bogie

Do you mean that QM does give explanations for observations, or do you mean that there are mathematics at the heart of QM that deal with probabilities and not the cause and effect? The "cause and effect" are not part of QM, but the probabilities based on randomness can be described mathematically. If you don't agree I would prefer not get into that disagreement on my thread. I do think that in post #57 I addressed the question you placed in parentheses... I said: .That is where I'm planning to take the thread right now, but I have some research to do to evaluate how a particle having both a wave nature and a particle nature at all times might change the classical predictions.

There are many interpretations of QM, some of which do offer explanations for how the particles can pass through both slits. The second half of the sentence that you quoted from my post offered one such interpretation, and pilot wave theory, which I mentioned earlier, is another interpretation that addresses the subject. The interpretations themselves are derived from the postulates, of course, but the postulates themselves do not offer explanations for observations.

I've been looking at the EPR Paradox and Bell's Theorem, from the perspective of my wave-particle speculations. There are a few issues that quantum mechanics doesn't address, that the wave-particle speculation does. For example, QM doesn't address how the particle can pass through two slits, except to say that all possible paths might include a "curve back and go around again through the other slit" as being a legitimate path. The original post in this thread was about how the wave-particle manages to go through both silts and cause an interference pattern, eliminating all of those exotic swirling curved paths. In addition, part of the implication of the delayed choice experiments in the QM archive of articles is that the past can be altered, which doesn't have to be a consideration when the results take into consideration the wave-particle speculation that says the wave nature and the particle nature are present at all times. I am on record elsewhere agreeing with the uncertainty principle that there is always a certain amount of "fuzziness" involved in any measurement, but the wave-particle speculation gives a very logical explanation for never being able to resolve the measurement fuzziness. The explanation is in the way I explain how the particle moves by incorporating new high energy density convergences into the particle space in the direction of the net highest wave energy density source, while leaving behind the trailing high energy density spots of an instant past. The spots that make up the particle's location are changing every instant, and so a measurement that takes some duration to accomplish will always be fuzzy. Please note that QM doesn't give any explanation for the fuzziness, while the wave-particle speculation in my model talks about the wave mechanics involved that produce high energy density spots, and how the mass of the particle is quantum in regard to the number of spots within the particle space, and how the presence of the particle, its location, is determined by the changing pattern of high energy density spots within the particle space as the directional inflow and spherical out flow of wave energy continually play out. The above omissions of quantum theory are stated as a matter of fact, which supports what some people say, that QM is an incomplete theory, but it also points out that there isn't anything wrong with QM as it stands, at all, other than it doesn't explain the observations. All of that is what brings me to look closer at the two Bell theories from a wave-particle perspective. The Bell theories of 1964 and 1966 revealed von Neumann's error in regard to locality vs. non-locality, and resulted in the conclusion that competing theories can be invented that could actually be put to the test. That is what gave rise to all of the different Bell tests that together have all but put to rest the possibility of an objective reality that would have suited Einstein, and have added to the opinion that maybe no such reality exists. I am wondering if the wave-particle speculations, if applied to the probabilities associated with classical mechanics, would change the upper limits that are otherwise violated in the Bell experiments, and bring new life to objective reality.

I started the thread with the Kim et al single particle, delayed choice experiment and showed how the strangeness that was sometimes attributed to the outcomes wasn't strange at all, if you considered the wave-particle being both wave and particle at the same time. Now, in the interest continuing the topic of speculations about wave-particles having both a wave portion and a particle-like portion at the same time, there is this recent article I found mentioned on Twitter, linked to the 2/7/2017 article in QuantaMagazine: https://www.quantamagazine.org/20170207-bell-test-quantum-loophole/ They used starlight to set the angles of measurement, and as a result, they pushed back the "choice" timeline by about 600 years. That could eventually backtrack all the way to the Big Bang, and if so, after all of these years, we find that we may be able view the universe as Einstein wanted us to, local and real. In place of the "unavoidable non-locality" attributed to Bell's inequalities experiments that were said to eliminate all hidden variable theories, we only need to start thinking of there being slightly less freedom of choice under various wave energy density conditions of the distant past, such as big crunches and big bangs. That would seem to fit nicely with the "preconditions" to the Big Bang that are central to my model. The article says most scientists favor entanglement, and with it freedom, instead of something preordained and boring. For us it seems like kind of a win-win, Friedman said. Either we close the [choice] loophole more and more, and were more confident in quantum theory, or we see something that could point toward new physics.

This post is about how the wave-particle structure of my model works with a simple quantum gravity idea. The quantum action process that establishes and maintains the presence and motion of particles and objects has a common phenomenon taking place throughout. That phenomenon is the formation of high energy density spots at the convergences of two or more "parent" quantum waves. The equation I posted earlier is supposed to represent quantum action, and when the energy accumulated at the convergence of two or more quantum waves equals a quantum itself, a new spherically expanding quantum wave emerges from the overlap space. Here is a rough depiction of the formation of one such high energy density spot within the core of a wave-particle: This graphic depicts the simple concept of a wave-particle with a dense core of wave energy and high energy density convergences, surrounded by spherically outflowing wave energy. The spherically outflowing wave energy is continually replaced by inflowing wave energy from distant objects, making the particle space similar to a standing wave pattern with a huge number of internal waves and high energy density spots. A particle or object in motion always has a net directional wave energy density inflow which governs its path. More high energy density spots form in that direction because there are more wave convergences in the space surrounding the particle or object in that direction. The location of the particle is established by the presence of the high energy density spots at the wave convergences within the particle space. At any instant, there are new spots forming in the direction of the net highest wave energy density inflow, and old spots expand and diminish in the space away from the maximum inflow. Quantum Gravity is the motion caused by the quantum action described, within and surrounding particles and objects in motion.

Things are quiet this morning so I thought I would post a few images on my wave interference setup from 2013: This is my laser level pointing at two small slits I cut in the lid of a McDonald's cup. The brown tape on the lid was used to cover one of the slits to get the single slit image (posted earlier). I wanted to use a black screen, so I used the cover of Q is for Quantum . I think that is the best image I got, but have been thinking of getting some good mirrors, making better slits, and maybe adding a splitter for some variations, to see if I can do a better job. Never-the-less, the interference pattern is clear enough to show where the core portion of the wave-particles are grouped. My speculation is that in the single particle experiments, the core passing through one slit skews the distribution toward the center of the pattern because of the greater energy that accompanies the whole wave-particle, core and wave, as it passes through vs just the wave front passing through the other slit.

Thanks for the help, and the edit. This might wrap up the thread, though I am taking in a lot of the info you have provided, and am gaining a tiny amount of ground. I didn't get into the quantum gravity idea, except to mention it, but it would be the same type of word salad, and speculated processes. The thing going for it is that the action processes, quantum action and arena action, are strikingly similar, and they are how I bridge the gap between GR and QM. Of course, the QM is an unknown version. It was interesting seeing how the Pseudoscience sub-forum works here, and I like it. My situation is that I'm enthusiastic about getting a better understanding of the language of math, and thus being able to converse on questions I have about the mechanics that the math describes. My verbal pictures and simple graphics are pretty lame to those who have done the rigor. But I'm not an advocate of seeing my ideas liked, and I'm happy watching science unfold. When it does I can silently appreciate it when I have something right, and can keep quiet when I'm proved wrong, lol.

Aside from fleshing out a myriad of details about my wave-particle speculation which I fear will become an over reach on my part, I have presented an overview of my non-standard thinking, and thank you to the forum for permitting it. The mathematics that are missing make it nothing more that layman speculation. Perhaps it is just me justifying not putting in the rigor to learn the math of the current consensus theories, and the new but popular theories, but I view my speculations as quite simple, mathematically, compared to those developed by the scientific community. My view is that at the heart of it, we have spherical energy waves expanding all over the place, they intersect and overlap, the energy in the overlap becomes sufficient to equal a new quantum in the local environment, the overlap becomes an expanding quantum wave of energy that goes on to intersect and overlap. (I like to say "spherically" in the spirit of the famous story of the "spherical cow" on the Internet). Here is an image I have used to depict the sphere/sphere overlap leading to the production of a new quantum: In the past I had some help putting that into Tex format so let's see if it works here: [latex]\frac{V_{capR}}{V_R}+\frac{V_{capr}}{V_r}+\frac{V_{capR}}{V_r}+\frac{V_{capr}}{V_R}=[/latex][latex]\frac{1/3\pi H^2(3R-H)}{4/3\pi R^3}+\frac{1/3\pi h^2(3r-h)}{4/3\pi r^3}+\frac{1/3\pi H ^2(3R-H)}{4/3\pi r^3}+\frac{1/3\pi h^2(3r-h)}{4/3\pi R^3}[/latex] This simple equation, though it could be simplified further if I didn't like seeing the pieces that correspond with the graphic, is the gist of my idea about meaningful waves and quantization, and it applies to both the micro and macro levels that I have presented. Thanks for allowing me to get that all out here.

The spherically outflowing wave energy from the core portion of a photon is light, in my speculative model. The central core has mass. All wave-particles have this spherically outflowing wave energy, but photon wave energy is visible to the human eye at certain frequencies. The spherically outflowing wave energy from electrons, and other particles in the standard model is called gravitational wave energy in this model. I would define mass as being composed of wave energy in quantum increments, like the central core of high density wave energy of the photon that emits light, or the central portion of any particle that emits gravitational wave energy, and of course that includes all massive objects. As such, every particle and object has a net frequency, but only photons have a range of frequencies that are visible to the eye. The outflowing wave energy, in fact all wave energy, even the dense wave energy that makes up the core of the wave-particle, is being advanced by the oscillations of the wave energy background (mentioned recently). That means that there is a level of order below the observable presence of light and gravity waves that serves to advance them over distance. That is the oscillating wave energy background. In my model, the oscillating background represents the lowest order of action, while the multiple Big Bang landscape of the greater universe represents the highest order of action in the universe. Of Course, you could make an argument that the tiny oscillations at the micro level of order have some extremely tiny internal wave energy composition, just like one could argue that the Big Bang arenas that I speculate fill the greater universe could be the quanta of some vast, greater level of order where our observable expanding arena is but a mere quantum wave of energy making up the composition of things at that higher level, but neither of those cases are required to explain the nature of the universe as I see it, and so are not considered real.

The current depiction of the wave-particle represents the core portion and the spherical outflow over 10 quantum periods (the ten circles depicted). I use the term quantum period to represent how long it takes the core to produce the outflowing energy from all of its contained quanta. Updated depiction: There is a duration associated with any depiction of the wave-particle, and that duration is quantified in "quantum periods". Each spherical outflowing wave (circles in the graphic) represents one quantum period. If you missed it earlier, a quantum is the unit of contained energy associated with a given particle, and the mass of the particle is composed of wave energy in quantum increments. That means that there are many quanta in the core portion of the wave-particle. Each quantum is composed of the convergence of many individual waves at a point and a time, within the space occupied by the core portion of the wave-particle. I wanted to show a depiction of the wave-particle in motion, with each quantum period represented by an expanding spherical wave of energy, where the larger spheres are from previous quantum periods, and the smaller spheres (circles) are from the more recent quantum periods. See if you can make out what I mean from this multiple quantum period image:

I have an old text book I bought used for reference library, Serway-Beichner, Physics for Scientists and Engineers, fifth edition Chapter 37 is Interference of Light Waves Conditions for interference: The sources must be coherent. The sources must be of a single wavelength. I am assuming that when we are conducting single particle, two slit experiments, that the light source is a single wavelength. I have a comment about if it is coherent (each transmission of a particle maintaining a constant phase with respect to each other), when we only send one particle at a time: coherency is not an issue in the experiment since it is one particle at a time, and my speculation is that the light wave emitted by the core portion of the wave-particle is coherent and a constant wavelength throughout the life and path of that single particle. In fact, we don't want multiple in phase waves from a multiple particle, constant coherent transmission in this experiment, we only want the individual outflowing wave energy from a single core portion of a wave-particle that is sent individually to the slits. That helps insure that the outflow from a single particle is the only wave energy that passes through both slits. That is the outflowing wave energy emitted by the core portion of an individual wave-particle. It surrounds the core and is coherent, and has a constant in-phase frequency determined by the quanta contained within the core portion, per my speculations. If the interference pattern we are dealing with was only the wave energy that passes through both slits from the broadened wave front at the leading edge of the wave-particle, then we would have a classical Thomas Young wave pattern and the math that goes with in Serway-Beichner. But my speculation is that there is a lot more to that interference pattern than the smooth overlapping pattern we see in the text book. In my view, we get the complexity added when the core portion of the wave-particle passes through its randomly selected slit, and enters the space between the slits and the screen. That is when we get the second set of interfering waves coming from the core portion, and that overlap with the otherwise nice regular pattern. I also found and downloaded an app with a math/physics keyboard so I can type things like Test: d sin θ=mλ I = Imax cos²((πd sin θ)/λ) And finally for now, I have images of my depiction of a wave-particle, the first is from 2013: And the second is current: Notice I have realized that the core portion would be in the center of the particle space, not at the leading edge. This is so the wave passes through both slits in advance of the particle which passes through only one slit. And images from back in 2013 when I did my own version of the double slit experiment, which I post here so I can refer to them in subsequent post: double slit, and single slit interference patterns:

Some have told me that my speculative idea about the wave-particle nature of particles is akin to Pilot Wave Theory, and that the de Broglie-Bohm interpretation might be considered as valid as some of the other interpretations. In post #7 I mentioned that situation and said I might comment on how I would differentiate my wave-particle model from the Pilot Wave. The wave-particle idea is not really the same as the pilot wave, and I'll explain to you how I would differentiate it from the pilot wave theory, but it would help with my explanation if you are familiar with this PBS video. I think it does a good job of presenting the de Broglie-Bohm Pilot Wave Theory: Bohemian mechanics is referred to as being intuitive, solidly physical, and more or less in defiance of the position of Bohr and Heisenberg, and more or less supportive of Einstein's views, where it was clear he opposed fundamental randomness and non-locality; determinism was more to his fancy. I might agree that the wave-particle that I speculate about in this thread is akin to Pilot Wave Theory, with the differences I mention here. Louis de Broglie presented the view that there were real waves of "something" and that they push around real point-like particles. The wave-particle model has some similarities to that, but the "something" that carries waves is speculated about as well, and is said to be an oscillating background composed of waves of the tiniest order. This oscillating background is the product of a universe that has potentially always existed, and where light and gravitational waves fill all space, coming and going from every direction, at every point in space, at the speed of light; every point has a level of wave energy density as a result. More meaningful waves are advanced through that background by the oscillations, much like Huygens depicted the advance of light wave fronts through space; a kind of pinhole effect where every point along the wave front produces a spherical pinhole wave that continually advances the wave front. Pilot Wave theory explains the wave interference pattern in the two slit experiments as the effect of the wave nature of the particle going through both slits, and the point-like particle nature going through just one slit. The result is that there are regular constructive interference peaks that guide the point particle to certain parts of the screen, and away from other parts, giving us the familiar interference patterns of dark and light lines. The wave-particle model says that the wave front of the wave-particle does indeed go through both slits, and the particle portion goes through just one, but that is where the similarity ends. In the wave particle model, when the particle portion, referred to as the dense core of the wave particle, goes through one slit, it continues to be a fully functioning wave particle, and carries with it the dense wave energy core, and the on-going spherically outflowing wave energy component surrounding the core portion. The implications of that has some significance; the wave energy passing through the slits is not equal or the same, not regular or consistent between the slits and the screen. You have to differentiate between the two portions of the wave-particle. The wave energy from the spherically outflowing wave front of the wave particle is equal and the same essentially, as it passes through both slits. However, when the core portion passes through one slit and brings its continuing spherical wave energy outflow with it, because that outflow is produced by quantum action within the core, and that makes the interference pattern between the slits and the screen a whole new ball game. The particle side has much more energy and that decidedly influences the path that the core takes to the screen. Of course the overall pattern will not be lopsided because it is random as to which slit the particle core passes through, but the screen impressions will favor the more central bands of the interference pattern, at the expense of the outer bands. I would think that there would be some possibility that the math that describes the peaks and valleys that guide the particle would be quite different if the equations took into account wave-particle of my model. The effect would likely produce a much more energetic and lopsided nature of the wave energy from the slit that the particle portion passes through, not a consistent set of constructive and destructive overlaps. I would predict that the side hosting the core portion, with its incremental energy from the outflowing spherical wave, would have a greater influence on the path or trajectory of the core portion as it makes its way to the detector. That would favor the more central parts of the interference pattern as opposed to the most divergent parts of the pattern, making the overall interference more centrally congested, at the expense of the outer bands. However, such a mathematical examination will have to wait until and if someone takes the idea to heart, and understands the difference of intensities in the bands that I would think should occur...

Agreed, and more to the thread topic, I hope I am getting the some of the ideas about QFT. In post #42 I was interested in if my conclusions were acceptable in regard to a visualization of quanta, and of the idea that the wave-particle is a union of force fields and matter fields, orchestrated by the quantum action process. I mentioned the term "particle space", and think that it is the place in the fields where the excitation of the various local fields is great enough to transmit the excitation from the local space, and out into surrounding fields, much in keeping with phrases like, "the infinite reach of gravity", or entanglement, wave packets, probabilities of where the actual excitation may be located, and where the "collapses of the wave function" might occur. Any encouragement about that line of reasoning?

I'm getting through the Hobson paper and some of the foot notes to help me understand QFT. I'm liking it. Into matter fields right now. Changing to the cosmology: the links to other models you gave me, and the whole concept of something from nothing has been of interest to me. The best I can do to visualize it is if the landscape of the greater universe is a multiple Big Bang universe, and if each and every Big Bang that forms from the process of arena action is a huge matter/antimatter event like you suggest I consider. There would be very rapid expansion of the hot dense ball of energy at the heart of each event, with some reasonable expectation of the events sending out huge anomalies where large sections are matter and large sections are antimatter, heading out away from the collapses/bang location. In the nearby space, there would be a tremendous amount of annihilation going on, contributing to the rapid expansion, but the anomalies heading out into the surrounding space at relativistic velocities might never encounter their "opposite state" that formed at the outset, and so might not experience annihilation. An imbalance between matter/antimatter left behind vs matter/antimatter spreading out into space from the event means the local mass annihilation will result in some imbalance between matter and antimatter, leaving only the residual matter OR anti matter to cool, form particles, stars, galaxies, etc. We could end up with Big Bang arenas that are composed entirely of antimatter, and some that are entirely matter, with no indication of which is which until they encounter their opposite counterpart somewhere out there as their expansion results in the inevitable arena convergences as they expand. Still, that wouldn't be a "something from nothing" free lunch scenario because of infinite regress, but it does get you past the initial conditions necessary for each individual Big Bang.

I got off on an interesting path after your mention of a "something from nothing" universe, as I try to envision the wave-particle in the field context. Not too hard to do actually, since I don't have all that pesky math to deal with, just verbal pictures and visualizations of the mechanics playing out. I went back to the Hobson paper to find the part about matter fields. He posed the question, "If field is all there is, where do electrons and atoms come from? QFT's answer is that they are field quanta, but quanta of matter fields rather than quanta of force fields.", and referenced note 46. Note 46: Molecules, atoms, and protons are "composite fields" made of the presumably fundamental standard model fields. OK, of course I have the same problem. If you were to refer to my earlier explanation of my statement, "everything is composed of wave energy" and "particles are composed of wave energy in quantum increments", and compare it to the QFT stated goal of showing everything is fields (force fields and matter fields), you would see I have come the conclusion that the wave-particle is a union of force fields and matter fields, orchestrated by the quantum action process. Getting my head on straight on the differences is a good track for me to follow, so in some of my word pictures about visualizations of the quantum action process, I briefly describe matter quanta that make up the wave particle and how the wave portion is emitted by the high density convergences of wave energy within the particle space. The contained energy of the core portion is largely made up of those internal high density convergences at any instant; the convergences feature a small time delay as the energy from two converging parent wave fronts equalizes it self within the overlap space. Each convergence then produces a new expanding wave within the core, and then goes on to form more convergences (quantum action within the particle space is strikingly similar to Big Bang arena action in the landscape of the multiple Big Bang greater universe mentioned earlier). The frequency of the wave-particle's outflowing wave energy is determined by the number of quanta in the core (as if you could do a freeze-frame and count them, lol). Any point in pursuing any of this here in speculations?

Thank you for all of that. I will say that there aren't very many models that I haven't reviewed, and those are some of the ones I have compared against. I've always thought of my layman model as the "always existed" model, and have compared it to the models you mention. But I never thought about it from the standpoint of making the multiple big bangs matter/antimatter annihilations. I can see how that could convert it to the ultimate free lunch. Something to think about. Maybe this deserves further discussion, though the speculation about a wave-particle is a little more current in regard to learning QFT. I'm planning a response to the "two slit experiments" section of Hobson's paper first though, because I have to get some things cleared up in regard to his presentation of it.

The Hobson paper, "There are no particles, only fields", is a good read, and it informs the novice (me) that the "evolution" of quantum field theory over the past 100 years has been laborious and marked by the expected slow growth of a consensus. His paper is a recent expression of the goal (2012 or so) of a QFT where everything is field, and all space is filled with field. I think he feels that the scientific community is almost there. I'm there, except that my accumulated thinking, call it my Wave Energy Density model, has me saying that wave energy is all there is. So if there is anything to my speculations and hypotheses, it is that the wave energy that fills all space equates to "all space is filled with fields". My goal then gets some new direction from Hobson, and that is to quit distinguishing between wave energy density and field, and just consider them to be the same to a certain extent. The reason for this post is to express my feelings about your statement, "I seriously doubt you need to rewrite all of physics". I agree, though there is a reason that I try to go back to the Big Bang, and define the preconditions of it. I'm sure you don't think of our Big Bang as "something from nothing" or "God did it". Therefore any preconditions would be fundamental to the understanding of what "only fields" means, and what "wave energy is all there is" means. We are talking about what fills space, and how much space is there. If it is all field, then the excitation of field would require something that excites the field, i.e., something in space along with field, and I speculate that that something else is wave energy that advances through a background field. The background field is the product of an infinite history of big bangs (I hypothesize an eternal and infinite multiple Big Bang universe), and their remnants; infinite light and gravitational wave energy that fills all space. Given the wave energy composition of the background, I find that a macro level and a micro level of action processes fits nicely. They are strikingly similar in mechanics, in that there are expanding quanta (particular to the given system, a different quantum is peculiar to each quantized system) that intersect and overlap, producing new quanta when the "critical capacity" of energy in the overlap space reaches a quantum (there is a trivial equation for this). Perhaps a hard concept to go along with, but I think that Big Bang arenas expand until their expansion is interrupted by intersecting and overlapping with an adjacent expanding Big Bang arena. (You might see a "cold spot" like we see in WMAP and Planck data at the location of the intersection, and the overall heat map would feature hemispherical anisotropy, like we have observed in the sky maps.) The galactic material contributed by each parent arena converges due to gravity (quantum gravity of course), forms a Big Crunch, and when the crunch reaches critical capacity, it collapse/bangs into a new expanding Big Bang arena. That is the macro process of Big Bang Arena action that defeats entropy; any imaginable space big enough to host multiple big bang arenas has that process playing out at all times across its space, and that process typifies the Big Bang arena landscape of the greater universe. Go to the micro realm, and quantum action is the process. Quit similar to arena action because a micro level quantum of energy is a locally meaningful wave produced by the convergence of two or more quantum waves, just like two or more Big Bang arena waves converge to produce a new Big Crunch. Particles are composed of wave energy in quantum increments, and so the presence of a wave-particle contains many billions/trillions of tiny wave intersections (quanta, each one is a micro level equivalent to the Big Crunch at the macro level) converging in the oscillating background. The oscillating background is the remnant background of a potentially infinite history of Big Bang arena action, and the light and gravitational wave energy that has always filled all space. The oscillations are the lowest level of wave action, and are produced by the fact that all of the wave energy is continually intersecting as it advances through space, and the oscillations at that lowest level are how the individual waves advance (similar to the Huygens concept of the advance of a light wave). I just wanted to express those speculations and hypotheses, because to me they are the backstory to "all space is filled with fields", and "everything is composed of wave energy". Of course it is more complex and detailed than I have put into this post.

The "good article" was found from your website link. I'll look at the new link, and take my time. Right now I'm working my way through the Hobson paper, and will have some comments for you in a few days, if my wife gives me plenty of space. She is supportive and listens when I just have to talk out loud, but she has no clue of what I'm saying, lol.

Or maybe I should just breeze through the 400 plus pages at https://webusers.imj-prg.fr/~frederic.paugam/documents/enseignement/master-mathematical-physics.pdf I am pretty far behind and getting up to speed on QFT may do me in. I'm sure you don't have high expectations, but you are definitely a good teacher.

I thought I had enough homework already, but those equations/expressions don't look too tough. Here is a visual that I like because it is much like I envision the wave-particle; of course the wave particle is in three dimensions: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Uncertainty_principle.gif

Ok then, I'll add some here, and do some thinking and study as well.(I'm almost willing to take that wager, because you deserve to win if you are right, and I would pay up gladly .

This is a very thoughtful and generous response; a lot for someone untrained to wade through. It will take me some time to give what would be even a reasonable response. I do note the reference to learning QFT, and I have looked, but given my model, which I try to make internally consistent, I always find things in there that don't seem right to me, and I don't mean I am right and QFT is not; I mean that I don't add anything to the model, which is effectively housed in my pea brain, unless I can fully integrate it. So let me think and do a little looking. In the meantime, would it be appropriate to add some related pieces about the wave energy density speculations that I consider internally consistent, but that might be at odds with what QM says, due to my incomplete understanding of QM?

I read you post #18 again, and my response to it in post #20, and I don't see any inconsistency in my response. Edit: I want to add to the thread, not specifically to that last response, but I guess here is as good as later. It is a follow on to my reply to Strange in post #7 about the single particle two slit delayed choice quantum erasure experiment presented by Kim et al., at this link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed_choice_quantum_eraser#The_experiment_of_Kim_et_al._.282000.29 Does the photon registering at D0 know which path its twin will take or not? That philosophical question arises since the path the twin takes isn't determined until after the Glan-Thompson prism spits each photon into two paths. The pattern that forms at D0 always correlates with the screen pattern of the twin, regardless of which screen the twin hits. So if the twin hits D1 or D2 which always results in an interference pattern, there will always be an interference pattern at D0, but if the twin hits D3 or D4 which never causes an interference pattern, there will never be an interference pattern at D0. To imply some knowledge on the part of the photon really takes us off the road, IMHO. If you think of the photon as being either a wave or a particle but not both, and if you make the claim that the delayed choice somehow has anything to do with where and when the interference pattern forms, we will disagree. My conclusion is that the photon certainly never knows where its twin will end up, and therefore never knows whether to form an interference pattern at D0 or not. If instead you consider the speculation that a photon is a wave-particle, i.e., to be both a wave and a particle at the same time, you can always predict the results. There will be an interference pattern formed if there is both a blue path and a red path to the detector; see the diagram: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Kim_EtAl_Quantum_Eraser.svg

Is there a assumption being made on your part that the wave and the particle are somehow separate? They are the two portions of the wave-particle that make it act like a wave and a particle at the same time. The wave portion surrounds the core portion and leads the advance of the wave-particle where ever the wave-particle goes, because it is a spherical outflow of wave energy from the core portion. But they travel together until their path is too narrow for the spherical portion of the local wave particle to entirely pass through just one slit. It is broad enough to pass through both slits, but the core portion is compact enough to pass through either slit.

Yes. Since I already mentioned my wave energy density model, where everything is composed of wave energy, of which the wave-particle speculation is a part, the explanation for how the wave portion arrives in advance of the central high energy density core is based on the universe being filled with wave energy. The explanation for a universe filled with wave energy coming and going in all directions at all points, and therefore having a fluctuating wave energy density "value" at all points, is part of the explanation, but I'll just refer to that energy as being light and gravitational wave energy emitted and absorbed by all particles and objects. Light energy is the spherically outflowing wave from the photon, and that spherical wave has a source at the center of the spherical out flow; the source is the high energy density core of the photon wave-particle, and the gravitational wave energy is the outflow of wave energy from all particles and objects. To explain the wave-particle in that environment is to envision it as a standing wave pattern, and since the photon travels at the local speed of light, it gets all of its inflowing wave energy from the forward direction of motion. I refer to the local speed of light, because in the wave energy density model, the local wave energy density is the value of the fluctuating wave energy density in the immediate vicinity, made up of the spherically outflowing wave energy from all surrounding particles and objects. The out flowing standing wave component from distant objects is the inflow to the local particle, and the out flow of the local particle contributes to the inflowing component of the standing wave patterns of the distant objects. Keep in mind that there is constant relative motion which I explain as a combination of two forces, quantum gravity and wave energy density equalization. So, the wave particle has a presence which is its complex standing wave pattern, and the pattern is sustained by the directionally inflowing wave energy density, and so particles and objects move in the direction of the net highest wave energy density source. This means that the photon wave-particle has a leading wave energy wave front that spreads out spherically in advance of the central high energy density core of the wave particle, goes through both slit slightly in advance of the central high energy density core, and thus forms the wave interference pattern. Are you the Strange from CosmoQuest; small world isn't it, but you do pose an appropriate question at just the right time. The spherically outflowing wave energy component of the wave-particle, which leads the advance of the core portion, has a consistent wave density as it leaves that central core of the wave-particle. When it passes through both slits, the energy emerging from each slit has the same consistent source (the outflowing wave energy component of the photon as it approaches the slits). The slits act as elongated "pinholes", and we know that light emerges spherically from pinholes. So beyond the slits, each spherical pinhole type wave is the energy of the wave-particle, and when those waves converge, a very consistent interference pattern is produced, and is characterized and high energy peaks and low energy valleys. That is the wave energy environment that the photon's high wave energy density core enters when the core passes through one or the other of the slits. But remember, the core is continually emitting the spherically outflowing wave energy component, and so when it passes through one of the slits, it brings with it the wave energy outflow too. This changes the local wave energy density as the photon core portion traverses the space between the slits and the detectors. When we don't know which slit the core passes through, we do know that its very presence affects the wave interference pattern, and the net resulting peaks and valleys no longer have that very clean consistent pattern of peak and valleys. We don't know what the path of the core portion will be, except to say that it is influenced by the complex interference pattern made up of the consistent wave out flow that enters the space behind the slits, and to the major contribution of the spherical wave energy outflow that accompanies the particle portion where ever it goes. As for where the energy goes, can you answer that from the above explanation in regard to the spherically outflowing wave energy component being the inflowing wave energy component of surrounding particles and objects? That leaves the wave energy contained in the wave-particle core to be accounted for in regard to your question, "does something stop the wave when the particle is detected". Yes, that is the case. When the high wave energy density core strikes the detector, there is transfer of wave energy from the core, to the particles that it encounters, exciting those particles, which makes the impression on the screen.