Wave-particle duality is an illusion

[Nikolai1]

We imagine that there is a constant indendently existing piece of matter that behaves at some times like a particle and at other times like a wave.  This gets us very confused.

 

But when we see the impermanence of all reality, when we see that there is no indepedently existing matter the whole issue becomes very clear.

 

Matter is conceived in one moment within the intellectual framework that sees waves.

 

In the next moment matter is conceived within the intellectual framework that is the particle.

 

The apparent duality of the matter's nature is a myth.  

 

We are simply applying two different intellectual frameworks, two incommensurable overlays in two different moments of time.  This is no more complicated than looking at a painting and in one moment seeing a  chrome yellow smear of pigmented oil, and in the next moment seeing a banana in a bowl.

 

Why then do we make it so hard?

 

Wave particle duality gets people so confused because they are unable to separate reality from our intellectual maps of it.  The physicist is so convinced that reality corresponds to his theories that he can't understand how the so called particle can behave so strangely.

 

There is no matter!

 

The matter itself is part of the map.  And the map is itself just the briefest moment of impermanecene that flashes into existence and is then annihilated forever.

Edited September 2, 2015 by Nikolai1

[Karl]

Steam-water-ice are all real even in a changed state.

Personally I don't believe in duality of particles vs waves. It's one or the other but not both.

[Michael Sternbach]

Hi Nikolai,

 

I basically agree with your conclusion. What is challenging our comprehension is that our intellectual overlays alter the behaviour of something that supposedly exists outside of us.

Edited September 2, 2015 by Michael Sternbach

[Nikolai1]

Hi Nikolai,

 

I basically agree with your conclusion. What is challenging our comprehension is that our intellectual overlays alter the behaviour of something that supposedly exists outside of us.

The behaviour we record is itself part of the intellectual overlay.  So when we approach with one overlay we intepret the behaviour that is congruent with it.

 

So when we approach the smeared pigment of oil we do find the chemicals associated with oil, not bananas.

 

When we approach the painting as a banana, we may actually start salivating, even though it is nothing but a  smear of toxic chemicals.

 

The painting itself, the essential reality of it is unchanged...but our intelllectual approach dtermines everything.

 

All this talk about our thoughts changing the behaviour of reality is a little bit naive.  What is more accurate to say is that our thoughts ARE our reality.  As we think, so things are.

[Karl]

Hi Nikolai,

I basically agree with your conclusion. What is challenging our comprehension is that our intellectual overlays alter the behaviour of something that supposedly exists outside of us.

 

what evidence do you have that our intellect directly alters the behaviour of objects that exist independently from us ?

[Karl]

 

All this talk about our thoughts changing the behaviour of reality is a little bit naive.  What is more accurate to say is that our thoughts ARE our reality.  As we think, so things are.

 

Our reality or reality ?

 

Sounds like the old mystic 2 step.

[Nikolai1]

what evidence do you have that our intellect directly alters the behaviour of objects that exist independently from us ?

Whether things do or don't exist independently are actually two different intellectual overlays, as I've said to you many times.  The wise can approach reality with both lenses.  The unwise only have one.

 

In the case of wave-particle duality there is confusion when we think that there is an independently existing photon.  The wise see that the confusion comes through trying to combine two logically incommensurable arguments.

[Michael Sternbach]

what evidence do you have that our intellect directly alters the behaviour of objects that exist independently from us ?

 

Limiting this discussion to the double slit experiment at the moment: Depending on the most unobtrusive "alteration" of the double slit experiment (it will do to enable us to/keep us from reading the particle detector), it confirms one of our presumptions or the other.

[Karl]

Whether things do or don't exist independently are actually two different intellectual overlays, as I've said to you many times.  The wise can approach reality with both lenses.  The unwise only have one.

 

In the case of wave-particle duality there is confusion when we think that there is an independently existing photon.  The wise see that the confusion comes through trying to combine two logically incommensurable arguments.

 

It depends what you mean by 'independently'. An ice particle is most definitely has independent identity from of water or other ice particles, but it doesn't exist independently of them.

 

A photon is energy, it doesn't exist independent of energy, but it remains separate.

 

The wise seem to struggle to breath underwater or in outer space.

[Karl]

Limiting this discussion to the double slit experiment at the moment: Depending on the most unobtrusive "alteration" of the double slit experiment (it will do to enable us to/keep us from reading the particle detector), it confirms one of our presumptions or the other.

 

Or that energy from a photon goes through both slits whilst the photon itself only goes through one ?

[Nikolai1]

Limiting this discussion to the double slit experiment at the moment: Depending on the most unobtrusive "alteration" of the double slit experiment (it will do to enable us to/keep us from reading the particle detector), it confirms one of our presumptions or the other.

That's right! And therefore overcoming the seeming paradox presented by the wave and the particle is not something we can do emprically.  Any empirical attempt will have presupposed what kind of evidence it will take as evidence.

 

The resolution of the paradox has to take place within us, from the place that sees that reality is disctinct from our intellectual approaches.  Then we shall have no more confusion with this paradox and shall be at peace.

[Brian]

Yes, it is not that sometimes light is a wave and sometimes light is a particle but that light is something else -- something which can display wave-like or particle-like behavior depending on circumstances. Those circumstances can be carefully devised or accidental but it is the observation which brings about the manifestation. We understand, however, that it isn't really a particle or wave dilemma because it is also both and neither.

 

We may speak of mass, frequency or energy as if they are different or we may use them rather interchangeably -- because we understand that they are all just different aspects of the same thing. We talk about fermions and bosons particles with unique properties but we really know electrons, quarks, photons and gluons (to name a few) are just ways of classifying various modes of behavior and, in their essence, these "different particles" are not only not particles but are composed of the same "stuff."

 

The sense of paradox fades when one truly recognizes that the universe isn't constrained by our understanding.

[Karl]

That's right! And therefore overcoming the seeming paradox presented by the wave and the particle is not something we can do emprically.  Any empirical attempt will have presupposed what kind of evidence it will take as evidence.

 

The resolution of the paradox has to take place within us, from the place that sees that reality is disctinct from our intellectual approaches.  Then we shall have no more confusion with this paradox and shall be at peace.

 

That works both ways. If we expect to see something then that may be how we are interpreting it. We feed our bias into an experiment and come out with bad conclusions. The answer is to repeat the experiment until the error is reduced. Your conclusion is to accept its a form of magic and resolve it internally.

[Nikolai1]

Your conclusion is to accept its a form of magic and resolve it internally.

If it's magic then it is no different to the type of magic that we do with the banana in the painting.  Its just the simple everyday magic of intellectual flexibility.  Our Protean gift for seeing things in many different lights.

[Karl]

If it's magic then it is no different to the type of magic that we do with the banana in the painting.  Its just the simple everyday magic of intellectual flexibility.  Our Protean gift for seeing things in many different lights.

 

It's entirely different. It is the difference between our perception of reality and reality itself. That isn't in dispute. However existence exists regardless of our perception of it.

[Karl]

but it is the observation which brings about the manifestation.

 

Or not. Maybe we just anticipate what we think it is we are looking for and that turns into an error of observation rather than an error attributable by the action of the observation.

[Brian]

No magic needed, just reality -- the photon is either wave or particle, both wave and particle, and neither wave nor particle.

[Brian]

 

Or not. Maybe we just anticipate what we think it is we are looking for and that turns into an error of observation rather than an error attributable by the action of the observation.

Except that a tremendous amount of experimentation and subsequent new theories stem from "wait, that's weird" moments in which results were NOT what was expected.

 

EDIT: The Michelson-Morley experiments being so shining example.

[Nikolai1]

 However existence exists regardless of our perception of it.

Shucks, never thought of that!

[Nikolai1]

No magic needed, just reality -- the photon is either wave or particle, both wave and particle, and neither wave nor particle.

Yes, the famous tetralemma!

 

But who is the one that sees the tetralemma? That is my practice!

[Karl]

Except that a tremendous amount of experimentation and subsequent new theories stem from "wait, that's weird" moments in which results were NOT what was expected.

EDIT: The Michelson-Morley experiments being so shining example.

 

It's only weird if you expect x and get y. If they begin with the wrong premise and then things get worse. Now everything is quantum this and quantum that. Bring back Tesla I say. I don't like dualities because nature doesn't have them. Either light is a particle, a wave, or none of them and it is something else instead. I plump for the third. Of course I'm not a scientist so WTF do I know, I'm just observing and thinking its a croc.

[Karl]

Shucks, never thought of that!

You think it's generated by our consciousness and is not independent of us. You believe we can't prove it because we are only our consciousness proving its reality. I understand what you think, but you cannot offer any proof that it is true, where as, if you stub your toe then you have to stub it on something. How you perceive the experience is most likely unique, but it is broadly similar to the rest of us.

 

Then you have to deal with these stubborn realities wether you believe them to be manifestations or not. You can go through your whole life arguing that they are simply conscious creations, but it won't make a jot of difference as you must deal with the world as it is and face the same problems and realities as the rest of us.

Edited September 2, 2015 by Karl

[Nikolai1]

The sense of paradox fades when one truly recognizes that the universe isn't constrained by our understanding.

This recognition is huge and significant and in human history has never been anything other than a minority viewpoint.  For the rest, theory and reality coincide, to the extent that theory isn't taken as theory but as truth.

 

Baffling paradox within our chosen belief system is rarely tolerated for long.  The tension becomes too great.  Our very reality is at stake.  

 

So what happens?

 

Subtly there will emerge different camps united by one simple and logical assumption: 'a photon can be a wave or a particle, but not both.'

 

Each camp will start to cast doubt on the findings of the other.  For example, the seminal authors of photon wave function used X apparatus, which as subsequently come into question.  There is some inconsistency in statistical methods used.  Professor Y was a known donor to the Netanyahu party etc.

 

It is impossible that both camps have equal political clout, and over time one of them will use all its influence to assume greater powers.  When these are sufficient, there will be some kind of summit where the truth over whether the photon is a wave or a partcile will be announced ex cathedra (although the pontiffs in question will be fully convinced that they are simply clarifying the truth)

 

And as the pronouncement passes, so too does the paradox.  We will have a new and unquestioned scientific assumption.  Confusion passes and we are at peace.

 

If we are to truly resolve the paradox of wave-particle duaity we have to do some serious spiritual enquiry for ourselves, and the paradox is resolved only for ourselves.

[Nikolai1]

You think it's generated by our consciousness and is not independent of us. You believe we can't prove it because we are only our consciousness proving its reality. I understand what you think, but you cannot offer any proof that it is true, where as, if you stub your toe then you have to stub it on something. How you perceive the experience is most likely unique, but it is broadly similar to the rest of us.

You don't understand how I think.  If you did you wouldn't use your stubbing your toe example.

 

I can't tell you how I think.  It can't be communicated.  if you think I'm some kind of mystic you will be woefully missing the point.

 

To stub our toe is an intrinsically real and dreamlike experience.  But who sees it both ways?

[Brian]

You think it's generated by our consciousness and is not independent of us. You believe we can't prove it because we are only our consciousness proving its reality. I understand what you think, but you cannot offer any proof that it is true, where as, if you stub your toe then you have to stub it on something. How you perceive the experience is most likely unique, but it is broadly similar to the rest of us.

 

Then you have to deal with these stubborn realities wether you believe them to be manifestations or not. You can go through your whole life arguing that they are simply conscious creations, but it won't make a jot of difference as you must deal with the world as it is and face the same problems and realities as the rest of us.

Lots of evidence has been offered in various threads but you choose to ignore, deny and reject it.

 

Ever watch the movie named Idiocracy?