Can we influence reality? Some misguided scientists think we can.
For example the Copenhagen model of Quantum Mechanics suggests the act observing an environment defines its reality as is shown by its interpretation of Thomson’s double-slit experiments because it holds that the myriad of probabilities it defines are unreal and only become real when their outcomes are observed.
In other words they feel reality is an emergent property of observation because it suggests that before one is made an environment does not exist or is unreal and only appears after being observed.
This is because, in the case of the double slit experiment many assume that the classical concepts of “particle” and “wave” cannot be used to fully describe the wave particle behavior of quantum-scale objects exposed by this experiment Therefore many interpretations of quantum mechanics explain this paradox as a fundamental reality of the Universe.
In other words they feel that the act of observing creates its reality because as was mentioned earlier according to most quantum mechanical models an object does not exist as a particle or wave before it is observed and that its final reality, whether it is particle or wave is dependents on the act of observe it.
This prompted Einstein to say “I like to think that the moon is there even if I am not looking at itâ€.
However it would not be necessary to for anyone to assume that the moon was not there if they were not looking at it if it was possible to explain in terms of classical properties of space and time the wave/particle behavior of quantum-scale objects.
As mentioned earlier Thomson’s double-slit experiment clearly demonstrates the wave/particle behavior that is associated with the reality of a quantum mechanical environment.
This may be why Richard Feynman the farther of Quantum Electrodynamics believed Thomson’s double slit experiment provided the perfect mechanism for its understanding because it clearly demonstrates their inseparability.
However, as of yet no one has been able to explain in classical terms the behavior of the quantum environment encompassed by this experiment.
Yet Einstein may have given us a clue as to why when he said “If a new theory was not based on a physical image simple enough for a child to understand, it was probably worthless.”
For example Einstein told us that our physical environment is made up of four dimensional space-time yet no one has ever observed the physicality of time or a space-time dimension.
Granted Einstein’s theories give us a very detailed and accurate description of how an interaction of time with the three *spatial* dimensions is responsible for the “reality” our world and he was able to give us a clear physical image how a curvature in space-time can be responsible for gravity by extrapolating the image of an object moving on a curved two dimensional “surface” in a three dimensional environment to four dimensional space-time. However this image only contains reference to the physicality of the spatial dimensions and not a time or space-time dimension.
 |
However, the fact that most humans perceive or define reality in terms of the physicality of the spatial dimensions instead of a time or space-time dimension suggests that one may be able to form a physical image of how and why the quantum world is what it is by viewing our universe in terms of its spatial instead of its time properties.
Einstein gave us the ability to do this when he used the constant velocity of light to define the geometric properties of space-time because it allows one to convert a unit of time in his four dimensional space-time universe to a unit of a space that is physically identical to those of our three-dimensional space. Additionally because the velocity of light is constant it is possible to defined a one to one correspondence between his space-time universe and one made up of four *spatial* dimensions.
In other words by mathematically defining the geometric properties of time in his space-time universe in terms of the constant velocity of light he provided a qualitative and quantitative means of redefining it in terms of the geometry of four *spatial* dimensions.
The double slit experiment is made up of “A coherent source of photons illuminating a screen after passing through a thin plate with two parallel slits cut in it. The wave nature of light causes the light waves passing through both slits to interfere, creating an interference pattern of bright and dark bands on the screen. However, at the screen, the light is always found to be absorbed as discrete particles, called photons.
When only one slit is open, the pattern on the screen is a diffraction pattern however, when both slits are open, the pattern is similar but with much more detailed. These facts were elucidated by Thomas Young in a paper entitled “Experiments and Calculations Relative to Physical Optics,” published in 1803. To a very high degree of success, these results could be explained by the method of Huygens–Fresnel principle that is based on the hypothesis that light consists of waves propagated through some medium. However, discovery of the photoelectric effect made it necessary to go beyond classical physics and take the quantum nature of light into account.
It is a widespread misunderstanding that, when two slits are open but a detector is added to determine which slit a photon has passed through, the interference pattern no longer forms and it yields two simple patterns, one from each slit, without interference. However, there ways to determine which slit a photon passed through in which the interference pattern will be changed but not be completely wiped out. For instance, by placing an atom at the position of each slit and monitoring whether one of these atoms is influenced by a photon passing the interference pattern will be changed but not be completely wiped out.
However the most baffling part of this experiment comes when only one photon at a time impacts a barrier with two opened slits because an interference pattern forms which is similar to what it was when multiple photons were impacting the barrier. This is a clear implication the particle called a photon has a wave component, which simultaneously passes through both slits and interferes with itself. (The experiment works with electrons, atoms, and even some molecules too.)”
Yet as mentioned earlier one may be able to understand the wave particle duality of quantum objects such as a photon as is demonstrated in Thomson’s double slit experiment in terms of our classical reality if one converts or transposes Einstein’s space-time universe to four *spatial* dimension equivalent.
For example the article, “Why is energy/mass quantized?” Oct. 4, 2007 showed that one can explain and understand the physicality of the wave and particle properties of quantum object’s by extrapolating the laws of classical resonance in a three dimensional environment to a matter wave moving on “surface†of a three dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension. It also explains why all energy must be quantized or exists in these discrete resonant systems when observed.
Briefly it showed the four conditions required for resonance to occur in a classical environment, an object, or substance with a natural frequency, a forcing function at the same frequency as the natural frequency, the lack of a damping frequency and the ability for the substance to oscillate spatial would occur in a matter wave moving in four *spatial* dimensions.
The existence of four *spatial* dimensions would give a matter wave the ability to oscillate spatially on a “surface” between a third and fourth *spatial* dimensions thereby fulfilling one of the requirements for classical resonance to occur.
These oscillations would be caused by an event such as the decay of a subatomic particle or the shifting of an electron in an atomic orbital. This would force the “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension to oscillate with the frequency associated with the energy of that event.
However, the oscillations caused by such an event would serve as forcing function allowing a resonant system or “structure” to be established in four spatial dimensions.
As was shown in that article these resonant systems in four *spatial* dimensions are responsible for its quantum mechanical properties.
However, it does not explain in classical terms why the energy of these waves not continuously distribute throughout space instead of being package in discrete units we call particles.
In classical physics, a point on the two-dimensional surface of paper is confined to that surface. However, that surface can oscillate up or down with respect to three-dimensional space.
Similarly an object occupying a volume of three-dimensional space would be confined to it however, it could, similar to the surface of the paper oscillate “up” or “down” with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension.
The confinement of the “upward” and “downward” oscillations of a three-dimension volume with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension is what defines the spatial boundaries of the resonant system associated with all quantum objects including a photon in the article “Why is energy/mass quantized?“.
This provides the ability to understand, in terms of our classical reality the inseparability of the wave-particle duality of energy/mass because clearly demonstrates how the one is dependent on the other.
However, it also defines why the interference patterns remains in Thomson’s double slit experiment when one photon at a time is fired at the barrier with both slits open or “the most baffling part of this experiment” is because, as mentioned earlier it is made up of a resonant system or “structure” therefore it occupies an extended volume which is directly related to the wavelength of its particle system.
This means a portion of a particles energy could simultaneously pass both slits, if the diameter of its volume exceeds the separation of the slits and recombine on the other side to generate an interference pattern.
It also explains why the interference pattern disappears, in most cases when a detector is added to determine which slit a photon has passed through. The energy required to measure which one of the two slits it passes through interacts with it causing the wavelength of that portion to change so that it will not have the same resonant characteristics as one that passed through the other slit Therefore, the energy passing thought that slit will not be able to interact, in most cases with the energy passing through the other one to form an interference pattern on the screen.
However it also explains why, as was mentioned “there are ways to determine which slit a photon passed through that will cause a change in the interference pattern but will not completely wiped it out.
The fact that the interference pattern can still occur even if a measurement is made is because if the energy passing through one of the two slits is altered by a relatively small amount compared to what it originally was, classical wave mechanics tells us it will be able to interact to form a slightly different resonant system with a slightly different interference pattern on the other side than would be the case if no measurement was taken.
It should be pointed out that the fact that an interference pattern can be observed when a detector is added is a direct contraction of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. It demands when a detector is added to the experiment to determine which slit a photon has passed through the interference pattern can no longer form.
However, this also means there should be a quantifiable minimum value of interaction between a measuring device and a photon that will permit the interference pattern to be reestablished on the other side after measuring which slit the photon passes through.
It also defines in classical terms the reason, why the measurements always takes the form particles and not waves in Thomson’s double slit experiment
As mentioned earlier, the article “Why is energy/mass quantized?” showed energy must be propagated through space in quantized resonant systems if one applies the concepts of classical reality to a matter wave on “surface” of a three-dimension space. Therefore, because its energy must be propagated through space to be observed the energy impacting the screen always will have the discrete non-wavelike characteristics of a particle.
The above article demonstrates why it is not necessary for anyone to assume that observing a quantum environment influences or changes its reality to explain the results of the double slit experiment because it clearly shows they can be explained in terms of the unchanging reality of our classical physical environment.
Latter Jeff
Copyright Jeffrey O’Callaghan 2014