Sometimes you have a new thought, an idea, or eureka moment, but it’s not gutsy enough to expand into a reasonable length article or essay. So, here’s another potpourri of thoughts dealing with quantum physics and related, too good not to record, but with not enough meat available to flesh out. People reading this will hopefully be somewhat familiar with the terms and jargon used. If not, well that’s why dictionaries exist!
The Double-Slit Experiment
Of course you know all about the paradox with the Double-Slit Experiment. Say you rapid-fire actual particles (i.e. – Carbon-60 Bucky-Balls*) as your ammo. If one slit is open, you get particle behaviour (as expected). If two slits are open, you get wave behaviour (that’s weird). If Bucky-Ball particles are fired at both slits one at a time (i.e. – one passes through the slits before the next is fired) you get wave behaviour (that’s crazy). Now bring in the observer. If an observer looks to see which slit of the two slits the one-at-a-time Bucky-Ball particle actually goes through, at the time it goes through, you get particle behaviour (which contradicts the previous results). If an observer looks to see which slit of two slits the Bucky-Ball particles go through AFTER the particles go through, you again get particle behaviour (contradicting the previous results). That’s totally crazy, since how can the Bucky-Ball particles change behaviour from wave to particle AFTER they have already passed and gone through the slits?
If a particle were at the core in essence a wave, you should always get wave behaviour in the Double-Slit Experiment and that’s clearly not the case. Something is screwy somewhere! If I were a quantum physicist, methinks I’d end up being an alcoholic quantum physicist! It’s enough to drive you to seriously drink.
Ah, the $64,000 question! One photon, or electron, or Bucky-Ball or whatever, that is faced with an either/or choice when approaching two side-by-side slits, exhibits 7.62×39 hunting ammo a dual personality and goes through both thus resulting in a classic wave interference pattern. That of course is Twilight Zone physics. Of course if Richard Feynman didn’t understand this, I’m not sure I should be expected to either, but here goes a few possibilities.
The first is that perhaps there might be leakage of photons, etc. through micro-wormholes from parallel universes such that while the experimenter thinks there is just one photon in the picture, there actually isn’t. Okay, thumbs down.
The second is what happens in the delayed double-slit experiment? Well apparently if one allows the single photon or electron or Bucky-Ball or whatever to pass through the double-slits, but then pulls a swiftly and removes the broad screen detector revealing instead two detectors that are aligned with each of the two slits, then one or the other detector will detect the photon, etc. each and every time. In other words, after the photon, etc. passed through the double-slits, it somehow realised the gig was up and changed its mind and thus passed through just one of the two slits. How is this explained? Either the photon, etc. has awareness and a limited amount of free will (panpsychism), or else it time travels back into the past to the starting point and hence travels through one or the other slit. Harking back to the standard double-slit experiment with a both slits open scenario, the photon, etc. passes through one slit, then doubles back (in time) and then passes through the other slit. You have just crossed over into “The Twilight Zone”.
Thirdly, and probably the traditional explanation, is that at point of emission and detection the photon or electron or Bucky-Ball is a particle, but in-between its alpha and omega it is a wave. That is of course unless there is only the single-slit option open when the wave fails to manifest itself which again implies consciousness or awareness on the part of the photon, etc. It knows in advance whether or not one or both slits are open and shape-shifts accordingly. IMHO that’s also nuts.
Fourthly, it is all a computer simulation. Be it Hollywood special effects, or software programming, the required illusion or paradox can be easily achieved. I’ve gone on record as saying that the anomalies that are part and parcel of quantum physics can best be explained via the Simulated (Virtual Reality) Universe scenario. No double-slit experiment shows BOTH wave behaviour AND particle behaviour at the same time. One slit open and two slits open are two separate experiments. The former shows particle behaviour; the later wave behaviour. The question is how to explain the duality which seems paradoxical. Even Richard Feynman by his own admission couldn’t explain it. IMHO programmed software does the trick rather neatly!
So no doubt you believe, even with qualifiers, that Schrodinger’s Cat is both alive and dead at the same time (however short that interval might be) since it is entangled with that radioactive nucleus that has both decayed and not decayed at the same time (however short that interval might be).
Here’s a lesson in common sense, or more formally logic if you will – something cannot both be and not be at the same time in the same place for however briefly a time. To suggest otherwise is just pure ignorance. If you make the claim to the contrary, show me the evidence that superposition-of-state and the so-called (alleged and associated) ‘collapse’ of the wave-function is experimentally true. You can’t because when you allegedly ‘collapse’ the wave-function with your observation or measurement, how do you know the alleged wave-function wasn’t already ‘collapsed’ by the time you peeked or more to the point perhaps in reality had always been in a ‘collapsed’ state on the logical grounds that the wave-function can’t ‘collapse’ since there was no superposition-of-state with an associated wave-function that required ‘collapsing’ in the first place. The ‘collapse’ is pure fiction.
Further, there’s no experiment that demonstrates a superposition-of-state that something is simultaneously BOTH in this state AND in that state at the same time and place. That’s because experimental results always show that you end up with this state OR that state. Experiments designed to detect particles find particles; experiments designed to detect waves detect waves, even if the experiments are closely related, like the Double-Slit experiment and variations on the theme.