scifimath

The unobserved quantum side doesn't care about time or distance so the order goes something like this:

1. quantum field excitation of a new particle is about to happen
    
2. it gets assigned a path in the quantum field
    
3. if the path contains a spacetime enactor (a detector), it swaps the particle to be physical
    
4. the particle or wave is sent via the quantum field if it's a wave / spacetime if physical

oh, that settles it then.

Is the Uncertainty Principle based on duality at the same time? Should there be Certainty Principle that is just for observed quantum particles?

Delta x Delta p = h-bar/2

There isn't a problem with position and momentum when the object is physical and not a wave. The Uncertainty Principle is for waves. Duality isn't a thing anymore. People say uncertainty applies to physical objects because you peg an electron with a photon so its momentum changes ..well, duh, two objects just hit each other.

You can be certain that the particle in question will be physical if you place anything that will acknowledge its existence while it propagates on its path. That's what observation is, acknowledging a particle while it's moving from a to b. The delayed choice quantum eraser shows us that the entire life of both entangled particles is known. The first particle knows if the partner will ever be observed while in flight. Time in flight is not a factor for the state a particle will be from start to finish.

You may think you have evidence of a particle acting as a wave at the same time ..but you don't. You are assuming they are both at the same time because you are not taking observation into account. You wouldn't catch a quantum wave being a wave before it went through a detector (that it was moving towards). The particle is likely pre-set to be physical or a wave before it starts moving. Observation gives one type of result ..a physical one. (unless you messing around with polarizers) .

They key to killing duality is pointing out that the final panel of an experiment doesn't count as observation. When you say you can measure wave-like properties, it is derived from that final panel. If quantum observation doesn't show wave-like properties, duality at the same time falls apart. Quantum observation is only for detectors in the path of a particle that allows the particle to continue on.



This post predicts what happens when Spacetime gets involved with unobserved quantum waves from the act of observation.

The act of Observation/Measurement is a request of quantum wave information to Spacetime.
The interaction is someone purposely placing a detector wanting a particle to be physical.

You make a request by setting something that can analyze the particle during its life/path. The state of a particle is decided before it starts.

Double slit interpretation:
Randomly shot particles are shot through a double slit, if no one places a detector in the path of the particle, the unobserved particle will be in the form of two waves (one for each slit) . Depending on the which wave ends up with more energy (after the split) ..the final position of a channel representing a fringe will be the final resting place of the now collapsed particle. If the energy wasn't unbalanced, I would expect to see only a single channel of fringe be filled in.

Now a detector gets placed anywhere along the path between the cannon and the final landing screen. The particle shot will be collapsed upon leaving the cannon because the state of the particle has already been decided. It won't be waves, just a particle. It's been pulled from the unobserved quantum realm and made physical in Spacetime. It will go through one slit and hit the final screen in a normal clump.

If you accept this interpretation ..then you accept a particle being either a particle or waves ..not both at the same time.
You now also know that placing a detector in an experiment is a request from a human to the realm of unobserved QM to swap quantum waves into something physical.
Observation is then a property of Spacetime. Observation is the reason Spacetime exits.

General Relativity = Spacetime = the theory of the large scale
Unobserved QM = Waves = the theory of the small scale
They are both realms in the same domain
Observed (Spacetime) vs Unobserved (Quantum Waves)

Observation is then a request to bring an object from one realm to the other.
Observation is the bridge between the two.
The theory of the very large and small are unified.

This is conditional statement that formulates a Theory of Everything:
If (spacetime object){
//larger than abbes diffraction limit (or the equivalent mass energy levels - quanta) OR being observed
current situation = General Relativity;
}
else{current situation = Unobserved QM;
}
//The particle collapses no matter the state when it hits a predefined Spacetime object.

There is a duality of realms, but the object in question is either in one or the other. Duality is impossible for particles if it can tunnel or fit through a space smaller than its structure. Waves can do that sort of thing ..not physical (observed) objects.

The delayed choice quantum eraser shows us that the entire life of the particle is known. The entire life of both entangled particles. The first particle knows if the partner will ever be observed in its path.

No, but I get a gold star for noticing this.

Actual scientists haven't considered this yet. It's embarrassing that they haven't noticed it this far.

After the experiment is over. During flight matters.

Quantum observation is different than human vision. You are being silly.

Open your eyes. The final panel isn't observation. Duality is dead. The genie has left the bottle.

5 hours ago, Strange said:

What do you mean by "physical objects"?

Physical objects are quantum objects that have been observed.

6 minutes ago, Mordred said:

That is one of the few accurate statements you have made. However the panel measures the outcome so it in essence observes the outcome.

After the fact!

5 hours ago, Strange said:

Of course it is an observation: we observe where the particle hits. 

You wouldn't observe the interference fringes if you didn't observe where the particles hit.

I don't know why you think it "would never show fringe" but that is clearly false.

 

Who says that is the case? We would be very limited in what we could measure if that were the case. Radar wouldn't work. DVD players wouldn't work. We would be blind and deaf. And so on.

Measuring the particles on the final panel is an observation after the fact. It doesn't play a role while the particle is in flight.

Why would the final panel be able to change the outcome?

When I said void, I just mean the experiment is over.

15 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

I can see stars by looking at them, no need to bounce the light off something. What do you mean?

Your eyes are the final panel

1 hour ago, swansont said:

In literal observation (eyesight) the photon is destroyed. Your claim is tantamount to saying we can't actually see. 

Nice try, you don't see light unless it bounced off something.

3 hours ago, Strange said:

It may be worth highlighting a few things

1. As far as I know, a screen is not used in the quantum version of the experiment as you would not be able to see where a single particle hit. 

2. When making the “which slit” measurement, the particles going through the slit are not observed at all. Certainly not “in flight” because any such observation of a photon, for example, would destroy it. 

3. The observation that is actually made uses exactly the same sort of detector as the “screen” so you can’t say one is an observation and the other isn’t. 

 

1. The final panel then

2. Polarizers are used while in flight

3. Oh, but I can. I discovered it only matters if you test it in flight and the particle can continue moving. There isn't a scenario you can use the final panel to change the outcome.

20 minutes ago, uncool said:

Then why do photons act like particles with respect to the photoelectric effect (among other things)?

Wave/particle duality deals (or originally dealt) with two experiments. One in which photons consistently act like waves, one in which they consistently act like particles. 

Observed light acts like a photon. I want the experiments to consistently act like one or the other, so what's the problem?

19 minutes ago, moth said:

will you admit detection is a kind of observation?

Sure, a person placing a detector is the ritual required to request a physical particle.

13 minutes ago, Mordred said:

lets try a thought experiment that has little to do with the two slit experiment. You have an older Cathode ray TV that TV fires a stream of electrons that that are deflected by the EM field to each pixel at different wavelengths these wavelengths give you your color images. The screen itself intercepts these EM waves and gives you an image. Does the screen not interfere with the electron stream ? If not then why do you not get electrocuted ? and why do you see the image which requires photons?

The physical form of the electrons have the data/energy of the wavelengths. I think you want me to be electrocuted.

If the object is small enough to be in the unobserved club. It's going to be a wave. Use the wave function and shoot at a detector.

or are you asking how do we observe the unobserved?

I'm sorry, do you think you just got me on something?

you don't

after the fact

It depends if a detector was placed in the path or not.

dots on a screen are not special

what? It doesn't cause anything ..it's the end of the line. A quantum wave or object is slamming into a spacetime object.

I'm feeling soo much shame right now. Oh, wait, I reached my goal of killing duality ..nevermind, I'm fine.

What math is necessary to point out that the final screen isn't observation? lol

Funny how the facts are on my side

Yep, only those with physics degrees can have new ideas about physics.