The Double Slit Mystery Solved in Evanston (USA): the Key – Potential In – formation
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concluded from my recent interventions on the “Collapse of Dualism…” article, for me the double slit experiment no longer represents a mystery.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).