states is not a material rabbit, It is struggling and being calm; mutually exclusive states. In a uni-temporal universe one state evolves as there is only one configuration of existing noumenal reality from which the observed/measured result (phenomenon) is produced. The 'picture' of a superposition of outcome states taking both branches of an apparatus, for example, should not be taken literally/exactly. It is representing a situation where there is or was potential for a system to evolve in different ways, that would produce different outcomes. Yet it is not known when exactly the system has moved such that one particular outcome becomes inevitable. It remains as an abstract place holder (for a representation of what is actually happening- that we don't have) until the observation/measurement is produced. State production (preceding observation) is enough to know the former duel potential is lost

    Re. the measurement problem What/when is the physical happening that corresponds to wavefunction collapse?

    Reply: Superposition of outcome states has neither noumenal nor phenomenal reality. Using the rabbit from a hat analogy- the superposition of states is not a material rabbit, It is struggling and being calm; mutually exclusive states. This means a superposition can not be interacting with the existing environment, causing collapse to a singular state. Therefore perhaps a different question should be asked. It can be considered a place holder for unknown evolution of the configuration of the universe ,A 'black box' happening. When should the template potential (existing, material, noumenal Object reality) be given up prior to manifestation of a singular observation/ measurement result (phenomenal product)?

    Since I previously used the calm /struggling dichotomy to represent different properties, it would be better to consider behaviours that are a division of each one. Calm: 'Frozen' vs limp and Struggling: trying to burrow away in place vs trying to run away. These are mutually exclusive pairs of observations that could be analogy for superposition. I.e. Frozen/ Limp and Burrowing/ Running

    Using the rabbit from a hat analogy- the superposition of states is not a material rabbit. As the state has not yet been observed or measured it is not an observation product. So not a phenomenal reality either.

    As the superposition is neither type of reality, it can not interact with the environment, leading to collapse.

    Conclusion---Within the explanatory framework considered, encompassing both noumenal uni-temporal existence and phenomenal emergent observation products:

    Predictions, counterfactual outcomes, superposition, wavefunction are /are about abstract ideas that can be imagined and represented but are not in themselves elements of reality

    Sequential Stern Gerlach experiments show up or down result propensity is not maintained across tests at different detector angles. It is not a fixed property

    Spin correlation and anti correlation of entangled particle pairs seems to show the particles come with a temporarily maintained relationship (relative orientation). And while preserved can be regarded as one system, rather than two independent particles. However the relation between them is maintained/ lost according to local conditions encountered; not inter-particle (super-luminal) communication.

    There is no actual wavefunction collapse but evolution of noumenal reality into a condition from which one outcome state and not the other previous possibility can be generated.

    The result not found-where does it go? It is never produced, so can't go /be anywhere. Occam's razor casts doubt (a great deal) upon a multiverse explanation.

    .

      4 days later

      Quantum Mechanics and reality ------------ Georgina Woodward 20/2/2020

      Giving up spacetime (continuum) local realism, for source uni-temporal noumenal reality allowing emergent phenomenal reality (that can be detected or sensed)

      Superposition- unreal In a uni-temporal evolving universe; what will be/what is imagined as possible is not Noumenal or phenomenal reality.----Singular evolution of existing noumenal reality is actualizing a result.(R)= Noumenal/Object reality-----Observation product generated -manifestation whereby known or recorded (R*)= Phenomenal reality.---Let the superposition represent not knowing; that becoming actual from that just imagined-until the actualizing of one result.---Use manifestation of result to retrospectively cull the imaginary branch from the evolution history (past unreal in this model).No wavefunction collapse affecting which reality is actualized but evolution according to individual absolute relations (involving noumenal existentia; esse(ntia-situs, esse(ntia)-motus, esse(ntia)-orientum, esse(ntia)-Energia,) to local environmental conditions.--No need for Many worlds as other possibilities have not been actualized.

      Occham's razor suggests Many worlds, requiring a great many extra universes is highly unlikely to represent reality.

      Evidence in favour of uni-temporal model as proposed . (Woodward, G., 12. 12. 2021) https://vixra.org/abs/2112.0057 ---;provides sequential time, allows relativity of observed, dispels the paradoxes of Relativity.

      Hydrodynamic analog of quantum behavious shows there may be some likeness to noumenal of the wave representation of particles. (NB) differences.

      To clarify: Hydrodynamic analog of quantum behavious, [oil droplets bouncing on vibrating oil pool], shows there may be some likeness to the noumenal [reality] of the wave representation of particles. (NB) differences.

      (past unreal in this model) is referring to there being no existing, noumenal, material future or past, only uni-temporal Now.

      noumenal existentia; esse(ntia-situs, esse(ntia)-motus, esse(ntia)-orientum, esse(ntia)-Energia,) Can't have a "property without what possesses it.

      Questions?

        7 days later

        Proposal. Half silvered mirrors are able to divide photons into a detectable portion, detected as a particle. That particle is still called a photon despite having undergone 'amputation'. For clarity it shall be called a cut photon body Also a sub detectable portion is formed having wave like character. Which will be called a sub-photon member. Identified by causing wave interference when recombined with the portion it was split from (the cut photon body)). The sub-photon member is an existing element of noumenal Object reality. Source of the phenomenon of detection indicating wave interference has happened. This can explain observed outcomes, rather than needing to use superposition for explanation.

        Results summary and explanation: For a dud bomb there is always photon body and sub photon member reunion and interference which always gives a C detection no matter which part took which path. For a live bomb; No photon was detected (50% of tests). Lower path taken by cut photon body Explosion! Or Cut photon body takes upper path. As usual chance of being deflected at mirror or not. The photon detected at C (25% of tests). The photon detected at D (25% of tests).

        Conclusion: The photon splitting proposition can explain observed outcomes, rather than needing to use superposition for explanation.

        Interaction free detection is a misnomer. As this result relies upon the sub photon member being taken out of 'circulation' at the bomb. So it can not reunite and interfere. That enabling the chance of D detector detection

        Consistent with-1. Detecting a photon always on only one path after a bean splitter. This is the cut photon body producing the same detection as an entire photon that has not encountered a beam splitter.2.No detection on other path. Sub photon member not directly detectable. 3.An interference pattern being observed only after both open paths are brought together. Showing something, not detectable as a photon, does travel along the 'empty' path if not blocked. This might be environmental remnants from photon behavior or considered part of an entire photon, that accompanies it. What matters is that there is something actual (a noumenal reality) traveling the path. The actual effect, the material interference pattern it causes, can be observed (phenomenal reality) and identifies it. Like identifying an animal by its footprint rather than trapping the animal itself.4 consistent with double slit experiments.

        It was not explicitly set out but given in the Wikipedia article linked; the reason D gets no detections when the bomb is dud, (same as if not there/ no obstruction ) is destructive interference.

        Proposed explanation: When a live bomb is obstructing the path, the sub photon member is halted so can not participate in destructive interference.

        Same applies for this apparatus without a bomb but a mirror placed before the top mirror, deflecting the beam to a third detector. This also allows D detections. However rather than it being a non local effect on a beam that has not encountered the inserted mirror, it is due to deflection of the sub photon members to the third detector. So, being unable to destructively interfere.

        The proposed unequal splitting not only casts doubt on interference free testing, It puts to rest the quandary over when a photon decides to be a particle and when a wave. Subject of many real and thought experiments. The decision isn't being made.

        In the first paper an experiment is set out, with the usual results predicted. The explanation of why those results are going to be obtained is different; fitting the hypothesis. Leading to the conclusions: The photon splitting proposition can be used for prediction and explanation. As a viable alternative to use of superposition. Interaction free detection is a misnomer. Re D detector's detection. I haven't clearly stated that destructive interference is lost and that's why a detection can be made.

        In the second paper a new experiment is given, Three possible outcomes are stated. 1 and 3 supportive of the hypothesis, 2 is not. No prediction is given. My prediction is outcome 3. This apparatus allows discerning of a photon that is detected as such but is incomplete from n entire photon. The former is shown not to just be an ordinary photon in particle state, by its subsequent behaviour past next 1/2 mirror.

        Simply, an entire photon will behave the same each time it encounters a half silvered mirror; having the capability of being subsequently found to express a wave interference pattern when tested. This will be so if an un-reunited photon is entire but just in a definite particle state. The cut photon body, on the other hand, that has not been reunited with the severed sub photon member has permanently lost the ability to be found showing wave interference. So it is made to encounter another half silvered mirror after the first and prevention of reunion. No wave interference pattern when paths are joined.

        Even if the hypothesis is wrong , the experiment is demonstrating photon nature; making it valuable demonstration tool.