Archive for October, 2010

Beable or Observable, Mr. Bell?

Posted by on Wednesday, 20 October, 2010

We are all the fragile sons of the Form.   Florin

This excellent website really has all of the information and facts I wanted about this subject and didn’t know who to ask.

“There is a still greater surprise when the hole H2 is replaced by two holes close  together. Instead of the contributions of these two holes just adding together, as in Fig. 4, an “interference pattern” appears as in Fig. 5. There are places on the screen that no electron can reach, when two holes are open, which electrons do reach when either hole alone is open. Although each electron passes through one hole or the other (or so we tend to think), it is as if the mere possibility of passing through the other hole influences its motion and prevents it going in certain directions. Here is the first hint of some queerness in the relation between possibility and actuality in quantum phenomena.”

J.S.Bell ” Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics”, Cambridge Univ. Press, 2004, p. 185

    ” One day , an idea both profond and simple will solve the quantum enigma. ” H.C. von Bayer

 ” The particles go  where the waves take them, instead  of just shooting  in straight lines…” J. Slater, 1923

  ” Somewhere something incredible is waiting to happen. ” J.A. Wheeler




I will start by calling your attention on two symmetrical mistakes both of them of the either / or type, currently committed in the contemporary general genesis theory (I will mention that both have negatively influenced the solving of the double slit problem):

1. Possibilism – trying to consider only the pure potentiality (such thing does not exist ), thus risking to depart from any physical frame;this apparent innocuous abstraction actually constitutes an impardonable methodological  error, taking in account that 2 or 3 generations of physicists  mistakenly identified so called ” subtle physics ” with pure mathematics, in other words the ( impure ) potentiality waves with Born’s conceptual artifact – the probability waves. Being just a  mathematical ( not physical ! ) description, the explicative power of the  Born’s model /machinery in itself   is  almost vanishing ( sorry, Mr. Feynman ), that is  to be explicative this ( very useful but abstract ) machinery  should be  physically articulated the best – maybe the unique – bridge being  constituted, in my opinion, by the just mentioned potentiality waves. This integrative idea was expressed by  John HOLLAND (  see ” Complexity”  by M.Mitchel WALDORP , Simon & Schuster, New York, 1992, p. 255) in the following, memorable,  terms:” prediction  isn’t the essence of science. The essence is comprehension and explanation... ”  ( involving reality and ontology, determinism and communication/ meaning ). Please, note two  correlative  methodological  warnings :

i. “Quantum mechanics  is not pure mathematics.-Willem de MUYNCK 

ii. ” the wave aspects  of matter are just as real  as the particle aspects. But we are so used to thinking in classical terms that we have  an almost irresistible tendency to revert to making the implicit assumption  that electron is really a particle. We tend to de-emphasize the  physical reality of  the wave aspects which show up in  the importance  of the phase  relations in determining interference.

   David BOHM ( Quantum Theory, 1951 )

2. Excessive Realism – continuing the modern science alignments – promotes  the radical exclusion of the possible and, consequently  a total ergonic / actional/ causal perspective, involving imminent collapse in tautology “real generates real”.

The double slit experiment (2sE) being a particular case of genesis / measurement/quantum adaptivity ( remember  J. Slater‘s terms: the particles go  where the waves take them”– 1923 ! ) constitutes a special example for the manner in which the “impure” potentiality a0P / aiP  (= the virtual space ) generates the real ( the space-time ),  so to demonstrate the inseparability real / possible. Ignoring or undervaluing this inseparability was at the bottom of the inability to formulate /  solve the 2sE problem as long as over two centuries. To immediately understand how was it possible to reach such a methodological counter performance I will employ an analogy with magnetic field, whose ” mystical ” essence was not comprehended in any way just by considering the extrinsic orientation of the iron filings (a typical kind of observable, exhibiting all the advantages and disadvantages of perceptibility), being necessary to admit the –imperceptible!-existence of magnetic lines of force, already existing in nature = beable.

Fig.1 Analogy between magnetic force  lines ( real in-formation ) and 2sE  ” form lines “(c/e = Tonomura version)= potential in-formation

The analogy between interference- diffraction figures of potentiality with magnetic lines of force should not be pushed too far since in 2sE case we encounter rather lines of form (signifying some form transfer, or using Bohm’s term in-formation) realized through non-ergonic resources such as correlation / inseparability between  real / possible (subtle physics but still physics!). To remember that without considering the magnetic lines of force none of the valid explanations of iron filing orientation would have been possible; this indication must be transposed in a specific manner in the similar case of the potential field  ( a0P / aiP ) active in 2sE. Acting this way the essence of my proposed solution (hypothetical one, of course ) becomes very simple: concomitantly with accurate craftsmanship of the two slits -as gap, diameter, optimum distance ” d ” between the two screens ( please note that the last parameter has a subtle informational nature – as a symmetry breaking  factor!- being essential to make sure the local activation- see below – is/remains  an one-way  process  ) the omnipresent potential field (found in a dynamic equilibrium state) is locally activated; from this moment on, on the path between the two slits and the registration screen a stable process of quantum correlation is generated engaging the two new and distinct potential wave beams (the interaction term must be rigorously avoided because the active subsystems  are P/P ); the outcome is some stable, imperceptible interference fringes proving determinant for the subsequent propagation of any  quantum systems having an optimal waviness, which will be directed on this track pre-programmed in potential realm .

Now,  whether we send an intense flux of photons, electrons, fullerenes etc., or the distribution of them on the pre-programmed track is done one by one (very low intensity flux), this “potential interference boulevard/ hotel” remains  active as long as the two slit system as well as the flux of potential waves found in correlation are not disturbed                ( attention to the  crucial factor ” d “).

I mention in passing   that in contrast to  current  particular  opinions  ( Omnes –  Zurek , for   instance )    concerning    the      ( in ) distinctiveness between micro / macro transition not …the budget but  the critical waviness ( constitutive  for any efficient  pilot-wave guiding ) and correlatively the ” 2sE test “could be considered a reasonable / efficient  criterion of  delimitation; I specify that Omnes and Zurek  are not ” wrong”  but rather their validity is  restricted  to a  traditional ( realist ) context,  see Fig.2 below:










Fig. 2:  2sE  as a criterion for micro / Macro distinctiveness:  ” micro-quantum” is  inseparable but DISTINCT. To mention that our 2sE and  micro / Macro distinction likely  constitute the first  physical proof that the ( fundamental ) ether and / or “non-Einsteinian space ”  ( see Methodological Marginalia, Fig. 10 ) actually exist; very interesting  to compare my premises and  conclusions with  Michelson -Morley  and  Mount Wilson local realist experiments.




Approaching 2sE, J.S. Bell (a physicist I have highly appreciated especially for his non-local intuitions) did not conceive that in this case we deal with a process organized on two distinct but inseparable levels: one fundamental (beable) and one non-fundamental / subsidiary (observable), curiously stopping his inquiry at observable level; “curiously” since he explicitly and repeatedly asserted the preeminence of beable towards observable, respectively of nature towards laboratory; carefully examine the fig 4 and 5, page 184 from “Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics”: the merit of those electrons distributed against…their (and our too) expectations in a highly discriminatory pattern, with prohibited zones, with maximums and minimums,…could not be other (micro-knowledge? self-interference ? ) than to make appear the subjacent potential interference figures ( a0P ). This is how the quotation/ motto  chosen by me underlines this crucial  idea: a (pre-existing) “interference pattern” APPEARS.

Courtesy : WIKIPEDIA

Fig. 3   Guiding Physics : Difractia / interferenta si coupling resonance  reprezintã o poartã deschisã spre o lume  subtilã / non-localã , la care realistul Einstein nu a avut acces ( desi, atentie,  his “happiest thought ”  il adusese  extrem de aproape de  aceastã lume… “ beyond Einstein “ ) numitã de mine ” guiding physics “                     


This somewhat unusual verb for a physicist determined me to imagine that somewhere in his subconsciousness, John Stewart – mon ami, saw things in a different light than…Bell. Without going into details I wish to emphasize a few final aspects:

  • Many physicists from Bell’s generation have chosen to identically react when faced with quantum weirdness: instead of an approach without any realistic aggressive prejudices of this challenge they’ve preferred the FAPP attitude and / or to return to…Bohr. Look as how John Gribbin describes (in a good, popular book: “In Search of Schrodinger’s Cat”, p.226) this attitude of “happy”  stop over at macroscopic, perceptible revelations of …iron filings: ”What we see is what we get, nothing else is real. I am happy to stick with Bohr.” Poor happiness…If John meets with the thinking lines exposed in this article (and obviously if he agrees with them, which I highly doubt it  because of the  irresistible realistic temptation still governing within 2sE area), his book may be re-written in no more than 100 days, becoming the first…potential best seller from the series “Beyond Bell”.
  • Potential in-formation provides the key for a kindred quantum mystery -the celebrated “entanglement” concept – students’  terror.The entanglement represents a tertium state of real / possible type:   for instance, to prepare a pair of particles with half integer spin (fermions) into a singlet state has something essential in common with the correct preparation of the two slits in 2sE, both procedures  aiming to the activation of a potential program / track providing to all real correlative systems a new in-formational channel, generating non-classical peculiarities and …mysteries.

Years ago after I had analyzed a dozen interference figures of some remarkable 2sE commentators ( including Einstein, Bohm, Feynman ,…)  I was shocked to see the advanced similarity between these bi-dimensional figures (for example  the alternation of permitted and prohibited zones) and volumic disposition of energy (electronic) levels from any atomic structure. To note that these ( bi-, tri- or multi-dimensional ) zones of interdiction,  inexplicable in real,  become quite explicable in potential. Asking a renown professor of physics how can this similarity be explained, he looked at me repugnantly and provided almost ad litteram Bohr’s reputed response:  “ the task of physics is not to explain the world but rather to describe it.” My personal suggestion for younger researchers is not to stop themselves at expert concepts / models of FAPP type but to rather consider the atomic structures as tri-dimensional interferences  where always and always the potential waves ( a0P ) have prepared through in-formation the terrain for… iron filings ( aiP or even Aip ). Very likely  this is the first time that you meet with such a setting together some unusual terms/ factors of the atomic / molecular / biological systems’ stability : form against force, in other words potential in-formation versus Coulombian interactions between nucleus & electrons. My firm conviction is that in this century the atoms and atomic orbitals should not only be described but rather “constructed” making use of the new conceptual frame: potential in-formation, fractals, attractors ( for example limit-cycles constitute some convenient models  for “particles” which can and should be interpreted as some compact / standing waves) and eventually strange attractors for the radioactive, unstable systems ( you can consider the electron K capture or β and α emissions as  some   form / force or potential / real dramatic events ). Doresc sa inchei  this unusual  paper exprimandu-mi convingerea ferma ca  modelul evanstonian 2sE reprezinta doar o  poarta deschisa spre  o lume ” miraculoasa “, subtila   = “ guiding physics “ ( sugerata  simplu, direct, de catre tanarul american  J.Slater – vezi citatul  de la debutul post-ului ) , centrata pe ” potential in-formation ” – factor explicativ  pe cat de surprinzator pe atat de universal  aflat , conform  versurilor inspirate ale  lui J.A. WHEELER somewhere  “ behind it all “ :

  ” Behind it all

                   is surely  an idea so simple

                   so beautiful

                   so  compelling that when  (…)

                   we grasp it

                   we will all say to each other

                   how could it have been otherwise ?

                   How could  we have been so stupid

                   for so long ? “


I will close responding to a frequent question: how can the information presented on this blog be taken over in a correct, legal manner? The blog has Copyright 2009/2016 under the name of Florin Florea Felecan. Short, non-commercial references / quotations do not need my approval, but the source must be accurately indicated.

The Double Slit Mystery Solved in Evanston (USA): the Key – Potential In – formation

Posted by on Friday, 8 October, 2010

The particles go where the waves take them.

John SLATER ( USA, 1923 )


Just as some of my correspondents have correctly concluded from my recent interventions on the “Collapse of Dualism…” article, for me the double slit experiment no longer represents a mystery. Up to the present time the closest approach to the correct solution was provided by the British physicist J.S. Bell, who for example in “Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics” pp 184/185 wrote: “There is a still greater surprise when the hole H2 is replaced by two holes close together. Instead of the contributions of these two holes just adding together, as in Fig. 4, an “interference pattern” appears as in Fig. 5. There are places on the screen that no electron can reach, when two holes are open, which electrons do reach when either hole alone is open. Although each electron passes through one whole or the other (or so we tend to think), it is as if the mere possibility of passing through the other whole influences its motion and prevents it going in certain directions. Here is the first hint of some queerness in the relation between possibility and actuality in quantum phenomena.”

Bell lacked something essential to establish a significant relation between hint / queerness and this something is “new thinking frame”, in other words a new conceptual / methodological frame which to neutralize the psychical blocks / prejudices of Cartesian – positivist type, while at the same time to point toward the correct solution. Just as I have shown in my book “Beyond Descartes – from Separability to Inseparability” this frame is centered on inseparability. Without this methodological frame the researchers can not make some conceptual progresses being obliged to wind round their traditional / realist premises or this is simply not enough;  please, reread carefully  last suggestive phrase  from  Bell’s quotation above : there is “ some queerness in the relation between possibility and actuality in quantum phenomena”. Representative for the methodological baffle in this problematic area it is, in my opinion, the following excerpt  from an interesting recent work whose author K.A. Peacock seems to be equally competent as a philosopher and physicist –  “The Quantum Revolution…” 2008 p.75:

“The double slit experiment illustrates the odd connectedness of quantum phenomena. How does an electron “know” how to interfere with itself or with another electron that was emitted days earlier? It is not even clear whether this question makes sense.”

K.A.P. can rest assured, his question is ” fully  traditional ” and does not make sense: both the “solution” of electron interference (more exactly of its de Broglie associated wave) with itself (desperate suggestion advanced by Paul Dirac) and the fanciful hypothesis of the electron knowing the right track (even more so when this track is not a banal one in some three dimensional space but rather is situated in a multi dimensional space, so the electron should posses advanced expertise of non-classical physical geometry), have nothing in common with the subtle physical reality of the double slit experiment. To note the fact that understanding this experiment clarifies some peculiarities of quantum mechanics and especially the source of quantum probabilism – crucial question that remained unanswered by Max Born as well as Einstein and Bohr.

In his lessons dedicated to quantum mechanics, R. Feynman recognizes the central role of the mentioned experiment considering it “the basic element ” or “the only mystery of quantum theory” leaving its resolution in care of the future. Not even the recourse to Schrodinger equation (a wave being still a wave with its spreading off ability) does not solve the problem since the interference appears even in the case of particles (electrons, etc.) distributed one by one at intervals of days, weeks…This non-negotiable situation has most likely determined Dirac to invoke the electron’s solipsism mentioned above. The solution however subtle is not extremely complicated for a creative field theorist if he places the double slit problem within non-Cartesian frame exposed in the book “Beyond Descartes…”

Since I did not receive any co-patent offers, in the following days I will publish a distinct article, under an enlightening title: “Beable or Observable, Mr. Bell?” containing the methodological key used in elaborating of my hypothetical solution. Until then I want to underline again that this solution is almost entirely contained in the J.S. Bell’s excerpt shown above, on the condition that it must be read without any realist prejudices (something that not even Bell succeeded).

Misterul ” double slit” descifrat in Evanston ( USA ): cheia – in-formatia potentiala

Posted by on Wednesday, 6 October, 2010

The Comment of the week:

November 30, 2010 at 8:01 am (Edit)

This web site is really a walk-through for all of the info you wanted about this and didn’t know who to ask. Glimpse here, and you’ll definitely discover it.
Reply : Constructive comment, thanks! FF

Asa cum unii corespondenti au dedus din interventiile mele recente la articolul ” Collapse of dualism…” pt. mine experimentul double slit nu mai reprezinta un mister. Mentionez ca  pana in prezent cel mai mult s-a apropiat de solutia valida – care deschide efectiv un vast camp de  posibilitati noi de dezvoltare  mecanicii cuantice si  fizicii in ansamblu – fizicianul britanic J.S.Bell care, spre exemplu , in “ Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics” pp 184/185 afirma: ” There is a still greater surprise when the hole H2 is replaced by two holes close together. Instead of the contributions of these two holes just adding together, as in Fig.4 an ” interference pattern” appears as in Fig. 5. There are places on the screen that no electron can reach, when two holes are open, which electrons do reach when either hole alone is open. Although each electron passes through one hole or the other ( or so we tend to think ) it is as if the mere possibility of passing through the other hole influences its motion and prevents it going in certain directions. Here is the first hint of some queerness in the relation between possibility and actuality in quantum phenomena.”

Lui Bell i-a lipsit insa  ceva esential pt.a stabili o legatura semnificativa intre acest ” hint” ( sugestie ) si ” queerness ” ( bizarerie) si acest ceva se numeste ” new thinking  frame “ , cu alte cuvinte un cadru conceptual – metodologic nou , care sa anihileze blocajele psihice / prejudecatile de tip realist-pozitivist, indicand totodata calea fireasca spre solutionare. Acest cadru / frame este centrat , dupa cum am aratat in sectiunile acestui site si, mai cu seama, in cartea ” Beyond Descartes – from Separability to Inseparability” pe inseparabilitate ( potential / real ) in primul rand, precum si pe distinctivitate ( waviness / non-waviness ). Fara acest cadru / frame cercetatorii nu pot face progrese conceptuale fiind nevoiti cumva sa se invarta in jurul cozii.Reprezentativ pentru deruta metodologica din aceasta arie problematica de mare interes mi se pare urmatorul citat dintr-o interesanta  lucrare recenta al carei autor este la fel de competent ca filosof  si fizician- K.A.Peacock – ” The Quantum Revolution…”, 2008, p. 75:
” The double slit experiment illustrates the odd connectedness of quantum phenomena. How does an electron ” know” how to interfere with itself or with another electron that was emitted days earlier? It is not even clear whether this question makes sense.” K.A.P. poate fi linistit : sure thing , his  question doesn’t make sense: atat ” solutia ” interferentei electronului (mai exact a undei de Broglie asociate ) cu el insusi ( sugestie…disperata avansata de Paul Dirac al carei unic merit imi pare a fi  evitarea cu orice pret a …activarii posibilului ) cat si ipoteza fantezista a ” cunoasterii” de catre electron a cursului care trebuie urmat ( atentie , acest curs nu este unul banal, in spatiul  tridimensional , ci e situat intr-un spatiu multidimensional , deci electronul ar trebui sa aiba …cunostinte avansate de geometrie fizica neclasica ) nu au nimic in comun cu realitatea fizica subtila proprie experimentului ” double slit”. Subliniez faptul ca acest experiment , odata inteles , clarifica intregul specific al mecanicii cuantice si , in mod deosebit , sursa probabilismului cuantic, chestiune  neinteleasa de Max Born, nici de Einstein sau Bohr; in ” Lectiile” ( lecturile ) sale dedicate mecanicii cuantice , R. Feynman recunoaste rolul central al experimentului mentionat pe care il considera ” the basic element of quantum theory” or ” the only mystery ” al acestei teorii, lasand totusi dezlegarea lui pe seama viitorului. Nici recurgerea la  ecuatia Schrodinger ( o unda este totusi o unda iar aici avem clar a face cu un fenomen ” spreading off ” , de extindere specific undelor de orice tip, care ar  ingloba ambele slits putand genera, cel putin in teorie,binecunoscutele imagini de interferenta) nu rezolva problema intrucat interferenta apare si in cazul particulelor ( electroni , etc. ) distribuite una cate una, la intervale de ore sau  zile  ( aceasta  situatie “nenegociabila” l-a determinat de buna seama pe  Dirac sa recurga la …solipsismul electronului, continut in sugestia sa neconventionala,mentionata mai sus ). Si totusi solutia , desi subtila , nu este extrem de complicata pt. un field theorist creativ daca plaseaza problema ” double slit” in frame-ul non-Cartesian prezentat in cartea ” Beyond Descartes..” (Incercati si daca  veti reusi  fiti siguri ca ne vom bucura  impreuna, ca de un mic triumf metodologic comun, situat  dincolo de paienjenisul obscur al implicatiilor numite ” brevetare” si ” prioritati”). Evident, eu as putea schita aici, special pentru cititorii acestui site, care este rezolvarea  corecta ( si interesanta! ) a acestei probleme dar, intrucat solutia vine cu posibilitati de dezvoltare conceptuala si aplicabilitati extraordinare , mi-am propus totusi sa brevetez modelul sub egida unei institutii romanesti.

P.S.1 Ca un bonus metodologic , cei care se vor apropia ( cat de cat ) de solutia problemei ” double slit”  – si tocmai fiindca aceasta problema constituie  ” nucleul” conceptual al mecanicii cuantice  ( conform  R.Feynman ) – vor intelege primii cum trebuie  dezvoltata  ecuatia Schrodinger astfel incat sa fie depasite limitele linearitatii  ( am in vedere, desigur , asa-numitul principiu al superpozitiei – incompatibil cu totalitatile adaptive, deci cu inseparabilitatea) fara a se sacrifica performantele ei predictive actuale ; my hint: noua formulare trebuie sa apara nu ca un caz particular / limita / adaugit  al celei linear – unitare ci, mai degraba…inv ers.

P.S.2  Trei dintre corespondentii mei – toti fizicieni!, niciunul din Romania – mi-au trimis  comentarii – raspunsuri remarcabile, nu mai mult ; un al 4-lea – a inceput exceptional dar s-a impotmolit imediat in paginile   lui David Lindley ( cartea acestuia   despre  “weirdness”-ul mecanicii cuantice am citit-o  inca in primul an de rezidenta americana , parca prin 1998 si am concluzionat definitiv : pagini bine scrise dar care duc spre nicaieri, dovada rateul  “raspunsului” nr. 4, care s-a axat pe verbul ” a cunoaste ” atribuit  electronului, cf. unei fraze standard  din cartea lui  Lindley : ” it appears that the photon  must know in advance, what is going to happen, so that it can choose  the appropriate behavior to follow”, p.65 – “Where does the Weirdness go? “, 1996,Basic Books ).

Intrucat  nu am primit inca vreo propunere de co-brevetare, probabil in urmatoarele zile  voi  prezenta pe acest blog ( sub forma unui ” P.S.3 avand  un titlu el insusi edificator : “Beable or Observable, Mr. Bell? ” ) indicatia metodologica decisiva de care am beneficiat eu insumi. Pana atunci vreau sa  subliniez  inca o data: solutia  reala este continuta aproape explicit in citatul din J.S.Bell, reprodus mai sus, care insa trebuie citit intr-o stare speciala, fara prejudecati realiste ( ceea ce nici Bell insusi nu a prea reusit! ). Inchei cu o replica adresata autorului  unei interpelari intitulata “ Cacealma ” care contesta  ab initio sansa unei descoperiri fizice semnificative pe un …blog oarecare, intr-o vreme in care  fizica  a devenit un domeniu de  specializare  inalta , deopotriva in sens teoretic si tehnologic. Asa o fi dar in aceasta fizica hiper -tehnologizata ( jonctiuni Josephson, computere, etc. ) este totusi  loc – si inca unul privilegiat! – pentru asa-numitul “ experiment gandit”, care insa trebuie  derulat in mod neconventional, altfel riscam sa predam la Universitati timp de 20-30 ani aceeasi ” ciorba” reincalzita,  fara a-i adauga cel putin  cateva  condimente noi.Cacealmistul meu face parte , aproape sigur,  din grupul select si numeros al acelor mesteri ” stie – tot”  ( ” tot” referindu-se nu doar la trecut / prezent ci si la…viitor ) garnisiti adesea cu titluri academice inalte  in a caror  dobandire s-au dovedit  incomparabil mai inventivi decat in fizica insasi.

PS 3 : Beable or Observable, Mr. Bell?

Voi incepe  prin a atrage atentia asupra a doua erori simetrice, ambele de tip ” either / or “, comise curent in teoria contemporana a genezei ( in sens larg ):

1. posibilismul incearca sa  considere numai potentialitatea pura ( asa ceva nu exista ) riscand sa iasa din cadrele fizicii;

2.realismul excesiv – continuand  linia stiintei moderne – mizeaza pe eliminarea posibilului  “din ecuatie ” promovand  o ergonizare totala, insotita de esuarea iminenta in tautologia ” realul genereaza realul”.

Experimentul double slit ( 2sE ) fiind un caz particular de geneza / masurare, constituie un exemplu extrem de sugestiv  pt. modul in care potentialul ” impur” genereaza realul, cu alte cuvinte pt. demonstrarea inseparabilitatii dintre real / posibil. Ignorarea sau subevaluarea acestei inseparabilitati a stat la baza incapacitatii de rezolvare corecta a problemei 2sE, pe durata a peste doua secole . Pentru a intelege  imediat cum a fost posibila o astfel de contraperformanta metodologica  voi recurge la o analogie cu  campul magnetic a carui esenta nu a putut fi inteleasa nicicum doar pe baza   orientarii curioase a piliturii de fier (un gen de observabil, prezentand toate avantajele perceptibilitatii ) fiind necesara admiterea existentei – imperceptibile ! – a liniilor de forta magnetice ( existente deja  in natura = beable ).

Fig.1 Analogy between magnetic field lines (a,b) and 2sE (c = Tonomura version)

Analogia  dintre figurile de interferenta / difractie potentiale cu liniile de forta magnetice nu trebuie impinsa prea departe intrucat in cazul 2sE avem a face mai curand cu linii de forma ( transfer de forma sau, in termenii lui Bohm in-formatie, realizat pe cale non-ergonica = subtle physics). De retinut ca fara considerarea liniilor de forta ale campului magnetic nicio explicatie valida a orientarii piliturii de fier nu ar fi fost posibila; aceasta indicatie trebuie transpusa intr-un  mod specific  in cazul similar al  campului potential din 2sE. Procedand astfel esenta solutiei ( ipotetice , desigur ) propusa  de mine devine extrem de simpla: concomitent cu practicarea  acurata ( ca distanta , diametru, etc. ) a celor 2 fante , campul potential omniprezent este activat local;din acest moment pe  traiectul dintre  fante si  screen are loc un proces de corelatie cuantica intre cele doua  fluxuri noi, distincte de unde potentiale ( verbul ” a interactiona” trebuie evitat cu strictete ) rezultand o figura de interferenta stabila , imperceptibila dar determinanta pt. propagarea ulterioara  a oricaror  sisteme cuantice  reale, avand totusi o ” waviness ” minimala care vor fi dirijate pe acest traseu pre- programat in potential.Mentionez ca in cartea ” Beyond Descartes, from Separability to Inseparability” ( al carei pret  l-am redus recent  de la 30 dolari la sub 10 dolari, pt. a o face mai accesibila inclusiv sau mai ales studentilor ) am desemnat acest proces de ” in-formare potentiala ” prin termenul heideggerian “ situatie sau esenta originara”.

Acum, fie ca se trimite un flux intens de fotoni, electroni, etc. fie ca distribuirea pe traseul pre-programat se face in regim de intensitate scazuta ( unul cate unul ) ,  interferenta  ramane activa  atat timp cat  sistemul celor doua fante  precum si fluxurile undelor potentiale aflate in corelatie  nu sunt deranjate.

Abordand  2sE , J.S.Bell  ( un fizician pe care eu l-am pretuit foarte mult in deosebi pt. intuitiile sale non-locale ) nu a intuit totusi ca in acest caz avem a face cu un proces organizat pe doua nivele inseparabile : unul fundamental ( beable ) si altul-  derivat ( observable)  oprindu-se , in mod curios , la  nivelul  observabil rezervat…musafirilor din fizica; curios intrucat el a afirmat explicit si repetat preeminenta lui  beable fata de observable , respectiv a naturii fata de laboratoare – priviti cu atentie Fig. 4 si 5 , pag. 184 , ” din ” Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics” : meritul acelor electroni distribuiti impotriva …asteptarii lor ( si a noastra ) intr-un mod asimetric , cu portiuni ( zone ) interzise , cu maxime si minime , nu  putea fi altul ( micro-cunoastere, self-interferenta, etc. )  decat sa faca sa apara figurile de interferenta potentiale subiacente , iata de ce  citatul  ales de mine subliniaza  ideea  a ( pre-existing ) “interference pattern” APPEARS . Acest verb oarecum neuzual pt.un fizician m-a facut sa banuiesc ca undeva in subconstientul sau John Stewart – mon ami, vedea totusi lucrurile altfel decat…Bell.

Fara a intra in detalii ( este totusi un PS , nu uit asta )  doresc sa inchei cu cateva sublinieri :

  • Multi fizicieni din “generatia Bell ” au reactionat in mod identic  la intalnirea lor cu stranietatea cuantica autentica ( quantum weirdness ):   in locul unei abordari fara prejudecati agresiv – realiste  a acestei provocari, au preferat atitudinea FAPP si / sau revenirea la…Bohr. Iata cum descrie John GRIBBIN ( intr-o carte  altfel  valoroasa : In Search of Schrodinger’s Cat, p. 226 )  aceasta atitudine de ramanere ” fericita ”  la revelatiile macroscopic – perceptibile ale  …piliturii de fier: ” What we see is what we get, nothing else is real. I am happy to stick with Bohr.” Poor happiness…Daca John  se intalneste in timp util cu  liniile de gandire expuse in acest articol – si, evident, daca e de acord cu ele, ceea ce m-ar mira , tentatia realismului  fiind inca irezistibila – cartea lui poate fi rescrisa in 100 zile , devenind primul… potential best – seller din seria ” Beyond Bell”.
  • In-formatia potentiala ofera cheia si pt. explicarea unui “mister”  cuantic inrudit – celebrul “ entanglement” – spaima …studentilor. Entanglementul reprezinta o stare tertium de tip real / posibil : spre exemplu ,  a prepara o pereche de particule cu spin semiintreg ( fermioni ) intr-o stare singlet are ceva esential in comun cu prepararea   corecta ( la dimensiune ) a celor doua fante in 2sE , ambele proceduri implicand ( in subconstient cel putin ) activarea unui program ( traseu ) potential care sa  ofere sistemelor reale  corelative un nou canal in-formational, generator de particularitati neclasice si…mistere.
  • Cu ani in urma , dupa ce analizasem cateva zeci de   figuri de interferenta ale unor remarcabili comentatori 2sE, m-a socat  asemanarea  avansata intre aceste figuri in general bidimensionale, de ex. alternarea zonelor permise cu cele interzise (in acestea  din urma accesul electronilor fiind riguros interzis , pe ce criteriu, Doamne? ) si dispunerea nivelelor energetice electronice din structura atomilor de orice tip, avand “aceleasizone de interdictie real. Intrebandu-l pe un profesor de fizica renumit cum poate fi explicata aceasta asemanare, el m-a privit lung, neprietenos ( atinsesem probabil un punct sensibil ) si mi-a reprodus aproape literal raspunsul lui Bohr:” sarcina fizicii  este nu explicarea lumii ci doar descrierea ei.” Sugestia mea pt. cercetatorii tineri este sa nu se opreasca la comentariile expertilor FAPP ci  sa considere structurile atomice ca pe niste  interferente tridimensionale ( in cazul general – multidimensionale ) in care totdeauna dar TOTDEAUNA undele potentiale au pregatit , prin in-formatie , terenul pt. …pilitura de fier.
  • In noua mecanica cuantica  atomii si orbitalii atomici trebuie  nu doar descrisi ci “construiti “. Inclusiv facandu-se uz de  potential in-formation, fractali, de atractori ( cicluri – limita  pt. “particule” care pot si trebuie  sa fie interpretate ca niste unde compactizate / stabilizate ) si, eventual , atractori stranii pt. sistemele radioactive , instabile.
  • Orice fizician interesat de miscarea  de idei din mecanica cuantica recenta va intelege probabil imediat ca programul meu metodologic expus partial pe acest blog lucreaza, putand conduce  la rezolvarea acurata  si rapida atat a unor ” mistere” cuantice cat si, pe un plan mai larg, a unor probleme specifice de dezvoltare a fizicii , cum ar fi : semnificatia functionala ( nu numerica ) a constantelor universale,  explicarea originii” Quantum”-ului, cum  trebuie dezvoltata corect si eficient ecuatia lui Schrodinger sub semnul nelinearitatii, etc.

PPS 3:

La intrebarea: cum  poate fi  preluata in mod legal / corect  informatia de pe acest blog ” cu totul special ” , raspunsul este : blogul beneficiaza de Copyright 2009 /2010/2011 , pe numele Florin Florea Felecan. Referintele necomerciale scurte , nu au nevoie de avizul meu , sursa trebuie indicata insa  in mod acurat.