Light and Darkness: A Biologist's View of the Wave-Particle Duality Problem

RoseWren

PlatinumWildcat Rose, how physics could exists (prior) without geometry /math?

Physics or physical reality? First, our planet arose, then life and humans emerged on it, then, quite recently in geological time, humans began to study reality using the sciences, including physics and mathematics. Science, like philosophy, is a tool for understanding the material and mental worlds; it is a tool invented and created by man.

Steve Dufourny

RoseWren I was in geology at university in belgium when I have had an epileptic coma, I took pehytoin during 12 years, my health is not perfect, I have had also a heart operation 5 years ago and deep depressions due to a difficult past.But it is like this. I found my theory in ranking the sciences, maths, physics, biology, it is even in ranking the evolution since the selacian I saw this relativive spherisation. Do you know Oparin.He has proposed ideas about the primordial soap made of hydrogen, ammonia, water,methane.....and in adding energy like electricity , UV, heat....that creates molecules like sugars, lipids, amino acids an in time that creates more complex polymers like proteins, nucleic acids. Many experiements have been made and his theories are ok supporting the primordial soap hypothesis and that abiogenesis is clemically plausible. The process is more complex but he has given a road.

PlatinumWildcat

RoseWren Look at nature, a sunflower perfect spiral geometry, is that created by man? I refer that Reality
is mathematics with the language we invented . Reality is geometry as its own language and algebra as its own syntax. The mathematics we invented is a tool to explain what is already there to see. How biological processes could exist without calculus? What physics could exist without calculus. We are just see and measure those reality processes that REQUIRE math the cells divide is math etc...

Steve Dufourny

Ulla Mattfolk Non commutativity of Connes in my spherical topological geometric algebras are very very important for the rankings, groups, subgroups and deeper parameters and about entropy and negentropy, regards

Ulla Mattfolk

PlatinumWildcat Ulla , we are talking different languages here. I see the Reality 1: as we perceive it and 2: as may be explained by logic and math. The first I name it GUI the second I name it CODE. So talking about the GUI is talking about mass time spacetime background whatever you want standard physics. Talking about the CODE I am talking about a reality without time and space/time background container. For me is useless to name and talk about the CODE with the language of the GUI.

What answer is that? It was YOU that talk about vacuum in GR. Is it 'darkness' then, reflecting to this essay? Your CODE is in darkness if you cannot elaborate about Einsteins vacuum. He added the cosmological constant for it. It must be a CODE?
Ulla.

PlatinumWildcat

Ulla Mattfolk

"You have perfectly identified the core of the issue, and I thank you for this critical point. The communication breakdown is happening precisely because we are speaking two different languages: the language of the GUI and the language of the CODE.

Let me be unequivocal:

The GUI is the domain of standard physics and our perceptual bias. It is the world of:
Spacetime as a container
Vacuum energy
Symmetric, commutative paths
The description of time's arrow as a boundary condition

The GUI is a magnificent interface, but it is a map, not the territory. It has bugs—like the cosmological constant problem and the unexplained origin of time's arrow.

My work exists entirely in the CODE. The CODE is the underlying reality:
A reality without a container—no spacetime, no vacuum.
A dynamic, recursive geometric process.
Fundamentally non-commutative paths (A→B ≠ B→A) as the primitive element.
The explanation of time's arrow as an emergent property of geometric asymmetry.

So, when you ask me to explain "Einstein's vacuum" using the CODE, the answer is simple: The CODE does not contain that object. It is a GUI-level concept. To ask for it is like asking a software engineer to find the "desktop" inside the CPU's transistors. You can't. The desktop is an emergent illusion of the graphical interface.

My contribution is to propose a coherent CODE whose emergent properties manifest as the GUI we observe. The fact that the CODE naturally outputs time asymmetry and explains entropy is a validation that we are looking at the right source code.

I am not trying to fix the GUI. I am providing the patch notes for the CODE."

PlatinumWildcat

Ulla Mattfolk you refer vacuum GR as dark energy?

Ulla Mattfolk

PlatinumWildcat yes, I understood your CODE is in 'darkness',but I did not talk about spacetime in GR either, it was the spacetime (what you call no time which is an error) outside GR. This I wanted to know how you can say it is in GR.

PlatinumWildcat

Ulla Mattfolk

"You are still thinking of time as a thing - a dimension, a background, a container. You are using the language of the GUI.

I am saying something fundamentally different: in the CODE, time is an operator. It is not a dimension you move through; it is a consequence of geometric recursion.

Think of it this way:

In the GUI (GR): Time is a coordinate t in the spacetime metric ds²
In the CODE: Time is the process of recursive geometric optimization. The 'arrow' is the fundamental asymmetry in the recursion A→B ≠ B→A

When I say 'time is an operator' I mean it literally: it is the action of the recursive geometric process, not a passive background parameter. The 'flow of time' is the execution of the recursive wave equation.

So no - I am not talking about spacetime in GR. I am explaining what produces the emergent illusion of spacetime that GR so successfully describes."

Ulla Mattfolk

PlatinumWildcat it is the prevailing cosmological assumption it is DE. But your code is 'dark info' maybe?
in a timeless system time cannot be an operator. Take a look at Bruno Machals ideas.
Ulla.

PlatinumWildcat

Think of it this way:

Timeless CODE: All recursive steps exist simultaneously as a geometric structure
"Time operator": The index n in Ψₙ - it's not temporal flow, but geometric precedence
Emergent time: The GUI perception of moving through this recursive sequence

You're asking how time can be an operator in a timeless system. The answer is that the 'time operators' aren't creating temporal flow - they're creating observational frames.
The first operator separates phenomenon from field. The second separates self from observation. Consciousness then strings these frames together into the illusion of sequence.
This isn't Marchal's framework - it's a geometric consciousness model where time emerges from the recursion of observation itself, not from computation.

Ulla Mattfolk

PlatinumWildcat the 'time operators' aren't creating temporal flow - they're creating observational frames.

That is the same thing? What is the placeholder for this observational frame in a frame without time?

what you say is quite similar to Marchals ideas. He also start with an inequality. Ulla

marcovici alexandru

maybe the eye is emitting some lantern like detection rays, idea not new since 17

or the detection is not actually happening in the retina nor on the surface - in a more epicycles manner
the situation knows is going to be detected by the eyes and shows what is supposed to shows
not joking, i take it seriously as a physical real-life explanation , i cannot exclude it out of possible it might be some cause-effect that defies any intuition

maybe the universe has some sort of recommender systems for things that you are supposed to be observing and when to observe them

neuroscience has interesting thing to say that the detection happens in steps piecewise and specific wise

imagine shrinking the double slit experiment, little be little up to what point the experiment disappears and gives other effects (having the assembling components in mind) wave particle or other effects (you name it)

RoseWren

marcovici alexandru , there's a study that discovered the glow of the entire body, including the eye, but this glow is very weak, about 1,000 times weaker than the human eye can perceive. Regarding the Universe, I don't know. I think the Universe has too many other things to deal with just me. In my essay, I propose the eye as a miniature model for understanding where a photon might exhibit either particle or wave properties. I don't rule out the possibility that something other than particle and wave properties might be exhibited, but I can't say anything specific.

marcovici alexandru

i looked at it briefly , RoseWren

there is value in not knowing, not observing, keeping things separate, or not caring

what is frightning is i believe one could apply rules of quantum mechanics observability even to how mind is organised, just holding an opinion is in itself a quantum statement

in the long run imagining a highly sofisticated society witth a visual grammar for communicationi try to imagine how individuals communicate taking care of all each other preferences and internal models of how to behave in reality for the science sake

i'm after seeing robots dancing (they to emits compton/photoelectric reflection refraction photonic effects, do you claim that in living biological humans those lights have certain interesting effects ?)

Universe has too many other things to deal with just me

is not that the universe deals with anybody in particular is the quantum socio-network effect attractor , like a phase change of collective conscioussnes , where certain things aggregate because they resonate better

an amish eco advanced philosophical but slow on adopting new tech before strong debates and experiments is an ideal type of society
now a question is : how does a society change from one stable to an other? depends on those atractors / mountains and valley of easy/hard accesible situations that individuals are placed in?

RoseWren

Steve Dufourny I still haven't received an answer as to why you chose a sphere over a torus out of the two main shapes.

Steve Dufourny

RoseWren Hi,Sorry I forgot to answer you, If you read my posts, you shall understand that I think that these spherical 3d volumes are the choice of the universe considering the fundamental building bloks, so they are the choice of the universe and they are not emergent from the GR because I think we must go beyond this GR in adding deeper parameters. It is my philosophical choice simply in my theory of spherisation. Regards ,remember what I explained about the poincare conjecture.

Steve Dufourny

RoseWren
It is a kind of ontological choice seeing nature when I ranked the sciences and maths, when I had this small eureka ,the spherisation,the evolution of the universe with these spherical 3D quantum volumes. The symmetry is the perfect equilibrium of forces; it is relevant for the motions, isotropy, and homogeneity. For the least action principle also, it is better. So it is better also for the information; that is why I consider these Bloch 3D spherical volumes for states, deeper than the Bloch sphere and Bloch ball.
This shape is not like the others, and if it is the choice of the universe, it can create all shapes by morphisms and deformations. In fact, it is the best choice, in my opinion, for physics, information theory, cosmology, evolution,...., and simply for ontology. Even the spherical harmonics are interesting for waves. Furthermore, it is the best for the encoding of information, memory, and coherence, negentropy and entropy. It seems the best choice for the least action and dynamics, for the kinetic and potential energy in the Hamiltonians and Lagrangians.
Their symmetry, simplicity, and properties for geometry and topology make them the best choice for the universe, ontologically speaking. When I observe nature, it seems evident: even the favorite sports of humans use spheres lol it is the perfect choice for the best motions. The eyes, glands, brains, a water drop, stars, planets, moons, black holes…... this and that ,they are spheroids. People can say whatever they want, but this shape is not like the others and may be the ontological choice of this universe. Regards

marcovici alexandru

while visiting the mathematics university around 2012 i've asked a teacher of mathematics for teaching
a course that taught rare problems inspiring for how to teach mathematics better

is there a physical compass that can do 3d spheres instead of circles ?
an interesting aspect is how to avoid drawing tori and do just spheres
i have a partial answer however did not bother to continue working on the problem

howver recently i saw spherical screens with a spherical television/ large scale cinema

marcovici alexandru

beauty is in the eye of the (beer) beholder
the search for simplicity is a search for making your own brain do something
tells something about how minds works
in my opinion
the simple things like numbers, sphere etc are the peaks of stunning nerve satifaction/ fullfilment
they get unburied from the noise and they do (like questions, or seed) create a bit of further seeing pathways trough the structures, i dont think they are that fundamental
they (should) serve a temporary (understanding)/navigation purpose .not to be worshiped

don't be that amazed by your own present success (misquote thomas zurbuchen)

Steve Dufourny

marcovici alexandru If we analyze the universe and consider its ontological possibilities, what are your thoughts on the idea that 3D spherical Bloch volumes,an extension of the Bloch sphere and Bloch ball for quantum and mixed states, including deeper quintessential quantum states,could provide meaningful insights into the ontology of the universe as well as into quantum computing within Hilbert space?

In the standard Bloch sphere, qubits are represented by pure states located on the surface of the sphere, while mixed states lie inside it. If we extend this to higher-dimensional Bloch-like 3D spherical volumes, we can incorporate more complex states, such as entangled multistates or even qutrits. This leads to richer structural representations and deeper analyses of entanglement and quantum coherences. do you know the Kraus operators,Regards

Steve Dufourny

marcovici alexandru

You are going to understand better. If we consider our actual physics, we need to better understand quantum mechanics and information theory. So if we take the Hilbert space, these spherical 3D Bloch volumes, and the dark energy as informational, like a hardware, and the dark matter as quanta of mass completing the Higgs mechanism like a portal, and the photons as quanta of energy and electromagnetism, and if they merge, that makes sense.
Now in the Hilbert space, we consider the quantum evolution, and so the Kraus operators become interesting for a kind of universal computation. We need structures for information, mass, energy. The universe is fundamentally an informational physical system, and this dark energy is the hardware, and then the software is like the photons and dark matter encoded in this kind of fifth force, antigravitational and informational.
So we can generalize physical systems to Hilbert space and extend quantum states and density matrices. The relevance here is that the quantum states are not abstract, but physical. The information is treated as a physical geometric structure. If the massenergy information equivalence is a reality, instead of only the mass energy equivalence of Einstein, it is relevant ontologically to complete QFT and GR without breaking them.
The Kraus operators and the informational dynamics, if I can say so, become relevant for the evolution of spherical quantum states, so we have quantum channels and the operators depend on densities of information. This dark energy, in this logic, controls the decoherences, the quantum mixed states, the negentropy.....And so we have a relevant link with Landauer’s principle. The Markovian and non-Markovian behaviors in time become relevant for ranking the dynamics and groups with the spherical topological geometric algebras.

Memory and lifetime of information become relevant also. It is like a hardware, this dark energy in this logic, and after we have software with our physics and this dark matter and photons implying ordinary matter and their fields and particles. The universe is a self-evolving informational computing system with 3D spherical volumes, with this dark energy as an informational physical substrate.

Steve Dufourny

marcovici alexandru
Let’s focus on Rosewren’s essay, since this is his page.
What he argues concerns wave–particle duality and the conditions of perception. I find this interesting because the discussion does not only involve photons as physical objects, but also relates to biology, cognitive science, psychology, and therefore has philosophical significance, especially regarding the observer effect.
However, the essay contains several mixed metaphors, and sometimes the reasoning shifts between physical explanation and psychological interpretation without clearly distinguishing them. This leads to confusion between epistemology and ontology .
To strengthen the argument, it would be important to separate psychological perception from physical measurement. In quantum mechanics, waveparticle duality depends on the experimental setup, not on how the human retina interprets the incoming light. Biological systems perceive already measured outcomes ,they do not determine the quantum state before measurement.

Nevertheless, the essay raises meaningful and thought-provoking questions about how measurement, interpretation, and the observer’s role might shape our understanding of quantum phenomena. This brings us to the measurement problem and the ontological interpretation of quantum states, which is why I appreciate the essay , it opens conceptual space for further reflection.

« Previous Page Next Page »