Some general remarks:
9. The particle - wave duality:
In the classical experiment photons - or electrons (or even
atoms) are emitted from a source towards a screen with one
or two slits. Behind there is a detecting screen. With one
slit open, the quanta behave rather like "particles",
with two slits open the detecting screen shows interference,
the wave behavior or property of the quanta.
There is always in second - or third - forth
... hand descriptions of these experiments too little information.
Very seldom conditions is such as the dimensions of the slits
in relation to wavelength, the distances between slits (and
distances between emitting source and screens). One such fact
is that X-rays needs "slits" as narrow as in crystal
lattices to show the interference patterns.
Nor is anything mentioned about how the
photons are quantified. How many wavelengths of light make
a photon as a quantum? According to some information (oral,
high school) one has made two-slit experiments which showed
that there was no interference if single photons were emitted
with a time delay representing circa 1 meter of a light beam.
According to L. one gets an interference pattern even with
"years" of delay between the single photons. This
implies that we have to take all secondary information with
a warning. L. also contradicts himself: On an early page (55,
Swedish version) he points to the fact that an interference
pattern only slowly is built up by a lot of photons, when
single photons are emitted with delay. Later in the book (page
167) he says one single photon can show such a pattern. Probably
only carelessness, but an essential one.
The so called classical physics originates from war and
the reach of projectiles as bullets in Galilei's time. It
seems quite natural that we have to leave this old, simple
ballistic physics for interpretations of all underlying
levels - and all the superposed ones as in biochemistry
Two other general remarks:
- Physicists don't seem to make any explicit analysis in terms
of changes in dimensional degrees. (?)
- They seem to neglect the empty (or vacant) space, ignoring
its eventually essential role as collaborator. (By that also
Dirac's hole theory and E = - mc2). (?) Repeating
what was said under point 5, part 1:
First there seems to be a mix up of two different kinds
We should distinguish between the particle-wave-duality
and that operating in interference, even if the latter is
said to characterize waves only. Waves are waves, even without
Particle - Wave duality is not the same
kind of complementary polarity, not poles of the same dimensional
degree, said in terms of the model here. But the so called
"interference" patterns on the detecting screen
are: as polarizations between positive and "negative"
Secondly, about the concept of "interference":
Could it possibly be a mix up too of two different processes
in this concept?
Is it really right to interpret the striped
patterns appearing with two open slits only in terms of
the typical interference of waves, alternately amplifying
and extinguishing each other by the combination of their
maxima and minima, as in texts about quantum mechanics?
If it's true as L says that even
with "years" of delay between single, emitted
quanta there appears an interference pattern, then obviously
it seems as if quite another principle of polarization is
The particle-wave duality first:
From aspects of the 5-dimensional model here we have in
other chapters suggested the preliminary view that "particles"
are characterized by inward direction, versus "waves",
characterized by outward direction.
5 – 4
<------- or 4a (vectors inwards), 3a (circular)
wave or 4b (vectors outwards),
Could such a view help us understand the experiments?
There is a difference in the d-degree of propagation:
A classical particle has a linear (1-dimensional) pathway.
A light wave too, according to the usual "classical"
view: propagating along straight lines if not curved by
gravitation (or eventually by the slits if these are small
enough to brake up a single wavelength?). But the light
wave oscillates in 3 dimensions, which eventually effects
the surrounding space. (Cf. the hypothesis about "side-waves".)
Other waves, spread from a center, propagates
in 2-3 dimensions.
A particle could be perceived as with enclosed center,
with more of "impermeability" in opposition to
Hence, we should be able to look
at particles as with more structure, less motion moments
than waves, that is of a higher d-degree according to the
Yet, this view doesn't agree with the
way physicists illustrate and describe particle-like quanta
as "wave packages", as consisting of only a certain,
quantified number of wavelengths.
Photons as particle-like quanta of EM-waves seem
to be identified as such in experiments where the direction
is inwards: so in Einstein's interpretation of EM-waves
hitting out electrons from atoms. So too in the fact that
EM-waves can give birth to electron pairs near heavier atoms.
Note, this can happen when these heavier
atoms can absorb some of the motional energy, as it is explained
(right or wrong?) in some source. In terms of the dimension
model: one motion moment less: implying more of built-in structure, a higher d-degree. (Cf.
a braking, as negative acceleration - inwards, coupled with
In these latter events we should also observe that the
created quanta or "particles", the electron pairs,
have opposite signs: e+/e-: e+ as Dirac's holes, out of
"negative" energy, vacant space. This implies
that the "surrounding" is used by the positive
energy of the EM-wave, and that the wave gets transformed
in complementary units like Yes or No, Particle - No particle
and such opposites in these experiments.
Photons as the quanta of light belong
to the so-called "carrier
of forces" and also the other "carriers"
use presumably the Vacant Space for their existence. A carrier
between protons as the π-meson
use anti-quarks from antimatter. We can note here that "forces"
as vector fields in this model represent d-degree 4, in
principal "all"-directed, inwards/outwards.
If this view on particle-like quanta as of one d-degree
higher should be valid, we could ask: What in the structure
of the particle gets transformed to motion in a d-degree
jump towards a lower d-degree ? One guess is that it concerns
the M-field in some way, the M-field interpreted as a pole
connected with Vacant Space and inward direction on some
levels in this model.
The concept "wave packages"
doesn't express the inversion moment of directions in the
structure between particle and wave character that we here
presume, a kind of inside out turning: an into the particle
incorporated M-component for instance, replaced by the use
of exterior "vacant space" in the wave.
With the assumption that particle-like character implies
a higher d-degree, the particle could also represent a kind
of secondary "superposition". a superposition
of E- and M-components for example (in photons, electrons,
atoms...) as equivalent with "Yes" or "No",
positive or "negative" energy forms... (Compare
Mass - Vacant Space
out of 4-dimensional vector fields.)
(Compare too "double messages" from parents
as one kind of superpositions, which built into
child can make the child enclosed into itself and lock
Some physicists has thought about an eventual "resonance"
between the 2 possible outcomes of a "collapsed"
superposition (which L. brushes aside as a new mystery).
It shouldn't be more mysterious however
than the immediate coupling (or "resonance" between
electric and magnetic components (E- and M-fields) in a wave
or the like.
A "collapsing" y-axis immediate
defines both the outer poles +/- infinity of an x-axis in
a 2-dimensional coordinate system, as immediate as a 0-pole,
a point, defines an anticenter, a 00-pole, expressed in terms
of this model. (However, physicists don't like "probabilities"
higher than 1 (!) and specially not the probability of wave-functions
raising to infinities, so they have to keep themselves inside
a unity circle?)
Hence, if a particle-like quantum is characterized
by inward directed "fields", is it then quite right,
as the physicists do, to ask which of 2 open slits the "quantum"
has passed? The direction of emitted quanta is outwards, and
perhaps that implies a change in the structure to a wavelike
spreading which we never can detect, while all registration
concerns "incoming" quanta?
A wavelike spread of the energies could
theoretically mean that both slits are reached simultaneously.
We could possibly imagine a "photon" or an electron
divided into halves - as along the +/-halves of an x-axis*,
"interfering" on the other side of the slits, recombined
to single units when hitting the detector screen, but still
it's hard to think of whole atoms in that way. (Only conservatism?)
* Compare how electrons sometimes are divided like that
in illustrations of some orbitals in e-shells, as half loops
around the halves (+/-) of the coordinate axes. Perhaps
there could exist a coupling with the 2-slits phenomenon?
If we really separate the question about "interference",
why couldn't we just think that an emitted "particle"
takes sometimes this way, sometimes that way, when two slits
are open? It shouldn't matter then that one destroys the
"interference" by a measurement just behind the
In the efforts to answer such a question about which way
the quantum has passed, keeping to the idea of a particle,
- and non-locality, a physicist like Feynman has talked
about the particle taking "all ways" through the
room. That is a 3-dimensional way. While another one (Hawking?)
has used the metaphor of a globe where all directions straight
outwards from the North pole lead to the South pole - a
2-dimensional spread or propagation.
With the concepts in the model here we could imagine an
outward directed vector field (pole 4b) activated when a
quantum is emitted from the source: the source or the quantum
getting the role of a center (pole 0). As said before, we
could think of a 3-dimensional particle with 1-dimensional
motion as a whole 4-dimensional system, activating the level
of vector fields.
We could perhaps think of this field as
similar to a balloon: One slit in the first screen in the
experiments should get the role of a prick in the balloon:
all its inner energy should gather (to a "point")
and "leak out" that way.
Is it then the vector field or an "individualized
photon", particle-like through the inward direction
towards the slit as a center - that escapes that way?
With two open slits in the screen, there
would of course be two ways for escape of the energy, and
two radial vector fields on the other side.
Of course we have to believe too that
a volume of energy has an enclosing border or surface of
Has there been made any experiments with
a partition wall between the slits towards the emitting
Or with a rounded screen
with the slits?
Another question about experiments:
If one photon was "shot" straight
through one slit in the screen, and should take only a straight
1-dimensional way through the room towards this slit as
as we are used to think that a ray of light does: then if
we placed our eye or a detector on this side of the screen
(before passage) and just a little bit beside it, we should
not be hit by it or able to detect it - should we?
With all these thoughts on ("guiding"?) vector
fields, quanta taking "all ways" through the room
, balloons etc., the question seems to remain why the energy
packages transforms to only one point on the detecting screen
Interference is not inherent in the definition of waves.
Interference patterns need 2 open slits in the screen to
appear, which eventually implies
- 2 sources of complementary forms of energy,
- plus the conditions: same energy source, and coherence
This is another kind of a polarizing principle,
acting between similar "poles" or sources - but
still acting complementarily.
As said above: If the statement of L.
is true that one gets an "interference" pattern
even with "years" of delay between single, emitted
quanta when to slits are open, then it is hard to explain
this pattern as an interference between waves only, alternately
amplifying and extinguishing each other by the interaction
of maxima and minima, as one does in texts about quantum
Yet, if we imagine the single quantum
(inward form) transformed to a wave (outward form), according
to views above, and the wave passing through both slits
as +/- ½ or something, we could get interference
by that single entity. In that case we have to imagine that
this interference in some way prepares the detecting screen
as surface with a virtual striped pattern as a kind of guide
lines, in spite of it hitting just one dot on the screen.
A preparation below a threshold value? Potentially activates
the other detectors on the screen?
(One could perhaps compare with
the nervous system, with amplitude modulation inwards towards
the nerve cell, and threshold values that have to be reached
before the nerve cell reacts with a frequency modulated
But should such an effect remain with
years of intervals?
Another question concerns the look of the striped "interference"
pattern: These light and dark, parallel bands (according
to illustrations): are they really the pattern that interfering
sea waves (or sine waves) give for example?
Obviously the polarization giving the
"interference" patterns in these experiments works
transversal, orthogonal or "circular" in relation
to the directions of radiation or pathways of quanta.
Couldn't we suspect that there is another polarization principle
acting too here, the more fundamental polarizing principle,
acting complementary also on superposed levels, as in biochemistry,
biology and social structures ?
There is a multiplicity of similar phenomena
on higher levels among objects which behave according to
classical physics - while they lack "coherence"
in their inner details as L. describes it. (In this
description L's view is that of an assembly, while we here
think "the whole" comes first.) Just to mention
a few examples:
We have the polarizations in the nervous
system in the general opposition between the systems of
inhibition and stimulation, sharpening the contrast. One
single example is inhibition signals around activated receptors
in the organ of hearing.
There are layers in air above earth and
in ocean currents with polarization in contrasting temperatures.
So too, one says, in cosmic clouds where heat and cold areas
can get separated, apparently in opposition to traditional
views on the spread of temperature.
Among living organism there are such things
as arrangements of upwards and downwards leading ducts in
plants. Among "classical objects" as human beings
there is the grouping phenomenon, as between lion families,
creating "preserves", where the operating force
is expressed as "attraction and repulsion ".
Kinds of "interference patterns"
In pure geometries:
2 opens slits as centers define a line. This line gets polarized
into "motions to and from each other" according
to the model here. That could be in forms of "negative"
and positive energy, giving the striped patterns.
In terms of this 5-dimensional model we
have the complementary poles inwards / outwards, mass /
vacant space, E- / M-fields etc., or just directions +/-
of a coordinate axis from a center.
Density, suggested as the only physical
quality in d-degree step 5 →
4 implies 1 d-degree branched off: (as the "line"
between the two open slits?), which polarized to "d-degree
0/00" gives "motions to and from each other".
(If each 1-dimensional component of a
d-degree is possible to analyze in pure motions (in agreement
with first postulates), then also the transversal or circular
one of pole 3a in this model: implying a density wave of
that geometry too. Compare perhaps the
hypothesis about "side-waves"
here and possible changes of the values of "negative"
energy of empty space.)
Two open slits in the screen is needed to get an "interference"
Reflect eventually upon this metaphor:
2 persons as similar centers talking with one another:
One listens; ears on the side of the head.
The other talks, activity from the mouth, from the center
of the head.
Then interchanging roles.
Center and anticenter as 0- and 00-poles
in a consecutive process.
The root of the talking is vector fields,
but the radiation takes the form of more or less individual
quanta as words.
The persons illustrate two opposite gradients
into one another.
Two other questions about the particle - wave duality:
What happens in the slits, if they are small enough to
brake a single wavelength and not give room enough for its
whole amplitude and the necessary counterdirection from
empty space which it eventually needs?
Perhaps changes of roles between the complementary
factors making up the wave or quantum?
Which physical effect makes the "wave function"
collapse when a measurement behind a slit is made?
As said earlier (point 6 in part 1),
something have to effect the measurement apparatus and this
effect should reasonably have a "counteeffect"
(as a recoil) on the measured something, which could disturb
the coherence, the necessary condition for "interference".
(Newton's law about force and counterforce.).
Or, if in the discussion between two persons
above, a third person, say a professional physicist like
Bohr, interrupts, surely the discussion will "collapse"
between the two perhaps equally silly and "coherent"
persons - continuing eventually along a new line between
discussing partners of different origin.