MY SPECULATIVE RESOLUTION TO THE DOUBLE SLIT PHENOMENON
(Speculative, very speculative, but fascinating, none the less…)
First we’ll look again at some diagrams of the Double Slit Experiment:
(Speculative, very speculative, but fascinating, none the less…)
First we’ll look again at some diagrams of the Double Slit Experiment:
If you consider what I have discussed regarding the Quantum Zeno Effect, the fact that we absolutely control the flow of forward (asymmetric) linear time by conscious observation, the rate of observation, by sustained attention (increase in Uncertainty, slowing time; we don’t know nor can we predict where the arrow will strike because it is not in motion) and release (increase in Certainty, speeding the passage of time; we know more certainly and can predict where the arrow will strike because it is in motion), then take into account that under the absolute rules of General Relativity, as time slows, space curves inward, the following proposed mechanism begins to make sense.
I have labeled two of the bands as ‘A’ and ‘B’ above. The detector, usually or often just a piece of emulsion film, is the method of observation. We cannot observe the particles or photons before the detector, that much has been proven, if we do, the interference pattern disappears. That, too, is important, if you follow.
As we observe the points ‘A’ and ‘B’ real time slows, they merge as the same point, but the merging is not well defined, because the observer’s observation is not well defined, time itself is not well defined, but ‘smeary,’ the points merge in the form of a gradient, not a perfect overlap. It is the points ‘A’ and ‘B’ that during the experiment merge in the form of a gradient, not a sharp merging. The photon, in this case (can be electrons, etc.) is striking one point in space (space-time), but the point is merging with another point in space-time, in a nebulous form, because time is not absolute or well defined, as I’ve pointed out continuously throughout this work.
When we pull the piece of film out and develop it, or whatever detector we use, we see that it appears the single photons have struck in a way that appears superficially to ‘interfere with itself,’ which is not entirely incorrect, since the points ‘A’ and ‘B’ in space-time where they struck were merging in the form of a gradient due to conscious observation via the Quantum Zeno Effect, and the rule that observation slows time, General Relativity requires then that as time slows space curves inward, the points ‘A’ and ‘B’ merge as a smear because time is smeary and not well defined, and an interference pattern is the result. The photon (or particle) is striking in one place, but that ‘place’ contains two points in space-time (‘A’ and ‘B’) that have merged or are merging; again, as a gradient, because time is not absolute, but smeary.
The disappointing result is that we are not directly choosing the outcome, but the ironic twist is that we are affecting the outcome by changing the flow of time by conscious observation. We are indirectly selecting the outcome. Thus, all attempts to directly affect the outcome (for instance, choose which slit the photons pass through) to support the original hypothesis fail, because direct selection is not what it occurring. As a result, we get two camps in disagreement arguing the ambiguity of the result, but not seeing the obvious cause of it.
If we attempt to observe the photon or particle prior to the detector (film, where the interference pattern shows up) then the conscious observation is at another point in space-time, not at the detector, and time slows at some of ‘place’ then that occupied by ‘A’ and ‘B.’
I have labeled two of the bands as ‘A’ and ‘B’ above. The detector, usually or often just a piece of emulsion film, is the method of observation. We cannot observe the particles or photons before the detector, that much has been proven, if we do, the interference pattern disappears. That, too, is important, if you follow.
As we observe the points ‘A’ and ‘B’ real time slows, they merge as the same point, but the merging is not well defined, because the observer’s observation is not well defined, time itself is not well defined, but ‘smeary,’ the points merge in the form of a gradient, not a perfect overlap. It is the points ‘A’ and ‘B’ that during the experiment merge in the form of a gradient, not a sharp merging. The photon, in this case (can be electrons, etc.) is striking one point in space (space-time), but the point is merging with another point in space-time, in a nebulous form, because time is not absolute or well defined, as I’ve pointed out continuously throughout this work.
When we pull the piece of film out and develop it, or whatever detector we use, we see that it appears the single photons have struck in a way that appears superficially to ‘interfere with itself,’ which is not entirely incorrect, since the points ‘A’ and ‘B’ in space-time where they struck were merging in the form of a gradient due to conscious observation via the Quantum Zeno Effect, and the rule that observation slows time, General Relativity requires then that as time slows space curves inward, the points ‘A’ and ‘B’ merge as a smear because time is smeary and not well defined, and an interference pattern is the result. The photon (or particle) is striking in one place, but that ‘place’ contains two points in space-time (‘A’ and ‘B’) that have merged or are merging; again, as a gradient, because time is not absolute, but smeary.
The disappointing result is that we are not directly choosing the outcome, but the ironic twist is that we are affecting the outcome by changing the flow of time by conscious observation. We are indirectly selecting the outcome. Thus, all attempts to directly affect the outcome (for instance, choose which slit the photons pass through) to support the original hypothesis fail, because direct selection is not what it occurring. As a result, we get two camps in disagreement arguing the ambiguity of the result, but not seeing the obvious cause of it.
If we attempt to observe the photon or particle prior to the detector (film, where the interference pattern shows up) then the conscious observation is at another point in space-time, not at the detector, and time slows at some of ‘place’ then that occupied by ‘A’ and ‘B.’