The Role of Potential In-formation in Solving the Double Slit Experiment
We are all the fragile sons of the Form
I will start by calling your attention on two symmetrical mistakes both of them of the either / or type, currently committed in the contemporary genesis theory (I will mention that both positions 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 potentiality waves with Born’s conceptual artefact – the probability waves.
2. Excessive Realism – continuing the modern science alignments – promotes the radical exclusion of the possible and, consequently a total ergonic / ergonization perspective, involving imminent collapse in tautology “real generates real”.
1. A helping Analogy: Magnetic / Potential Fields or Force Lines vs. Form Lines
The double slit experiment (2sE) being a particular case of genesis / measurement, constitutes a special example for the manner in which the “impure” potentiality generates the real, so to demonstrate the inseparability real / possible. Ignoring or undervaluing this inseparability was at the bottom of the inability to 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 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 rather non-ergonic factors such as synchronization real / possible (subtle physics but still physics!). To remember that without considering the magnetic lines of force none of the valid explanations of iron filings orientation would have been possible; this indication must be transposed in a specific manner in the similar case of the potential field found 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 distance, diameter, etc.) 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 process of quantum correlation is generated engaging the two new and distinct potential wave fascicle (the interaction term must be rigorously avoided); the outcome is a stable imperceptible interference proving determinant for subsequent propagation of any real quantum systems having a subcritical/ 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.
Potential in-formation provides too 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 involving the activation of a potential program / track providing to all real correlative systems a new in-formational channel, generating non-classical peculiarities and …mysteries.
2. 2sE as a micro / Macro Distinctiveness Criterion
I’ll mention that in contrast with current opinions ( Omnes – Zurek, for instance ) concerning the ( in ) distinctiveness between micro / macro transition, the critical waviness ( indispensable for an efficient pilot-wave guiding ) and correlatively the ” 2sE test “could be considered a reasonable criterion of delimitation, see Fig.2 below, where the M particles, having sub-optimal waviness , respectively predominant non-waviness of inertial/ anti-guiding nature, violate 2sE interference test .
Fig. 2: 2sE as a criterion for micro / Macro distinctiveness: “Quantum” is inseparable but DISTINCT
3. J.S.Bell and 2sE: Beable or Observable?
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 toward observable, respectively of nature toward 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. This is how the quotation chosen by me underlines this crucial idea: a (pre-existing) “interference pattern” APPEARS:
“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.”
J.S.Bell ” Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics”, p. 184
This somewhat unusual verb for a physicist determined me to imagine that somewhere in his unconsciousness, John Stewart – mon ami, saw things in a different light than…Bell.
4. FAPP Attitude : Forward toward…Bohr
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 J.G. 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”.
5. Atoms and Atomic Orbitals in New Quantum Mechanics : from Description to Construction
Years ago after I had analyzed a dozen interference figures of some remarkable 2sE commentators 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 energetical (electron) 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 commentaries of FAPP type but to rather consider the atomic structures as tri-dimensional interferences (in the general case – multidimensional) where always and always the potential waves have prepared through in-formation the terrain for… iron filings. 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 (electrostatic ) 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 ( any entanglement involves a fractualization ), attractors ( for example limit-cycles constitute some convenient models for “particles” which can and should be interpreted as some compact / stationary waves) and eventually strange attractors for the radioactive, unstable systems ( you can consider the electron K capture as a form / force or potential / real dramatic event ).