Examining the Slit Experiment

[arkain101]

In order to support my posts to some degree and show I am not chasing the wind here, I want to show that there is a simularity between the double slit experiment results and what I have put forth as a suggestive perspective of thought.

In the slit experiment, the reasoning is, photons (or electrons etc) can go through one slit and act particle like or the other slit and the same. It can go through both and interfear withitself like a wave.

The key word here is like.

One slit creates a single band, like a particle can and like a wave can. Two slits creates a interference pattern, like a wave might. Trying to measure with a signal before the slits can break down the the wave function and cause it to create two bands like two streams of particles or like two waves that are no longer interfear with eachother.

As for simularity between that, and the framework of reality having mental constructs and physical properties;

As I said all objects that are known as things (physical objects), and behave in familiarity to macroscopic things we know, are mental contructs.

Here is the connection:
Although particles and objects are mental constructs in the mind an not things (relative to mass-energy-matter), they are also things (relative to the mind). This is, Things are also, either non physical mental constructs or actual physical things. Similar to the logic of reasoning found in the double slit experiments, objects in general are both physical and mental, or just physical and not mental, or just mental and not physical, or neither.

The same relative circumstance comes into play at the macro world as it does in the micro world.

The circumstance creates the product, relative to the context of the investigation.

If you exclude the observer from the experiment, you find confusing results of wave-particle duality. But, it takes an observer to then make this claim of the results.(so the observer is never actually out of the experiment).

If you include the observer, you can conclude all observations are mental constructs (of non-tangibility), or physical fundamental things (of non mental requirement).

So,

In my proposal; (macro)
(i)If I investigate the world with the presupposition that I am going to find an object of material form, then when I find evidence of it, I will conclude I have have some support what I am looking for.
(ii)If I investigate the world with the presupposition that I am going to find something made by my mind but is not an actual object relative to the fundamentals that form it, when I find evidence for it, I can conlude I again have support of what I am looking for.

What we find on the micro scale
(i)If I set up an experiment in a specific form, I will find evidence that suggest the form of what I am testing. Such as a wave like function, and can make a conclusion that the unknown I am observering has evidence of wave characteristics similar to those that I can accurately observe in the macro world.
(ii)If I set up an experiment in a specific form, I will find evidence that suggest the form of what I am testing. Such as a particle like function, and can make a conclusion that the unknown I am observering has evidence of particle like characteristics, similar to those that I can accurately observe in the macro world.

Now the trinity of logic, relitivity, & circumstance.

1)
If there is or was a fundamental so called physical object responsible for space and time, mass and energy. If it was alone (like a photon is suggested to be capble of) it would have no connection to its surroundings by any kind of information connection. Space, time, & mass could not logically or physically be added to this particular fundamentals property. If it is the source of property, then it itself is not contained by those properties, and thus it becomes unrestricted as is light. Both through characteristics, and through relativistic reasoning.

2)
As for a pair (parity) such as matter, There is velocity, there is space, and because of this, time is intwined as a product or replacement for velocity or energy. If there is time, there is then mass, for mass is intimitly intwined with acceleration the time of change of space.

In a fundamental pairity system such as a negatron-positron pair, the logic implied is that neither is dominant or responsible for any change between them. Each can assume the exact same thing the other assumes, but, only in a mirrored format.

3)
The third stage is Tri relativity. (triality).
In the relativistic sense, once 3 reference frames form a system (group) each of the 3 can create a certainty amongst the circumstances. If we have a,b, and c. If we observe from 'c' we say we are at rest. Then we can conclude that b and a are moving, and we can decifer infact which one is moving or changing. It could be either one, or both. (but in pairity there is no certainty of this such).

conclusion
So in this format, there is requirement and implication of the logic of mind and logic on matter, in order to design a theoretically logical framework to imply onto reality with the scientific data we find.

This does not satisfy what is matter, mass, or energy in a singular definition, but that is because even reason itself contains the same format found in the quantum weirdness of our currently understood core of reality.

[Drum]

.. Arkain101 ..

The key word here is like.

One slit creates a single band, like a particle can and like a wave can. Two slits creates a interference pattern, like a wave might. Trying to measure with a signal before the slits can break down the the wave function and cause it to create two bands like two streams of particles or like two waves that are no longer interfear with eachother.

As for simularity between that, and the framework of reality having mental constructs and physical properties;

As I said all objects that are known as things (physical objects), and behave in familiarity to macroscopic things we know, are mental contructs.

In my opinion, this is not quite correct.

One slit creates a single diffuse band, regardless of the number or timing of the particles.
Two (or more) slits create a wave pattern. The wave pattern infers the collision or interaction of many particles all in the (approx) same space and time frame.

These actions satisfy physical objects (things) in our macroscopic world…. Whether we interpret them scientifically or as mental constructs.

However, when a single object (particle) creates a wave pattern (a pattern only produced by the action of the collective or many) then this can no longer be interpreted by a 'mental construct'. This does not mean that scientifically it does not happen.

.. Arkain101 .. The circumstance creates the product, relative to the context of the investigation.

If you exclude the observer from the experiment, you find confusing results of wave-particle duality. But, it takes an observer to then make this claim of the results.(so the observer is never actually out of the experiment).

The only thing that is confused by the results is our mental construct. The Maths/Science is not confused.

With your Macro proposal I tend to loosely agree, but not so with your Micro. Sophisticated experiments have been setup and tested, many, many times to rule out any bias by 'mental constructs'. These experiments do not set out to 'find' expected results but are setup on the principal of 'Devil's Advocate'. You infer that the experimenter can never be totally dis-associated from the experiment, I disagree ... of course an experiment must take place somewhere in the universe and we are part of that universe... but this is not a position that can be debated sensibly.

On the 'Trinity', points one and two I do not really follow. Its possible we have different ideas on space and time. On point three I don't agree with the logic. If we decide arbitrarily that we (C) are at rest in the 3 reference system, why can we also not make that arbitrary decision in the 2 reference system? The 3 reference system allows no more accurate deductions than the 2 reference system. In either system all deductions are relative ??

Furthermore, the 'Trinity' with its three postulates seems to contradict Kickass's contention that nothing can be stated conclusively.

The 'logic of mind' and the 'logic on matter', where they agree we feel content. That is not to say they must. The Cosmos is not regulated to suit our ideas of rational .. we may never have explanations that suit our ideas of logic ... But what we currently have is similar to saying the Earth is round, as opposed to the Earth is flat. These may both ultimately prove incorrect descriptions of the Earth. But 'round' is not as wrong as 'flat'

Please understand that these are my opinions only, I have been wrong many times before ... Drum

[arkain101]

Nice post.

I should mention its a concept in progress of course. A perspective for investigation, one of many that we must always have in an investigation.

[Drum]

Arkain101 ......

You have given me some new ideas. Of course you are right when you point out that your idea is a concept in progress.

I have long been trying to formulate some method of equating 'Science' with our mental understanding. Especially as we have to accept Quantum mechanics for the moment .... the most bizarre of explanations to our logic.

Your idea of 'mental constructs' has much more to it than I gave credit for in my previous reply. However, it did not leave my thoughts until late into the night, and I determined as soon as possible to make amends.

Its still possible that I mis-intrepreted 'mental construct', but it has broken through a wall in my mind that has held me back for a long time. My favourite hobby horse has always been Evolution and your idea has at last allowed me to go some way towards uniting (or should I say including) Science within Evolution. Evolution, to my way of thinking must be able to explain the Cosmos from the beginning to the end.

My previous reply was too hasty, and while our ideas may not totally agree I now admit that your reply contained much more than I initially thought. I hope to post a thread summing up my ideas on all this soon.

kindest regards .... Drum

[KickAssClown]

A vast thanks to everyone.

Let us turn our eye from the result of the experiment, and the explanation for the results. Let us turn our eye instead to the setup of the experiment.

We have a box. It can be made of any kind of material, but what we are interested in is that it is, in fact, made of material. We have a material emitter, and we have a material detector. Underlying it all, we have the result of the presence of material: space-time. What is emitted is either a photon or an electron; either way, it's also material.

Classically, we would rule out interference of the experiment from the experimental apparatus as negligible. Contemporarily, we know the observer, the observed, and the environment in which they exist interfere with one another. At the individual or aggregate particle scale that our experiment operates, it would seem that the degree of experimental interference would be considerable.

It would seem to me from the explanations that I have been offered and that I have discovered for myself that the effect of the apparatus upon the test sample is neglected.

Amongst my concerns are the infinite well, the principle of least action/least resistance, and field composition. A photon which is confined to a box will have an escalating probability of escaping the box by whatever path most probable. Which path is determined by the composition of the space-time the photon traverses. The composition of space-time is determined by the material which pervades it.

Why would it be necessary for the photon to pass through the slits if it has other paths available to it? Including joining with/reflecting from/deflecting off/etc the barrier, the box, the emitter, or the other side of the detector? What prevents the photon from interacting with, interfering with, and being interfered with by the ambient materials? Same for the electron, but doubly so. It is said the photon interferes with itself. I say there is insufficient proof as presented to rule out components of the experimental apparatus as culprits.

Below is a rough sketch of what I am getting at. The cone is the emitter, the blue wave is the emitted particle, and the black waves are the boundaries of the experiment delineated by the material making up the experiment.

Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.
-Ian

[arkain101]

I came across this web page recently. It talks about a mechanical solution for the results of the double slit experiments. The author also describes a way to test his claims. It made sense to me, I'd like to see it performed.

Link: The Double Slit Experiment by Miles Williams Mathis

[arkain101]

I came across this article and found it so similar to 'my findings' if you will.

-Something for the mind to chew-


Mathematician suggests extra dimensions are time-like




Cartan’s triality symbol links two twistor space and space-time. Image credit: Erin Sparling
“In my case, I am led to the conclusion that the ordinary four dimensional space-time extends naturally into six dimensions: the four dimensional space is hyperbolic as usual, but in the surrounding space there are equal numbers (3 each) of space and time dimensions, so the formula for s2 reads something like s2 = x2 + y2 + z2 - t2 - u2 - v2, where u and v represent the new time variables. I call this structure a (3, 3)-structure (mathematicians call it ultra-hyperbolic).”




So similar... so similar.

Originally Posted by Arkain101

(as posted above) The third stage is Tri relativity. (triality).

Originally Posted by Arkain101

6 possible formations of fundamental logic:

We can say:
+ has 2 options
- has two options
-0 has two options

This is can be said as the 6 possible transformations of the given states when considering an interaction between 2 objects (observed from an outside 3rd reference frame).

So in other words: These are the building blocks of possibilities of transformations of change for one event. For, any observed event must require an interaction of a minimum of two objects relative to an observation frame.

( => represents transform to or change to )
1) + => -
2) + => 0
3) 0 => +
4) 0 => -
5) - => +
6) - => 0

[johnfp]

Excellent reading. I love this stuff.
Here is another thought based on the statement that we really don't know what light is.

If light travels at the speed of light then it must have time = 0. This means that photon can be everywhere at the same time. With that being said and the understanding that everything is make up of this "light" stuff (yes even protrons, electrons and nuetrons) then the entire universe is made up of one particle that is everywhere at the same time until time clicks to the next time frame. From there the single particle receives information from itself on where to be for the next click in unlimitied simutaneous positions.

This seems to explain most quantum anomalies.