Demonstration Resolving Wave-Particle Duality Paradox.

[webolife]

Yes, I do believe in an objective reality.
That's why the wave-particle duality issue needs to be resolved.
It's hard to do physics in an illusory universe.

[cptn_fantastic]

Thank you Paul.
I guess I've spent too much time in black hole believing vitriolic condescending ridiculing mumbo-jumbo.
I can take on the same flavour on occasion.

[cptn_fantastic]

Yes, I do believe in an objective reality.
That's why the wave-particle duality issue needs to be resolved.
It's hard to do physics in an illusory universe.

An objective reality requires belief.
The absence of belief in an objective reality resolves the wave-particle duality.
That's true.

[cptn_fantastic]

Now I know why the name, Captain Fantastic.

All of it is a picture. None of it is real in the sense we believe it to be- including the picture we have of ourselves!
There is no space, there is no time, there are no things outside of illusion.
There are ten rooms, not one.

Fantastic.

And if a meteorite fell through the roof, and took out one of the ten,
which room would that have occurred in?

I can't answer that, not really. I don't know how it all works.
With regard to this, and more, I'm flummoxed.

However, opining I can do! (It's a forte of mine)

We live in opposite land. Gravity as the predominant force is but one example of many.
Money as debt another. Kings, queens and the legitimate right to rule another.

I take it almost as a matter of principle- if it is a mainstream view the opposite is true.

They own the money, they own the corporations, they own the media, they own the journals, they own the governments, they own education, they own the universities, they own the proffessors, they own the peer review, they own the gate-keepers, they own the funding, they own the resources, they own everything including us. All this made possible through ignorance and belief, yet the opposite is true.

Interpretation Act 1999
PERSON includes a corporation sole, a body corporate, and an unincorporated body.
I am a fact, the person a fiction.

The particle is seperate and indevidual. Ego. The Person.
Waves are whole, complete and indevisible. I Am. Human Being.
Everything is a reflection of everything else.
We've got the lot upside-down and inside-out.


Anywho...it dos'nt really matter...

[cptn_fantastic]

You may want to visit the work of David Bohm, his quantum model is quite radically different from others in his field;
Bohmian Mechanics- An Alternative to Quantum;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rbRVnC92sMs
and
A problem with Bohmian Mechanics? Contextuality;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qz4CHI_W-TA


Enjoy!

Thank you, I did. They assume the existence of a particle.

Does not the EU advocate that there are no isolated islands in space?
A particle is an isolated island in space.
Are they wrong?

[webolife]

Why do you limit your questioning to single particles?
The paradox I entertain is that every particle in the universe in interconnected, therefore the universe behaves like a single particle.
Sorry, I can't buy the universe is illusory gig.
Every claim requires a belief. There is no thoroughly objective claim.
This does not mean the universe is not objective.

[cptn_fantastic]

Why do you limit your questioning to single particles?
The paradox I entertain is that every particle in the universe in interconnected, therefore the universe behaves like a single particle.
Sorry, I can't buy the universe is illusory gig.
Every claim requires a belief. There is no thoroughly objective claim.
This does not mean the universe is not objective.

One wonders then how the universe will behave when confronted with two slits.
Look about you....it is all a picture in mind. We never come in contact with "out there"
It is all a three phase rendition in mind.

If a discrete particle in the form of a photon actually left the photon gun there would be no interference pattern and no issue. The is no reasonable mechanism for a discrete particle to change its behaviour simply because of two slits instead of one. It's just plain silly.
There MUST be a particle; There MUST be missing mass. Both are based upon a belief which the data refutes.
It is the self same silliness as dark matter where the data is made to fit the assumption. If it doesn’t fit it's madness or an exotic something is conjured just to keep the dream alive...

It's not just about the particle- it's about everything.

[saul]

Hmm.. what a lot of nonsense.

There is no paradox here at all, merely nature behaving as you'd intuitively expect it to - as it does on large and small scales. What's the issue folks? Quantized emission of light? Processes are often discrete, it shouldn't be in any way counter-intuitive that when an electron makes a transition in it's energy-state the transition is quantized. Perhaps the issue is that light radiates from such a source in multiple directions? Well anybody familiar with a discrete note played on an instrument, for which the sound radiation is not unidirectional, has an intuitive feeling for this process. Perhaps the issue is that electromagnetic radiation is wave-like in nature? Well this has been well described and understood for centuries and it makes intuitive sense that a moving charge would radiate thusly. I'm not seeing the paradox here.

There are plenty of real mysteries in the world around us folks, I don't see the need to continue pushing a pretend one.

[webolife]

Saul,
Not sure if you're responding to me or the captain...?
I agree that the quantized nature of light owes to its origination in the collapse of an electron field, therefore has little to do with particulate nature.

cptn_fantastic--
I've shown elsewhere, and would be happy to engage with you further on this, that the double slit experiment can be used to show that the spectral pattern is not interference at all. To begin with, the redundant spectrum is an image of the light source field, elicited by the slit or slits as a pinhole apparatus in exactly the same manner as any camera obscura. In the double slit device, when the position of the beamsplitter is modified in ways not allowed by Young's interference model, the spectral pattern persists. For example, if the beamsplitter is moved out of plane with the "outside" slit edges, or if the slit is a "card" instead of a "hair" oriented perpendicular to the slit plane, or if the beamsplitter is used alone without the other slit edges, the spectral pattern remains. When the slit[s] width is appropriately sized, the redundant spectral pattern persists when the beamsplitter is removed, contrary to Young's assumption that the beamsplitter is causing interference. In addition it is easy to demonstrate that the twinned dark lines at the center of a two-slit "interference" pattern are actually shadows of the beamsplitter itself. And no amount of waving can explain why the spectral pattern, far from being a distortion caused by diffraction about the slit edges, is a precise array of true images of the light source. This is [and classically has been] entirely describable by optical ray diagrams, so the simplest description of light behavior in this respect is that light is rays [ie pressure vectors], not waves nor particles.

[freemanjack]

You may want to visit the work of David Bohm, his quantum model is quite radically different from others in his field;
Bohmian Mechanics- An Alternative to Quantum;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rbRVnC92sMs
and
A problem with Bohmian Mechanics? Contextuality;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qz4CHI_W-TA


Enjoy!

Thank you, I did. They assume the existence of a particle.

Does not the EU advocate that there are no isolated islands in space?
A particle is an isolated island in space.
Are they wrong?

I have done my very best to understand the atom, the forces it brings to bear and its component parts since reading Einstein's simplified theory of relativity aged about 10, some 40 yrs ago. Since that point I have followed quantum through quarks, strangeness an charm, into sting and brane theories and on to digital holographic reality theory and my conclusion in this questioning is that we have little or no understanding of what reality is or how its component parts interact. If I knew where I saw it, I would link to a more casual interview bohm did later in his career but this gist of it was, that his private suspicions about the nature of reality was that it is entirely numerical and 'solid matter' is merely the tightly twisted vortexes in the numerical soup. This tallies very closely with my own personally derived conclusions in which I feel forced to hypothesize a model of reality based on a numerical flux underlying a holographic universe. That said, it all still hurts my poor head and I wished someone far cleverer than I would bloody figure out this mess. I work with LED's and simply trying to conceptualize what is happening at the diode boundary seems to only be possible by metaphor and analogy not description based in a real understanding of the complete process. Everything that is, is spinning at some level, that to me is the key to solving all these mysteries.

[webolife]

I have a friend with an entirely mathematical holographic model of the universe. Can't say I can get my head around it. But my model is also highly wrapped around geometric relationships. Vectors and vortices wrapped in a soup of ratios and radii. The stuff of matter is highly imponderable in comparison. What do we know of matter except as objects interact with each other across space. We can measure the space, we can select a point and measure the motion with respect to that. Our understanding of mass is entirely based on how objects interact, and this interaction pattern is centropic [directed toward system centroids]. Vector density relates mass, temperature, voltage, energy and entropy. For me vectors describe the whole observable behavior of light, so I conclude that light IS vectors and that resolves wave-particle paradoxes. It controverts relativistic contradictions and uncertainties. And you can still do actual physical experiments to analyze it.

[freemanjack]

I have a friend with an entirely mathematical holographic model of the universe. Can't say I can get my head around it. But my model is also highly wrapped around geometric relationships. Vectors and vortices wrapped in a soup of ratios and radii. The stuff of matter is highly imponderable in comparison. What do we know of matter except as objects interact with each other across space. We can measure the space, we can select a point and measure the motion with respect to that. Our understanding of mass is entirely based on how objects interact, and this interaction pattern is centropic [directed toward system centroids]. Vector density relates mass, temperature, voltage, energy and entropy. For me vectors describe the whole observable behavior of light, so I conclude that light IS vectors and that resolves wave-particle paradoxes. It controverts relativistic contradictions and uncertainties. And you can still do actual physical experiments to analyze it.

These may be of some interest to you;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eiaF-EG5tiA
Introduction to Digital Virtual Holographic Reality Theory
and
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YlHJ_DhOQH4
Is Reality Plastic? - Digital Virtual Holographic Reality Theory

[comingfrom]

Freeman wrote.

Everything that is, is spinning at some level, that to me is the key to solving all these mysteries.

Miles Mathis has a model that works mathematically.

The key, he says, is that everything is spinning.
He quantizes everything using stacked spins.

That's why I thought, you might appreciate the link.
~Paul

[cptn_fantastic]

I have done my very best to understand the atom, the forces it brings to bear and its component parts since reading Einstein's simplified theory of relativity aged about 10, some 40 yrs ago. Since that point I have followed quantum through quarks, strangeness an charm, into sting and brane theories and on to digital holographic reality theory and my conclusion in this questioning is that we have little or no understanding of what reality is or how its component parts interact. If I knew where I saw it, I would link to a more casual interview bohm did later in his career but this gist of it was, that his private suspicions about the nature of reality was that it is entirely numerical and 'solid matter' is merely the tightly twisted vortexes in the numerical soup. This tallies very closely with my own personally derived conclusions in which I feel forced to hypothesize a model of reality based on a numerical flux underlying a holographic universe. That said, it all still hurts my poor head and I wished someone far cleverer than I would bloody figure out this mess. I work with LED's and simply trying to conceptualize what is happening at the diode boundary seems to only be possible by metaphor and analogy not description based in a real understanding of the complete process. Everything that is, is spinning at some level, that to me is the key to solving all these mysteries.

Golly, at 10 I was still in nappies!- relatively speaking.
I concur- in the main. I feel your pain.

That which is- is not. That which is not- is. Therein lies the paradox....for this one.
Coming to grips, so-to-speak, with the notion; concept; knowledge or understanding that the entire experience of the outside and inside worlds is essentially an electrically drawn "picture" presented in mind, alters the nature of the inquiry entirely. Our heads are the very thing ours heads are trying to get around!
There is an expectation a tiny bit of rock or something will be found upon close inspection of the screen!
The stuff we come into contact with is always the stuff of mind. Every itsy-bitsy teeny-weeny little bit.
We never ever come into direct contact with anything other than the "picture." Not Ever.
There's an expectation the picture is actually a picture of something. The picture could be it.
The head is also the picture- the body is as much the picture as anything else. Hmmmm....
The body then, does not experience anything- the body is experienced. Hmmmm....
Where am I in all this?

I suppose the understanding I seek is as it happens, not as a stored concept. (Though I abound with concepts!)
But um, like I said- flummoxed.

[freemanjack]

I have done my very best to understand the atom, the forces it brings to bear and its component parts since reading Einstein's simplified theory of relativity aged about 10, some 40 yrs ago. Since that point I have followed quantum through quarks, strangeness an charm, into sting and brane theories and on to digital holographic reality theory and my conclusion in this questioning is that we have little or no understanding of what reality is or how its component parts interact. If I knew where I saw it, I would link to a more casual interview bohm did later in his career but this gist of it was, that his private suspicions about the nature of reality was that it is entirely numerical and 'solid matter' is merely the tightly twisted vortexes in the numerical soup. This tallies very closely with my own personally derived conclusions in which I feel forced to hypothesize a model of reality based on a numerical flux underlying a holographic universe. That said, it all still hurts my poor head and I wished someone far cleverer than I would bloody figure out this mess. I work with LED's and simply trying to conceptualize what is happening at the diode boundary seems to only be possible by metaphor and analogy not description based in a real understanding of the complete process. Everything that is, is spinning at some level, that to me is the key to solving all these mysteries.

Golly, at 10 I was still in nappies!- relatively speaking.
I concur- in the main. I feel your pain.

That which is- is not. That which is not- is. Therein lies the paradox....for this one.
Coming to grips, so-to-speak, with the notion; concept; knowledge or understanding that the entire experience of the outside and inside worlds is essentially an electrically drawn "picture" presented in mind, alters the nature of the inquiry entirely. Our heads are the very thing ours heads are trying to get around!
There is an expectation a tiny bit of rock or something will be found upon close inspection of the screen!
The stuff we come into contact with is always the stuff of mind. Every itsy-bitsy teeny-weeny little bit.
We never ever come into direct contact with anything other than the "picture." Not Ever.
There's an expectation the picture is actually a picture of something. The picture could be it.
The head is also the picture- the body is as much the picture as anything else. Hmmmm....
The body then, does not experience anything- the body is experienced. Hmmmm....
Where am I in all this?

I suppose the understanding I seek is as it happens, not as a stored concept. (Though I abound with concepts!)
But um, like I said- flummoxed.

I can't help thinking that much of the confusion surrounding the entire subject of the nature and source of reality stems from current mind sciences' insistence that mind is an emergent property of brain rather than as a 'transceiver of a non-local mind' as some more enlightened thinkers are intimating. Which would suggest our experience as 'individuated consciousness units' is the illusory part and we are nothing more than an individuated region of a biologically generated field effect we sense as 'reality'. Some initial premises are necessary in any model of reality and for mine I try to stick to 'what we know about now' and work outwards, assuming reality is not merely an illusory collective (or individual) delusion. For me quantum tells us reality likes whole numbers, units if you prefer, and that matter appears to adhere to a numerical and geometric conformity. If results like the crystallization of novel chemicals effect, where novel compounds crystallize ever more rapidly globally after their first isolation is considered to be indicative of the nature of reality as a whole, then complexification or evolution over time may be conceived of as a force of a sort. My hypothesis uses 'beneficence' to describe the directional arrow and 'obsolescence' its counterbalancing effect. So, we have a system, numerically and geometrically confined, with an evolutionary arrow of complexity, biology is merely a local experiment in complexity being run by the universal algorithm to explore sentience, as such everything we perceive may well be 'illusory' in the traditional sense while being 'as real as it gets' in any meaningful context, a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma if you will.
Oh and Einstein @ 10? older sister sitting BEd at goldsmiths in the 70's used me as her dissertation experiment and spent her entire degree course force feeding me complex literature and then testing my measured vocabulary!! Not sure if I should praise her or curse her fer 'modifying my mind' at such a tender age!
and the 'freeman' tag is my online avatar persona, it's just jack to my friends