Regarding
the double-slit experiment
When you look at your computer screen, your eyes in the future will search
for photons emitted from the past to pull that light to strike your eyes in
the present. Like a leader of lightning reaching into the sky to find a
lightning bolt that will eventually erupt from a thundercloud, a detector
will reach into the past to find electrons or photons that have been
emitted by a source.
In a hard to comprehend interpretation of quantum mechanics, the two-state
vector formalism (TSVF) is a description of quantum mechanics in terms of a
causal relation in which the present is caused by quantum states of the
past and of the future taken in combination.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-state_vector_formalism
The two-state vector formalism is one example of a time-symmetric
interpretation of quantum mechanics (see Minority interpretations of
quantum mechanics). Time-symmetric interpretations of quantum mechanics
were first suggested by Walter Schottky in 1921, and later by several
other scientists. The two-state vector formalism was first developed by
Satosi Watanabe in 1955, who named it the Double Inferential Vector
Formalism (DIVF). Watanabe proposed that information given by forwards
evolving quantum states is not complete; rather, both forwards and
backwards evolving quantum states are required to describe a quantum state:
a first state vector that evolves from the initial conditions towards the
future, and a second state vector that evolves backwards in time from
future boundary conditions. Past and future measurements, taken together,
provide complete information about a quantum system.
Watanabe's work was later rediscovered by Yakir Aharonov, Peter Bergmann
and Joel Lebowitz in 1964, who later renamed it the Two-State Vector
Formalism (TSVF). Conventional prediction, as well as retrodiction, can be
obtained formally by separating out the initial conditions (or, conversely,
the final conditions) by performing sequences of coherence-destroying
operations, thereby cancelling out the influence of the two state vectors.
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2013/nov/26/physicists-ask-photons-where-have-you-been#
I am sorry to complicate your perception of reality, but a recent
experiment in quantum physics seems to support TSVF.
In this experiment, by placing a double-slit experiment along one path of a
larger double-slit experiment, the researchers have shown that photons
traverse a section of the apparatus that they neither enter nor exit.
Bring this concept down to everyday reality, light can get inside a dark
place without any windows to enter of exit.
Applying this newly discovered reality to LENR, the emergent jet produced
by a cavatation bubble may be drawn to the material to be damaged by its
power.
This may be why an emergent jet forms to emanate from a cavitation bubble
when near a metal surface, but the bubble collapses symmetrically in a
sonoluminescent blue flash when no material boundary surface is close by.
In cavitation, LeClair and Moray King, believe:
(1) It is the escaping reentrant jet that causes cavitation erosion to
adjacent solids, and not energy emanating from the remaining torus.
I also believe that the reentrant jet is what causes erosion of adjacent
solids. It is energy emanation from the shrinking electromagnetic vortex of
the collapsing cavitation bubble. The reentrant jet is a projection of
anapole magnetic that originates at the center point of the EMF vortex.
On Sun, Dec 8, 2013 at 4:28 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:
I was wondering if anyone has seen an experiment somewhat like a double
slit experiment with photons that excludes them from passing through a
combination of blocked slits while allowing them to pass around most of the
apparatus? If this is possible to perform, then instead of trying to
figure out which of the two slits the photon passes through, there would be
a very large number of possibilities.
This type of experiment if possible might help shed light upon the
particle/wave duality. I assume that an interference pattern will be
generated that is inverse to the normal one.
A wave model should have no problem describing the expected pattern at the
output and I wonder if the same would be true for a particle.
Give it some thought and write down your ideas as this might be an
interesting endeavor.
Dave
