Then what about the screen with the spot? — Cartuna

The spot is in this physical universe. That is, its location is in terms of 4d spacetime. The thing that made the spot/trace effect, is no longer observable and not in our 4d universe in the sense that it cannot be located here. Outside detection (ie interaction with a physical device) nothing can be said about its location.

As a side note, the Higgs mechanism is an outwordly mechanism in the sense that it exists in the outworldly realm of the mind. Higgs' Mexican Hat was one a size too big. Or too small, depending on your point of view. Nature doesn't wear Mexican hats. How can a field have energy if only virtual particles are present? Could be an explanation in the context of inflation but then negative vacuum energy has to be present. Nature wears other hats. Not confabulated.

And the screen itself? As we see it in the other world too?

It is located in 4d spacetime.

So the particles in it are in the other realm?

Yes, but I'm speaking only about geometry/spacetime. Spacetime is a geometric concept. In real terms everything is 'here' but in geometric terms there are two geometries, quantum and ordinary 4d physical geometry. Location is a geometric concept. A particle can leave a trace effect at a location in 4d spacetime but where was it before/after it left that trace effect? Bohr says this question cannot be answered and that effectively means it is not located in a 4d geometry it is in quantum spacetime.

Interesting! I'm not sure why it shouldn't always leave a trace though. Or potentially at least. After a particle has left a trace in a cloud chamber, can't it just continue in empty spacetime? In empty space, the particle's wavefunction will waver out, because it's not constantly measured. More and more possible paths will develop, while not interacting, while in the cloud chamber it seems to take one. Actually, this one path consists of many condensed paths following each other up serially, thus creating a seemingly stable path. Between two follow up interactions with the cloud, the small bundle of paths wavers a bit, then upon interacting reduces again to a narrow bundle, then wavers out again, then narrows again, etc, untill the end of the cloud is met, the particle doesn't interact anymore and the paths waver out freely into space. Ready to meat new cloud chambers, like a cosmic particle entering the atmosphere, while before entering ìt traveled on many paths at the same time (or in the hidden variables approach, they change constantly from path to path. You seem to place non-interacting particles in a quantum space.

It only leaves a physical trace effect when it is being detected. Otherwise we don't know where it is, because it is nowhere (in physical spacetime). Detection means that the particle is made to create a trace effect in physical terms. This trace effect allows us to say where the particle is in 4d spacetime. But we can't really say the particle is 'there' we can only say the trace effect is 'there'. The trace effect may be particle-like but that does not mean the thing that made if is a particle. The trace effect may be wave-like but that does not mean the thing is a wave. 'Particle' and 'wave' are concepts that derive from the ordinary, physical 4d spacetime geometry. We don't really know what the thing is but it is convenient to call it a particle. We only know that there is a thing that leaves particle/wave-like trace effects. The thing that is doing this is an unknown.

It only leaves a physical trace effect when it is being detected. Otherwise we don't know where it is, because it is nowhere (in physical spacetime). Detection — EnPassant

That's the question. After interacting, particle trajectories still evolve in 4d spacetime. Wavering out into space and running towards one momentum, but still. There is no inherent reason to assume that non-interacting particle fields don't exist here. Of course there is a difference with interacting fields. You could relay the difference to an extra domain though, say a non-interacting domain showing if particles interact or not. This is in fact done in QFT. Non interacting particles are placed outside the domain of the scattering matrix. Though you could include them, giving rise to disconnected Feynman diagrams.

All I know about the double-slit experiment is that it implies God doesn't exist because if he did, since He's an all-seeing (omniscient) observer, the electron should always behave as a particle!

Split personality?

Have physicists ever tried this: One experimenter (x) observes the slits and another ( y ) observes x observing the double slit experiment? You know, a god's-eye-view!

One experimenter (x) observes the slits and another ( y ) observes x observing the double slit experiment? You know, a god's-eye-view! — Agent Smith

Just slipping in here. This was considered as a thought experiment in Everett's paper "The Theory of the Universal Wavefunction"; in particular the introduction. There, "the slits" abstracts into any experiment and is S. Your x is A. Your y is B.

Wigner's friend! I remember that!

The double slit experiment is horse crap
They have never been able to track a single photon infact we have never seen a photon the photon remains a hypothesis not a fact and so the entire experiment is a BS story

They have never been able to track a single photon infact we have never seen a photon the photon — MAYAEL

That's because photons don't emit photons themselves. So you can't see them. You can see them indirectly by letting them interact with the double slit equipment, look at the screen on which means looking at the screen. The screen emits invisible photons interacting with your eye (ou might even use your retina as the screen. You would see the interference directly), so you can see where they were when they interacted. When a photon has interacted with the screen, there will be a spots visible, by means of other photons reaching your eyes. The spots build up a complete interference pattern. The process of photons traveling in spacetime is not visible by itself (you can't enlighten them to make them visible), and in a sense all photons are virtual (so not only the ones between electrically charged particles, being the means for interaction).

So not being able to see them doesn't mean you can't imagine them to fly in space. The photons can't be seen but they still are there. Like a hidden force of nature.

The process of photons traveling in spacetime is not visible by itself (you can't enlighten them to make them visible), and in a sense all photons are virtual (so not only the ones between electrically charged particles, being the means for interaction). — Raymond

It has been very well demonstrated that light energy transmits through space, from one place to another, as a wave motion. The idea that there are photonic particles which move through space from one place to another, is a theory which is completely unsupported by empirical evidence.

But waves include particles. All particles in the universe are physically described by point particles and wavefunctions can be seen as cross sections of all paths these particles are on simultaneously. Or jumping from one path to another. The jury still hasn't decided on that one yet.

It has been very well demonstrated that light energy transmits through space, from one place to another, as a wave motion — Metaphysician Undercover

How has this transfer been seen seen then? Light moving through a bottle with liquid?

So not being able to see them doesn't mean you can't imagine them to fly in space. The photons can't be seen but they still are there. Like a hidden force of nature. — Raymond

Particles are a product of our imagination, although useful at times as a model when there are little perturbations about. The photon shown in a Fenyman diagram between pairs of electrons is virtual, not to be confused with virtual particles in fields. This virtual photon is actually a disturbance in the photon field caused by the electron fields. All interactions involve quantum fields at heart, not particles but as sometimes for short. Photons and electrons go through two slits to form an interference pattern because they are directly field quanta.

How has this transfer been seen seen then? Light moving through a bottle with liquid? — Raymond

That light transmits as waves is evident from the visual observation of refraction.

That light transmits as waves is evident from the visual observation of refraction. — Metaphysician Undercover

But how do you visual observe this?



Maybe it's particles all the way down. Maybe we are ignorant about the nature of space and the wavefunction. What if there are only particles and space is a structure that surrounds the particles, and this space is interacting non-locally with the particle?

But how do you visual observe this? — Raymond

A rainbow, a prism. This phenomena is explained with reference to waves.

So the waves are imaginary too. You can't see the shape of wavefunction, just as you can't see the particles inside of it. A gravity wave on the water is a material wave. You can observe the shape of the matter waving. Waterwaves and and slits:



The water wave is observable. And so is a "water particle" making up the wave. But this doesn't hold for a wave function and the particle that makes it up. In a water wave, the particles making it up are water particles (small volumes of water, or maybe even H2O particles, though these are not directly observable). But the relation between quantum wave functions and particles is a different one than between water waves and constituent water particles. The constituent particles of the quantum wave are not the particles inside it. The two water waves will enhance each other at fixed locations, while canceling at other points. At the constructive interference regions the water particles show an increased amount of motion, while at the destructive interference regions the water shows no motion at all. The water wave is a periodic motion of the constituting water particles and waves, in the double slit case, can be superimposed linearly (which can't be done in the linear case). It is the water itself that waves, but in the quantum wave what is waving, if not constituting particles? The probability of finding a photon? But then why photons are not real but the waves are? The situation can be resolved by looking at the wave function realistically. Considering it to be made up of waving stuff pushing the particle along within its confines. So both the particle and the wave are real. The particle finds itself at a well defined position and has a well defined momentum at the same time, and collapse is no problem anymore but just a non-local happening when the particle interacts with the screen (for example).

The situation can be resolved by looking at the wave function realistically. Considering it to be made up of waving stuff pushing the particle along within its confines. — Raymond

I don't think this would work. The "waving stuff" would be transmitting energy from A to B, and also the moving particle would transmit energy from A to B, so way too much energy would be moving between A and B, violating the conservation of energy law.

If you assume the non local wave to contain energy yes. If not not.

How could the wave push the particle if it didn't have energy?

I don't think the wave is a wave consisting of other particles which push the particle. The stuff the wave is made of non-local stuff that dictates the particle where to be without exchanging energy with it. If you consider a Gaussian wave packet as you wave function, the particle is hopping around in the packet. Sometimes it's on the edges and sometimes in the middle. It's most of the times in the middle as the density of the wave stuff is highest there. The packet travels with a global velocity, and the particle "dances around" in it. It has a well-defined position at all times, though it changes continuously, instantaneously jumping from one position to another. The velocity is dependent on the packet's main velocity, and dances around like position, but the more position is confined by the shape of the wave function, the less the velocity is confined. You need two measurements of position and the more confined the particle is in space the faster the wavepacket spreads, which is an indication of the spread in velocities you measure (the momentum operator is associated with the derivative of the position, which is again based on momentum being the generator of translations in space, so maybe the stuff of the wave function is space itself, as I can't think of anything more non-local than space...).

he stuff the wave is made of non-local stuff that dictates the particle where to be without exchanging energy with it. — Raymond

If "the wave" is a theory which is intended to determine the probabilities of where a particle may be found, then it is not really active in causing the particle to be anywhere. And we cannot say that it is the wave that causes the particle to be where it is, because the wave is theory only. What we need to consider is what is causing the particle to be where it is. If the wave is the cause, then the energy is the property of the wave.

But if there is a wave which is active in causing the particle to be where it is, and the energy must be attributed to the wave, this leaves the particle as having no energy proper to it. Therefore the particle is non-existent during that time period when the wave is causing it to move from here to there, and it is not an acceptable representation to propose a particle being pushed by a wave.

The particle in the wave is not pushed in the way it pushed other particles, by means of mediating particles. If the particle interacts with other particles, the wave collapses physically. The wave as a mathematical function is theory also.

The particle is present always. Why can't it hop from one place to another instantaneously? As is can move continuously, why not discontinuously?

actually not photons they're micro glowing unicorns and my hypothesis is equally as valid as the photon hypothesis because both are imagined in the mind while the scientists lies about the test saying that we can shoot individual photons or in my case glowing unicorns one by one and observe doing this in which staring at it changes its interference pattern because unicorns are self-conscious and don't like being watched when they're doing their thing