The Crystallizing Universe

Hi Amrit,

Thanks , I like you know your works, I find them physicals and spirituals.

Thanking you for the sharing.

Best Regards

Steve

Breaking Views!

Please read and comment!

Quoting from the article The Crystallizing Universe by Kate Becker, describing the enigmas of the double-slit experiment,

"Imagine a laser shooting photons toward a screen. Between the laser and the screen is a thin wall with two tiny slits in it. (This is an old physics workhorse called the double-slit experiment.) Gaze at the screen and you'll see an interference pattern generated by the light diffracting off the two slits and interfering on the other side. From this, you'd conclude that light must be a wave, flowing through space like a ripple through the ocean.

Now imagine that you can roll up the screen like a window shade. Behind it, you've placed two detectors-one lined up with each slit-that can register individual photons. When you now repeat the experiment without the screen, the detectors tell you that the photons are sailing straight through the slits like bullets, with no hint that an interference pattern could ever have been produced. From this experiment, you'd conclude that light must be a particle.

Could it be that light somehow "knows" what kind of experiment it is entering, and adjusts its behavior accordingly? It seems impossible, but experiment after experiment shows that if you're looking for a wave, light will act like a wave. Seek a particle, and light will be every inch a particle. Confused? So were quantum physicists.

To test the limits of this experiment, venerable physicist John Archibald Wheeler proposed playing a little trick on the photons. Why not wait to decide whether to do a "wave measurement" or a "particle measurement" until after the photons have already been through the slits and-presumably-have already picked whether to behave as particles or waves? This delayed-choice experiment was actually performed in 2006, and it proved that you can't fool photons. The light still behaved as a particle to the detectors and a wave to the screen"

The explanation is simple! What we are observing is not the nature of light (wave or particle) but the nature of the apparatus used for the experiment. We observe what the apparatus is designed by us to tell us! This is no less different than people seeing what they are looking for. Our instruments may be defining 'reality' in other ways as well.

In my short paper A Plausible Explanation of the Double-slit Experiment, I am able to explain the Tonomura 1989 'single electron emission' double-slit experiment using the following principles:

1)The 'electron emitted' is not the same as the 'electron detected'. These are two different and separate (though related) 'events'. There is no 'trajectory' connecting the two.

2)Globally energy propagates continuously as a wave while locally energy interacts discretely, when local equilibrium conditions are attained.

3)We have 'accumulation of energy' before 'manifestation of energy'.

Using these same principles it is also possible to derive Planck's Formula for blackbody radiation and prove that it is an exact mathematical identity that describes the interaction of energy.

Constantinos

Hello,

just a remark to the wording:

as the present "crystallizes" from the past.

A crystal crystallizes from the melt/solute.

I. e. from the chaotic (liquid) phase.

So Your sentece above should read:

"as the present "crystallizes" from the future.

Regards

Georg

If there is no time in the universe, this does not mean universe is without motion. We relate time with motion what is wrong. Numerical order of change in the BLOCK UNIVERSE we measure with clocks.Attachment #1: 1_Block_Universe.pdf

That the present moment is the function of wave collapse is I think "right on" . I see the universe as a time machine in which the present moment is generated by the"knitting together" or wave collapse of the sub-atomic world. Our universe is thus brought into existence, the present moment is continually being created by the actions underlying atomic structure. This creates the sense of time flow that we experience. Actions in our world are merely relativistic events taking place on the backdrop of the continually created universe, much as we see an image projected on a movie screen.

Interesting that Cramer's Transactional Interpretation of QM also suggests that space-time is "crystalising" as standing waves are set up in the interference pattern generated from advance and retarded waves. As waves propagate backwards and forwards in time, each standing wave that forms (looking to us like the path of a particle even though there were only waves) creates a new bit of the past.

Maybe it helps to reduce the number of dimensions. Suppose we are two-dimensional creatures on a sphere. Space is the surface of the sphere, and time is the third dimension directed from the centre of the sphere outwards. As time passes the sphere grows. To us it seems that space is expanding, as the surface area increases. The past is the crystalised mass of the "inside" of the sphere. The future is the empty space outside the sphere.

[math]\vec{D}=\vec{y} \hat{E} \ sen \left{(} \omega t-kx \right{)} \vec{x} \hat{E} \ cos \left{(} \omega t-kx \right{)}[/math]

This is the electric displacement in vacuum for the photon, when it travel along the x axis. No physical wave is purely transversal or purely longitudinal, even in vacuum. All waves have both components, longitudinal and transversal. Photon's wave implies a density of linked electric charge, that is a wave of linked charge density. This is the beggining of a series of theorems, which give as a result all relativistic and quantum postulates. And give the theoretical value of the fine structure constant, without using any experimental data.

Dear Anonymous,

"This is the beginning of a series of theorems, which give as a result all relativistic and quantum postulates. And give the theoretical value of the fine structure constant, without using any experimental data."

Is this possible? Yes! Can it be correct? I don't think so. I don't yet know your theorems; however, 'givens' cannot serve the goal unchallenged. I like this subject and will respectfully follow it. I know that truth is the ultimate goal.

James Putnam