Beable or Observable, Mr. Bell?
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.
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.
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 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.