Particle Wave Duality and Subjective Truth

I'm going to assume most of you reading this have at least some elementary understanding of the particle wave duality.

My understanding is that a wave doesnt become a particle until observed. This was demonstrated in the famous double-slit experiment. In the double slit experiment, a photon exhibits a wave interference pattern as it passes through two slits. Once the photon becomes observed as it passes through the slits, it doesn't exhibit an interference pattern, it just shows up behind the slit it was fired through.

So, prior to observation, a particle goes through one slit, the other slit, both slits, and neither slit, all simultaneously.

Since observation is what actualizes a position of the particle, could it be that what we see is subjective because we are actualizing a unique position of what were seeing among a variety of possible positions?

If that is the case, then could it be said that my reality is objectively different than yours? Or, noone is seeing a complete reality, but only seeing one possible position and manifestation of reality.

I think most of us already know this to be the case, but it is interesting to find this parallel with quantum mechanics as a possible explanation as why subjectivity is the way it is.

In my opinion the double-slit experiment is the biggest proof that we as observers create the world around us. If we are not there to observe a phenomena, it does not act the way it should.

What exists outside of the perception of consciousness? Nothing because consciousness is all that exists, everything is an extension of consciousness from a tree to a rock to your living room. Without an observer, the universe falls apart and begins to act erratically just as the double-slit experiment proves.

Maybe the creation of the universe didn't happen some time in the very distant past, maybe it is created over and over again each moment by each and every one of us every second of every day.

In my opinion we are all co-creators of the universe, we passively create it just as our brains passively control our heartbeat and breathing.

The double-slit experiment is pointing toward us as the answer to all the questions. Biocentrism is a theory that tries to explain this phenomenon. Nothing exists outside the perception of mind and everything hinges on the existence of an observer, or us.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

well that's the most scientific view of taoism I have seen!
"Tathagata Buddha the father Buddha said, with our thoughts, we make the world."

I actually spent a few minutes pondering about this...but must say it "unfortunately" is not that easy.

Yes, one could argue that we create reality, that we create the world around us.

But it gets interesting once you know that the subjectivity ("is it a particle? is it a wave?) becomes OBJECTIVE since it not only becomes a wave/particle for you but also for everyone else.

Or...in other words, whoever observes the wave/particle and at some point finds that it has become one or the other has changed "the world"....he somehow interacted with the wave/particle and brought it from a subjective/fuzzy state into an objective state, didn't he?

This is a paradox since your OP started with the premise that we're all making our subjective world and all our realities are different. But the experiment shows that exactly this does NOT happen. (Once the state is determined everyone will agree, it's not that one scientist will see it as a wave and the other as a particle)

UNLESS we're getting really, really metaphysical here and speculate that in the instant where the photon is observed and its state is noted the observer has created a new reality, one where the photon is either one or the other.

The universe is mathematical, mental, and mostly unconscious. Think of it as a universe with two sides a objective world of strict dimensional mathematical laws(called laws of physics) and a dimensionless side where the laws break down a singularity. These are all in waves there is nothing but sine and cosine waves. Think of us as evolving dimensionless information systems that can learn and build in the objective world. Consciousness evolved in humanity as a way for these information to reflect on themselves and earn more free will.

We collapse the wave function when observing because our brain inverts the waves into what we know as solid matter. We are always performing a Fourier transform(Google it) the physical world is a Fourier transform of the dimensionless world. Our brain is a tool to present the objective world our bodies help us interact with the physical world for information. The real us is a dimensionless infinite evolving information gatherer.

So the objective world is there regardless if we observe it or not. We actually co create but I'm not getting into that yet. We are one in a singularity but individuals as well. My opinion.

a reply to: smithjustinb

I am, admittedly, not that well-versed on Quantum Mechanics/Theory, but I've personally always wondered how something like the double-slit experiment overlays onto Everett Trees and the many-world's theory. My understanding of the latter is that every action we take, which would include observation of a particle, creates a parallel universe where the opposite, or no action at all, occurred.

If that were true, not only would we be forcing our own "universe" into an objective state (a wave into a particle), as well as forcing all other consciousnesses in our universe into that state as well (since third-party observers could acknowledge the wave became a particle), but we'd be simultaneously creating an infinite number of other objective universes based on our one single action, where the wave had no choice but to remain a wave.

Somewhere around here is where I start thinking about ideas of free-will vs. determinism, and whether or not my actions in one universe are shoehorning another consciousness (my own parallel consciousness?) into a future he/she did not ask for. At which point my mind kind of frazzles out and I need to stop thinking for a while.

It's all very interesting to ponder on though, and maybe someone with a better understanding of Quantum Mechanics and its many theories can answer your question more fully than I. Your post made me think about all of this again though, so I figured I would add my own (flawed?) observations to the pot, and see if they might enrich the conversation.


~ Wandering Scribe

a reply to: smithjustinb
I think we are living in a combination of reality and augmentation, holographically, through various means, and what you have proposed here has been used as a justification to skew "reality" in a subjective way……to coalesce observances and use them to "create" whatever, and use your example as a scientific back-up, so to speak, as to how it got this way, when it got this way through a planned, predicated venture, and not through science, nature, observance or humanity, but something altogether different, "hijacking" all those things, to take over what we observe as "reality……"
Tetra

originally posted by: NoRulesAllowed

But it gets interesting once you know that the subjectivity ("is it a particle? is it a wave?) becomes OBJECTIVE since it not only becomes a wave/particle for you but also for everyone else.

The question I'm asking here is, "does it?" I am wondering if maybe what I see is objectively different than what you see. For example, I saw this video a while back where some scientists were able to map a cats brain and reconstruct the brainwaves into an image that was a representation of what the cat was seeing, and astonishingly, although the cat was looking at a human face, the human face had cat-like characteristics. So my question is, "When we observe, are we creating a separate objective reality?- a separate "collapse of the wave function than what others create""

(Once the state is determined everyone will agree, it's not that one scientist will see it as a wave and the other as a particle)

Noone is seeing a wave, because seeing is what makes the wave a particle. The point here is that maybe we are each seeing different possible positions.

The part that cooks my noodle is....

How does the particle KNOW you are observing it ?

Without the observer it acts as if ALL variables in the mathematics are present. AKA the wave pattern

All potential locations of the particle could be here.

originally posted by: smithjustinb

originally posted by: NoRulesAllowed

But it gets interesting once you know that the subjectivity ("is it a particle? is it a wave?) becomes OBJECTIVE since it not only becomes a wave/particle for you but also for everyone else.

The question I'm asking here is, "does it?" I am wondering if maybe what I see is objectively different than what you see. For example, I saw this video a while back where some scientists were able to map a cats brain and reconstruct the brainwaves into an image that was a representation of what the cat was seeing, and astonishingly, although the cat was looking at a human face, the human face had cat-like characteristics. So my question is, "When we observe, are we creating a separate objective reality?"

(Once the state is determined everyone will agree, it's not that one scientist will see it as a wave and the other as a particle)

Noone is seeing a wave, because seeing is what makes the wave a particle. The point here is that maybe we are each seeing different possible positions.

yes, to everything you've written, but……
there are so many other ways seeing other than what others are can be accomplished….that it nullifies your question in a way…..
Tetra

a reply to: Zaanny

How does the particle KNOW you are observing it ?

Because, to "observe" it you have to affect it. It has to strike a sensor of some sort and that affects it. It is the manner in which it is observed which determines whether it will appear to behave as a particle or a wave, not that it is observed.

originally posted by: Zaanny
The part that cooks my noodle is....

How does the particle KNOW you are observing it ?

Without the observer it acts as if ALL variables in the mathematics are present. AKA the wave pattern

All potential locations of the particle could be here.

I think it is just that maybe we cause it to particleize. That the particle is still the wave in reality, but our brains are only wired to interpret the data as a single variable.

a reply to: Zaanny

Quantum entanglement.

The way I'm envisioning this is those hand held viewfinders where you click the lever down and it spins the wheel with the different scenes.

Imagine that every person is walking around with their own (their own consciousness interpreting through a brain that is a complex combination of neuro-networking based on subjective experiences throughout their life).

Everyone is looking at reality, but they're interpreting reality in their own way. Where some may see a castle, others may see a home. Others yet may see a vacation spot. The emphasis on this is that we don't have these wildly different realities; there's still a common sense of "this is green" or "this is made of stone." Rather, to me at least, it seems like it's the description of the object and the elicited emotions beyond the portrayal that give the subjectivity.

The end result is that we would need to "remove" this view finder in order to see the objective nature of reality... to FEEL the objective nature of reality.

I believe that's where meditation comes in? One of the main doctrines of Buddhist meditation (and most Eastern meditations at that) is free your mind; remove all judgement, all attachment, all desire (to see, to know), and simply be. Only then you can experience the One.

Kinda awesome how QFT and mysticism usually end up intercepting at multiple points.

Try a new perspective, if you watch a bunch of particles they behave as a wave, because they are interfering with each other, if you look at a single particle it has no one to interfere with, therefore it goes in a straight line. So the particle doesn't actually give a # if someone is looking at it, it just has no one to bounce against. Like if you own a single cat it gets bored and sleeps 24/7, if you got a bunch of cats they, well there is a lot more interaction. So this is just a way, to confuse the stupid. "Oooh, look it's magic!"

originally posted by: Kroovistos
a reply to: Zaanny

Imagine that every person is walking around with their own (their own consciousness interpreting through a brain that is a complex combination of neuro-networking based on subjective experiences throughout their life).

Everyone is looking at reality, but they're interpreting reality in their own way. Where some may see a castle, others may see a home. Others yet may see a vacation spot. The emphasis on this is that we don't have these wildly different realities; there's still a common sense of "this is green" or "this is made of stone." Rather, to me at least, it seems like it's the description of the object and the elicited emotions beyond the portrayal that give the subjectivity.

Humans have a consensual reality because we are not that different from each other. There are minor variations in interpretations, but those are just as minor as the variations of our brains which is relatively small. The difference between a human and a cat's interpretation would be much more noticeable and less consensual.

originally posted by: Ninipe
Try a new perspective, if you watch a bunch of particles they behave as a wave, because they are interfering with each other, if you look at a single particle it has no one to interfere with, therefore it goes in a straight line. So the particle doesn't actually give a # if someone is looking at it, it just has no one to bounce against. Like if you own a single cat it gets bored and sleeps 24/7, if you got a bunch of cats they, well there is a lot more interaction. So this is just a way, to confuse the stupid. "Oooh, look it's magic!"

This has already been considered by the scientists who designed the double slit experiment. What they found was that even if they fired individual particles at the double slit, a wave interference pattern still occured. And then, when they observed it, it exhibited a two slit pattern. So your first sentence has already been considered and proven false.

a reply to: smithjustinb

really? well I remember a classroom with approximately 30 people watching very closely as the single particle made a dot. Let me guess the "b" in your name stands for "believe"?

originally posted by: Ninipe
a reply to: smithjustinb

really? well I remember a classroom with approximately 30 people watching very closely as the single particle made a dot.

An important version of this experiment involves single particles (or waves—for consistency, they are called particles here). Sending particles through a double-slit apparatus one at a time results in single particles appearing on the screen, as expected. Remarkably, however, an interference pattern emerges when these particles are allowed to build up one by one (see the image to the right). This demonstrates the wave-particle duality, which states that all matter exhibits both wave and particle properties: the particle is measured as a single pulse at a single position, while the wave describes the probability of absorbing the particle at a specific place of the detector.[23] This phenomenon has been shown to occur with photons, electrons, atoms and even some molecules, including buckyballs.[24][25][26][27][28] So experiments with electrons add confirmatory evidence to the view of Dirac that electrons, protons, neutrons, and even larger entities that are ordinarily called particles nevertheless have their own wave nature and even their own specific frequencies.

This experimental fact is highly reproducible, and the mathematics of quantum mechanics (see below) allows us to predict the exact probability of an electron striking the screen at any particular point. However, the electrons do not arrive at the screen in any predictable order. In other words, knowing where all the previous electrons appeared on the screen and in what order tells us nothing about where any future electron will hit, even though the probabilities at specific points can be calculated.[29] (Note that it is not the probabilities of photons appearing at various points along the detection screen that add or cancel, but the amplitudes. Probabilities are the squares of amplitudes. Also note that if there is a cancellation of waves at some point, that does not mean that a photon disappears; it only means that the probability of a photon's appearing at that point will decrease, and the probability that it will appear somewhere else increases.) Thus, we have the appearance of a seemingly causeless selection event in a highly orderly and predictable formulation of the interference pattern. Ever since the origination of quantum mechanics, some theorists have searched for ways to incorporate additional determinants or "hidden variables" that, were they to become known, would account for the location of each individual impact with the target.[30]

Source

Let me guess the "b" in your name stands for "believe"?

You would be wrong again.

A wave is hard to deal with as a theory for solid substance. I dont think any particle is anything more than particular vibrations, a particle is just an easier way to think of it.

I think a lot of people have trouble understanding the more obvious truth about waves, most people like to point at a thing and call it a thing.

I am waving at your particles while i pass by looking at your particular wave wondering about your particulate wave matter, lol

sorry to be wonky…….
tetra