Georgina Woodward
Further evidence of object permanence
Not only an observation product (object semblance, relative viewpoint , usually semblance of surface) being generated before and after concealment, that appear to be the same object.
Apparatus; table clock that can stand unsupported on a base or feet. Clock has red coloured face and blue coloured back, a small blanket or a towel
Method; take the clock so looking at the red face , notice its appearance, and with eyes closed place , standing on its base or feet, under a small blanket or towel so that it is completely covered.
Use a hammer or other heavy object to smash the area covered by the blanket. Remove the blanket.
Results; The clock is broken open , as shown by the newly formed observation product. The internal mechanism of the clock is visible. More blue is visible among the fragments than mainly red seen from looking at the face.
Conclusion. The clock object continued to exist when covered by the blanket, though no corresponding observation product was generated at that time. It did not continue as a relative observation product in 3d space time. Its insides being among the exposed debris show that the object unlike the observation product had an inside even while out of sight. The blue fragments show that the object had a back surface. If the clock did not exist as an object when out of view, why is it broken?
Eminent Physicists on Schrödinger’s Cat
Georgina Woodward
The last post was just about Object permanence-the idea that objects continue to have material existence when out of sight.
We can extend the method to make a clear comparison between material reality and abstract quantum theory.
Method 2 ; Person 1 takes the clock and places it , standing on its base or feet, under a small blanket or towel so that it is completely covered. Person 1 leaves the room. Person 2 enters the room, having a two sided coin. The coin is flipped and placed on back of one hand prior to exposure. If a head side of the coin is exposed, the person leaves the room without touching the blanket. If a tails side of the coin is exposed, the person smashes the blanketed area and then leaves the room.
Person 1 re-enters the room and removes the blanket.
Result. Either an intact OR a broken clocks seen.
There is either the material template to produce an observation product of an intact clock or a material template to produce an observation product of a broken clock when the ‘light’ from the exposed material structure is received and processed by the visual system of the observer.
The seen intact template exists from the start of the experiment until the end unless it is smashed into a different configuration of constituent parts. If tails face of coin is seen; The intact seen clock template is superseded or replaced in material reality. The configuration of the pattern of all existing has altered, meaning foundational time has passed, the former configuration is superseded by the new. Former and currently existing configurations do not co-exist, which would be a violation of energy conservation. As a consequence either an intact clock or a broken clock is seen, not an intact clock and a broken clock.
The superposition of intact clock and a broken clock outcome state can represent mental uncertainty of which future material reality will exist to provide a visual observation product. It does not have a material reality as explained. Ie can not be in different places simultaneously , as it doesn’t exist. Mental uncertainty for person 1 begins a few seconds after person 2 enters the room. Person 2 ( is acting like the radioactive decay and poison release mechanism) and ends when the blanket is removed. Person 2 does not have the same uncertainty. They know the clock is intact until / if they smash it. Or they do not know what is under the blanket only that they have or have not certainly broken it.
Mental uncertainty of the future configuration of material reality under certain circumstances should not call into doubt the singular reality of existing things. Taking care not to credit a mathematical place holder for an unkmown with existential reality.
Georgina Woodward
Disagreement of mental incertainty of person 1 and 2 prior to blanket remoal ,incdicates that ths superposition is not objective universal reality applying to both..
- Edited
Georgina Woodward
Consequences;
- this means that there is no need for Einstein's proposed 'entanglement' to explain correlations not explained by normal quantum theory. State outcome for each particle , of the pair, is not random but determined by same or opposite 'seen this way' relative measurement of pre existing single material object without inherent veiwpoint.
2, No need to combine quantum theory and gravity. As quantum mechanics theory is not objective reality. - Fields transmitted through the environment by disturbance or deformation of it due to presence and motion of charged particles and matter. Deformation of the content of object reality space. (No inherent dimensions- all existing objects parts and particles with unmeasured separaration and orientation to every other existing objects parts and particles. ) by the presence and movement of matter at a large scale , leading to large scale deformation , is hardlly experienced at the particle scale.
Georgina Woodward
Thinking about concealed possibilities;
Possibility, defined by Oxford languages 1. “noun
a thing that may happen or be the case.”
The Schrodinger cat thought experiment showcases the type of situation where a possibility may have been extinguished but this is not known so the now impossible is retained as a possibility, though this is incorrect. Smelling poison fumes escaping the closed box could be used as an indication that the live possibility has been extinguished.
Viewpoint or context ‘seen this way’ measurement protocol yet to be established is a different situation. The possibilities remain vital, only being extinguished when a relative viewpoint or measurement protocol is used to give a new singular observation or measurement outcome.
For a macroscopic object subsequent observation or measurement is still possible, depending on how the experiment is conducted. So to say that other possible outcomes have been extinguished is not necessarily true. It is true where only one outcome can be obtained. Such as in subatomic scale experiments or a destructive measurement protocol. At any scale is used. Application of different viewpoints or different measurements can give different outcomes.
This is relativity, an extraction from the absolute, existing, material template that embodies many possibilities. The ‘many worlds’ of possibility are not in the limited relative outcomes, but preceding them as a material. observation independent, Object reality.
Georgina Woodward
Thus the superposition is representing different scenarios; ''cat' experiment like, unknowh to the observer an impossibility (an extinguished possibility) and the outcome that will be found ,in the first case , and the other situation is a combination of the outcome that will be found and others that won't be are still vital /active possibilitioes not yet extinguished
Georgina Woodward
I apologize for the spelling errors and lack of clarity.
I was trying to point out two different situations both represented by a wave function.
In both cases the observer has not made a limited 'seen his way' observation or measurement product informing what is concealed, or for other reasons, not visible.
Instead of what’s there pre-observation / measurement being represented, we have possible outcomes, as far as the excluded observer is aware.
Observation independent material reality is what exists regardless of the excluded observer
Two different situations both represented by a wave function.
- Includes an outcome, still considered possible from outside that has been superseded eg, live cat dies, so only dead cat is possible outcome.
- All outcomes are still possible but no ‘seen this way’, relative context for production of singular outcome has been chosen.
- Edited
Georgina Woodward
Isn't quantum superposition needed to explain the outcome of various experiments, involving beam splitters? No ,they can all be explained by a wave carrier of a photon being divisible into wave and photon and separated wave. Undivided carrier wave and carried particle is the normal structure of pre-light. This helps explain the double slit experiment and also why in classical physics , speed of source or recipient does not affect speed of light transmission.
- Edited
Georgina Woodward
(http://viXra.org/abs/2311.0087) Paper uploaded to viXra today
Abstract
A brief history of theories of light is given. New terminology that will be useful in the discussion of matters to do with light or it’s precursor is given, and how it is to be applied is discussed.
Thinking about concealed possibilities comes next, considering the material reality that is concealed and what superposition actually represents. A Model with a pre-light binary with divisible photon carrier wave is presented, accounting for the outcomes of double slit apparatus experiments and experiments involving beam splitting and recombination, with an objective material solution.
Reason for the speed of ‘light’ being unaffected by speed of source and recipient
explained by using transmission as a pre-light binary model
- Edited
Georgina Woodward
Pre-light binary model shows resason for reflectance or trannsmissiun at glass block boundary. That's where in the cycle of the carrier wave the transition boundary is met.
- Edited
Georgina Woodward
Feynman .asked, in one of his lectlres, Richard Feynman on Quantum Mechanics Part 1 - Photons Corpuscles of Light why it is necessary to add lots of little arrows to get the pobability anplitude. Now .the need to know where in the wave cyclr it makes sense.
Georgina Woodward
Feynman .asked, in one of his lectlres, lecture Richard Feynman on Quantum Mechanics Part 1 - Photons Corpuscles of Light why it is necessary to add lots of little arrows to get the pobability anplitude. Now .the need to know where in the wave cyclr it makes sense.
Feynman asked, in one of his lecture, Richard Feynman on Quantum Mechanics Part 1 - Photons Corpuscles of Light why it is necessary to add lots of little arrows to get the probability amplitude. Now .the need to know where in the wave cycle it makes sense.
- Edited
marcovici alexandru
Thank you for your response . It would be extremely helpful if you could comunicate precisely how / in what way i have messed up .The link was to a talk not specificalluy the lecture
I remembered. My error sorry, I should have been more careful. l think in fact it was a lecture series given in Auckland The Sir Dougas Robb lecture series.That i should have linked to.
Feynman - Lectures From The University Of Auckland 1 Photons - Corpuscles of Light and Feynman - Lectures From The University Of Auckland 2 - Fits of Reflection and Transmission.
Feynman does not exactly ask why but expresses puzlement or the 'stupidity of the process'over why the caculation is carried out as it is. The ampltudes shown by small arrows ( physisists say amplitude ,mathematicians complex numbers) added like vectors . The total ampltude can be squared to give the probability. I meant by where in the wave cycle ,where in the wave oscilation pattern. Are you saying that is wrong or just the word cycle is unnecessary?
- Edited
Georgina Woodward
'Stupidity'in the context used is the wrong word. Irrational or unreasonaBle or unfathimable in character is better,
Georgina Woodward
Carried photon particles are very small. Similar double slit behaviour can be seen for other sub atomic particles, even particles uprto the size of buckyballs i have heard. A similar process is likely happening for these cases too. All providing evidence that the observer independentenvironment is filled and is affecting the appearance of the observer generated space-time phenomenon. It's not usual for larger macroscopic objects though. Perhaps because deformation of the observer independent environment by gavity of the bigger , dense object prevents formation and function of a carrier wave.
- Edited
Georgina Woodward
A photon particle's effsct on the observer indeprndent,Object reality environment wil set up a photon carrier disturbance that acts wavelike. A lone electrom's disturbance of the environment causes an electron carrier to be formrd. So on for different particles for which q'uantum mechanics' behaviour has been interprted , in the history of physics . A macroscopic or larger objrct deforms the environment differenttly, due to gravity so no carrier wave is formed.
This video about a thought experiment (in the form of Schrodinger's cat) makes me wonder about quantum mechanics and what happens in any lab experiment. Scientists believe theories must be supported by experiments. Does their faith in the existence of objective reality mean they are classical scientists who reject quantum mechanics' statements that observers and the observed are permanently and inextricably united? In this case, scientists would unavoidably and unconsciously influence every experiment and form of mathematics. In the end, they may be unavoidably and unconsciously influencing the universe which is the home of all experiments and all mathematics.
On the nature of consciousness - what are the consequences if the basis of AI (the 1's and 0's in neural nets) are shared with human or animal brains? That is, if brains are constructed of binary digits at the most fundamental level. This type of construction would be compatible with the following scenario - ancient Greek philosophers thought atoms were indivisible but were wrong, and physicists today think electrons are indivisible but may also be wrong. Suppose everything in the universe is ultimately composed of base 2 mathematics (the electronic BITS of 1 and 0) and could thus be described by a Mathematical Universe Hypothesis. Then the universe must possess Artificial Intelligence - some prefer the term Cosmic Consciousness. Inanimate objects would have the lowest level of binary-digit activity, a single cell would own a bit more, plants would have a bit more, insects would have still more ... and so on.