Delayed Choice as a Consequence of Relativistic Simultaneity

[AbnormallyHonest]

Light is a wave of potential that emanates from the point of origin to the point of perception. At the point of perception, its potential is realized by its potential collapsing to a probability of “1”. At this point we know its properties take on the form of a “particle”.

At what speed did this “particle” just traverse linear space? At that speed, how does this particle experience time? So does this “particle” exist in every moment in space on its way to reach perception, or is it only aware of the one moment it exists? Furthermore, when the potential of the wave collapses to a probability of “1”, does it make sense that the “particle” knew every differing moment in space that it became a particle, or would it become a particle in only the one moment it exists?

I would reason that the velocity of the particle would cause time to stop and no time would pass. There would be no time between its origin and perception. They would be the same moment. In a sense, to the particle, these two events would happen simultaneously. This would also seem consistent with the fact that no matter when light is perceived, it is always a perception of the origin (e.g. when I view a star, I view it at the moment the light departs and not at its state when the light arrives). The light seems to be a singular moment in time, but stretched linearly across warped spatial time.

So when the potential of a light wave collapses to a probability of “1” at the perception, when would you expect to detect that collapse at its origin? Logic would reason that this event must happen simultaneously at both the perception and the origin, and this is why it appears to us that the light always “knows” if it will be perceived even before the decision is made to do so. It seems less probable to me that this is the result of some unexplainable “retroactive” chronological flow of information, but rather just a consequence of relative simultaneity. This can further be substantiated by the “delayed choice” variation of the double slit experiment.

Now if you wanted to test this theory experimentally, you might set up a double slit experiment with one unhindered slit and the second with a photovoltaic material just beyond its threshold. If you directed single photons through the open slit, they should not interfere with the photovoltaic material behind slit #2, provided that you have a way to detect the photons after they pass through slit #1. It would not matter the distance away from the slit you set the detector, or even if the choice to detect the photon was delayed. As we know, the collapse of the wave to a particle is realized at both the perception and the origin simultaneously, so if detected, the light would actually originate as a particle, because to the particle, it is the same moment as its perception.

Conversely, if I turned my detector off, and did not take a measurement, the light should behave as a wave and pass through both slits, and thereby interacting with a very strategically placed photovoltaic material beyond the threshold of the second slit. (If this subordinate detection somehow interfered with the results, to further confound the occurrence of discrete measurement, you might also connect your photovoltaic material to a reservoir which is exposed to another power source render the interaction neutral—inference is not the same thing as measurement.)

With a few simple tests you would be able to verify if you had desired results. Once a working model of the experiment is achieved, what would you expect if you fired photons through the open slit and allowed them to continue unimpeded into the cosmos? Is it possible that you might be able to detect life… and likely intelligent life? Would you know where it’s located? If, and how far it may have migrated and how much of it is aware of us? Would you know this immediately?

…just a thought.

[AbnormallyHonest]

Light is a wave of potential that emanates from the point of origin to the point of perception. At the point of perception, its potential is realized by its potential collapsing to a probability of “1”. At this point we know its properties take on the form of a “particle”.

At what speed did this “particle” just traverse linear space? At that speed, how does this particle experience time? So does this “particle” exist in every moment in space on its way to reach perception, or is it only aware of the one moment it exists? Furthermore, when the potential of the wave collapses to a probability of “1”, does it make sense that the “particle” knew every differing moment in space that it became a particle, or would it become a particle in only the one moment it exists?

I would reason that the velocity of the particle would cause time to stop and no time would pass. There would be no time between its origin and perception. They would be the same moment. In a sense, to the particle, these two events would happen simultaneously. This would also seem consistent with the fact that no matter when light is perceived, it is always a perception of the origin (e.g. when I view a star, I view it at the moment the light departs and not at its state when the light arrives). The light seems to be a singular moment in time, but stretched linearly across warped spatial time.

So when the potential of a light wave collapses to a probability of “1” at the perception, when would you expect to detect that collapse at its origin? Logic would reason that this event must happen simultaneously at both the perception and the origin, and this is why it appears to us that the light always “knows” if it will be perceived even before the decision is made to do so. It seems less probable to me that this is the result of some unexplainable “retroactive” chronological flow of information, but rather just a consequence of relative simultaneity. This can further be substantiated by the “delayed choice” variation of the double slit experiment.

Now if you wanted to test this theory experimentally, you might set up a double slit experiment with one unhindered slit and the second with a photovoltaic material just beyond its threshold. If you directed single photons through the open slit, they should not interfere with the photovoltaic material behind slit #2, provided that you have a way to detect the photons after they pass through slit #1. It would not matter the distance away from the slit you set the detector, or even if the choice to detect the photon was delayed. As we know, the collapse of the wave to a particle is realized at both the perception and the origin simultaneously, so if detected, the light would actually originate as a particle, because to the particle, it is the same moment as its perception.

Conversely, if I turned my detector off, and did not take a measurement, the light should behave as a wave and pass through both slits, and thereby interacting with a very strategically placed photovoltaic material beyond the threshold of the second slit. (If this subordinate detection somehow interfered with the results, to further confound the occurrence of discrete measurement, you might also connect your photovoltaic material to a reservoir which is exposed to another power source to render the interaction neutral—inference is not the same thing as measurement.)

With a few simple tests you would be able to verify if you had desired results. Once a working model of the experiment is achieved, what would you expect if you fired photons through the open slit and allowed them to continue unimpeded into the cosmos? Is it possible that you might be able to detect life… and likely intelligent life? Would you know where it’s located? If, and how far it may have migrated and how much of it is aware of us? Would you know this immediately?

…just a thought.

[AbnormallyHonest]

Light is a wave of potential that emanates from the point of origin to the point of perception. At the point of perception, its potential is realized by its potential collapsing to a probability of “1”. At this point we know its properties take on the form of a “particle”.

At what speed did this “particle” just traverse linear space? At that speed, how does this particle experience time? So does this “particle” exist in every moment in space on its way to reach perception, or is it only aware of the one moment it exists? Furthermore, when the potential of the wave collapses to a probability of “1”, does it make sense that the “particle” knew every differing moment in space that it became a particle, or would it become a particle in only the one moment it exists?

I would reason that the velocity of the particle would cause time to stop and no time would pass. There would be no time between its origin and perception. They would be the same moment. In a sense, to the particle, these two events would happen simultaneously. This would also seem consistent with the fact that no matter when light is perceived, it is always a perception of the origin (e.g. when I view a star, I view it at the moment the light departs and not at its state when the light arrives). The light seems to be a singular moment in time, but stretched linearly across warped spatial time.

So when the potential of a light wave collapses to a probability of “1” at the perception, when would you expect to detect that collapse at its origin? Logic would reason that this event must happen simultaneously at both the perception and the origin, and this is why it appears to us that the light always “knows” if it will be perceived even before the decision is made to do so. The collapse of the wave to a particle is realized at both the perception and the origin simultaneously, so if detected, the light would actually originate as a particle, because to the particle, it is the same moment as its perception.

 

It seems less probable to me that this is the result of some unexplainable retro-chronological flow of information, but rather just a consequence of relativistic simultaneity.

[Strange]

At what speed did this “particle” just traverse linear space? At that speed, how does this particle experience time?

...

I would reason that the velocity of the particle would cause time to stop and no time would pass.

 

 

As the same experiment can be done with electrons and other massive particles, it cannot be connected to travelling at the speed of light.

[AbnormallyHonest]

 

 

As the same experiment can be done with electrons and other massive particles, it cannot be connected to travelling at the speed of light.

 

This is why I included the use of quotation marks on the identification of the light as a particle, only referring to it's properties which, in this case, excludes actual mass. Furthermore, I am not aware that massive particles are excluded from relativistic time dilation at the speed of light, or near the speed of light. If they were to travel at a relative velocity that would not allow the relativistic effects to include the actual passage through the slit, does the delayed choice phenomenon still hold precedence?

Edited March 15, 2017 by AbnormallyHonest

[studiot]

I am struggling to find your point in all that wordage.

 

Especially as you have started two threads on essentially the same subject within half an hour of each other.

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/103942-a-question-of-delayed-choice-application/

 

Your comment that all points on a light beam are simultaneous to the light beam is essentially correct, but as to the rest

 

What is your point sir?

[AbnormallyHonest]

To imply that the collapse of the particle is absolute dependent on absolute time dilation would be superficial. I would hypothesize that that uncertainty would render the process as dynamic at speeds under the speed of light.

[studiot]

To imply that the collapse of the particle is absolute dependent on absolute time dilation would be superficial. I would hypothesize that that uncertainty would render the process as dynamic at speeds under the speed of light.

 

 

What was that a reply to, and what did it mean?

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

 

Two very similar threads merged. Please keep to one thread per topic

 

Do not respond to this moderation within the thread

 

[AbnormallyHonest]

I am struggling to find your point in all that wordage.

 

Especially as you have started two threads on essentially the same subject within half an hour of each other.

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/103942-a-question-of-delayed-choice-application/

 

Your comment that all points on a light beam are simultaneous to the light beam is essentially correct, but as to the rest

 

What is your point sir?

 

My apologies as I am new to this forum and forums in general. The original thread was intended to present an application of a much broader idea. I presented it in two locations within this form with hopes of generating an interest from varying demographics to gain a broader perspective. Also, my thoughts were that this broader application would indeed yield results, but the results may not be considered valid unless the mechanics of delayed choice could be explained. This was the only reason I could reason why the method had not been attempted, or reviewed as far as I could tell. I was merely attempting to isolate the portion of the application that affects the validity of the original thread.

 

As far as my "wordage", again I can only apologize for my lack of experience, in both forums and with exposure to stimulation that does not require such explanation.

[AbnormallyHonest]

I am struggling to find your point in all that wordage.

 

Especially as you have started two threads on essentially the same subject within half an hour of each other.

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/103942-a-question-of-delayed-choice-application/

 

Your comment that all points on a light beam are simultaneous to the light beam is essentially correct, but as to the rest

 

What is your point sir?

 

The phrase, "all points on a light beam are simultaneous" does not seem like a misnomer? To say "all points" when the simultaneity would imply that they are actually the same point. That's my point.

 

 

As the same experiment can be done with electrons and other massive particles, it cannot be connected to travelling at the speed of light.

 

 

 

This is why I included the use of quotation marks on the identification of the light as a particle, only referring to it's properties which, in this case, excludes actual mass. Furthermore, I am not aware that massive particles are excluded from relativistic time dilation at the speed of light, or near the speed of light. If they were to travel at a relative velocity that would not allow the relativistic effects to include the actual passage through the slit, does the delayed choice phenomenon still hold precedence?

 

 

 

 

What was that a reply to, and what did it mean?

 

 

My apologies for not being more clear. What I meant was that the idea of simultaneity is dependent on the absolute time dilation, or to the extent that time stops. The uncertainty principle would imply a subatomic mechanism that would render an analysis of only what is witnessed as superficial. Therefore, I would hypothesize that what we see on the surface is actually subordinate to an underlying uncertainty and therefore dynamic. e.g. The slower you travel from the speed of light, to the lesser degree you move the simultaneity from the origin. As nothing can ever really be "stopped" this disparity can never be fully resolved which seems consistent with the idea of uncertainty.

 

The phrase, "all points on a light beam are simultaneous" does not seem like a misnomer? To say "all points" when the simultaneity would imply that they are actually the same point. That's my point.

 

 

 

 

 

 

My apologies for not being more clear. What I meant was that the idea of simultaneity is dependent on the absolute time dilation, or to the extent that time stops. The uncertainty principle would imply a subatomic mechanism that would render an analysis of only what is witnessed as superficial. Therefore, I would hypothesize that what we see on the surface is actually subordinate to an underlying uncertainty and therefore dynamic. e.g. The slower you travel from the speed of light, to the lesser degree you move the simultaneity from the origin. As nothing can ever really be "stopped" this disparity can never be fully resolved which seems consistent with the idea of uncertainty.

 

Also, I might add, that as you accelerate to the speed of light, the simultaneity can never move past the origin... imposing a "limit".

How can you be at the center of the Universe at two points simultaneously?

Edited March 16, 2017 by AbnormallyHonest

[AbnormallyHonest]

Another point to consider is that since we know there is a Planck Length, the movement of an object through space is more of a digital transposition rather than an linear analogue movement. Light however moves as a wave until it is perceived. The wave of energy woudln't necessarily subscribe to the quanta state of matter, but when it is realized as a particle, that particle does not adhere to the quanta of spacetime, it would exist as the wave, as a linear movement... lossless so to speak. It is the quanta that force chronological adherence of matter to exist in the space adjacent to the space it will exist in next. Light particles do not adhere to this, this is why they do not experience time, and this is why the Delayed Choice does seem to follow a logical continuity that we see with massive particles through space.

[Strange]

This is why I included the use of quotation marks on the identification of the light as a particle, only referring to it's properties which, in this case, excludes actual mass. Furthermore, I am not aware that massive particles are excluded from relativistic time dilation at the speed of light, or near the speed of light. If they were to travel at a relative velocity that would not allow the relativistic effects to include the actual passage through the slit, does the delayed choice phenomenon still hold precedence?

 

The experiment has been done with electrons and even large molecules. These were certainly travelling at non-relativistic speeds.

 

But I am curious how you are planning to replace all of quantum field theory. It is not enough to just come up with an alternative explanation for one experiment. You need a consistent mathematical model that explains all phenomena.

Another point to consider is that since we know there is a Planck Length, the movement of an object through space is more of a digital transposition rather than an linear analogue movement.

The fact that distance can be measured using Planck units does not mean that space is quantised. There is zero evidence for that. And, as far as I know, in theories that assume quantised space, it is on a scale many orders of magnitude smaller than the Planck length.

[AbnormallyHonest]

The experiment has been done with electrons and even large molecules. These were certainly travelling at non-relativistic speeds.

 

But I am curious how you are planning to replace all of quantum field theory. It is not enough to just come up with an alternative explanation for one experiment. You need a consistent mathematical model that explains all phenomena.

 

The fact that distance can be measured using Planck units does not mean that space is quantised. There is zero evidence for that. And, as far as I know, in theories that assume quantised space, it is on a scale many orders of magnitude smaller than the Planck length.

 

Yes, the double slit, but the massive particles do not adhere to delayed choice. The path of massive particles remains undefined even if it's entangled photon is measured. I believe that space is not quantized, but I believe the separation of matter from space created a measurable digitization of it's movement through space. I believe it is the very thing that caused the separation of matter from space, because it caused the expansion of space, at least from the perspective of matter. (think think of an analogue vs digital translation for sound. Digital requires a DAC in order to translate the sound because the sound and signal were separated... or think of a cookie cutter, you can always make more cookies from the scraps in between)

 

I don't think the Planck length is a real thing though, because within that narrow portion of space, things are uncertain, including length, so you cannot say for sure that within the length, that the length actually exists...but to matter that exists in space, it has to move to an adjacent place in space from where it currently exists, and it requires energy in order to get it over that hump, and that amount of energy would be the amount required to move it about a Planck Length. Also, gives time a continuity and is the quantum manifestation of existing in a finite Universe. The smaller than the Planck Length scales are also require their own type of temporal displacement in order to conceptualize. Math exists, the mathematics proves nothing other than my conceptualization is logical. There isn't much in this reality that we couldn't create some kind of algorithm for... It would be much easier to form some mathematical interpretation for this than say a Quintic Function, yet we still believe 5th degree polynomials can be factored.

Also, I might add... Einstein said "If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't understand it yourself." Don't know many six year olds that would make sense out of a Monster Moonshine, Hypergeometric Functions, or the Hausdorff Measure. Conception is really all we have, the math is just a way to articulate it in a way that will resonate with anyone who has studied math for six years or more. If the conception isn't more logical, then creating the math to explain it seems like a waste of energy.

Edited July 11, 2017 by AbnormallyHonest

[Strange]

 

Yes, the double slit, but the massive particles do not adhere to delayed choice.

 

 

That's news to me. Do you have a reference for that?

 

 

 

I believe the separation of matter from space created a measurable digitization of it's movement through space.

 

Your personal beliefs are not very relevant or interesting, on a science site. Do you have any evidence for this?

 

 

 

I don't think the Planck length is a real thing though

 

Of course it is. That is like saying "I don't think a centimetre is a real thing".

 

 

 

Conception is really all we have, the math is just a way to articulate it in a way that will resonate with anyone who has studied math for six years or more.

 

You appear to have that exactly backwards. (I guess that is an attempt to justify your laziness in not learning any math or physics.)