“Yet Once More”: The Double-Slit Experiment and Quantum Discontinuity

Abstract

This article reconsiders the double-slit experiment from the nonrealist or, in terms of this article, “reality-without-realism” (RWR) perspective, grounded in the combination of three forms of quantum discontinuity: (1) “Heisenberg discontinuity”, defined by the impossibility of a representation or even conception of how quantum phenomena come about, even though quantum theory (such as quantum mechanics or quantum field theory) predicts the data in question strictly in accord with what is observed in quantum experiments); (2) “Bohr discontinuity”, defined, under the assumption of Heisenberg discontinuity, by the view that quantum phenomena and the data observed therein are described by classical and not quantum theory, even though classical physics cannot predict them; and (3) “Dirac discontinuity” (not considered by Dirac himself, but suggested by his equation), according to which the concept of a quantum object, such as a photon or electron, is an idealization only applicable at the time of observation and not to something that exists independently in nature. Dirac discontinuity is of particular importance for the article’s foundational argument and its analysis of the double-slit experiment.

The No-Cloning Life: Uniqueness and Complementarity in Quantum and Quantum-like Theories

“…This is because these measurements can register quantum objects of different types, say, in the case of quantum electrodynamics (QED) an electron in the initial measurement and a positron, or a photon, or an electron-positron pair, in the next measurement [3] (pp. 279-292), [50]. QFT, thus, supports adding the Dirac postulate to RWR interpretations and is the main reason for designating it as such, because it originates with Dirac's famous equation for the relativistic electron, which also proved to be that for a positron.…”

“…QFT, thus, supports adding the Dirac postulate to RWR interpretations and is the main reason for designating it as such, because it originates with Dirac's famous equation for the relativistic electron, which also proved to be that for a positron. There are, however, reasons for adopting the postulate in low-energy (QM) regimes, including the complexities involved in the double slit and other paradigmatic quantum experiments [50]. As discussed in the present article, in Q-L theories, this type of postulate is virtually automatic, because one deals with human subjects, each of which is unique, and is thus correlative to the uniqueness postulate there, which is not the case in QM, where this postulate applies without the Dirac postulate.…”

‘The agency of observation not to be neglected’: complementarity, causality and the arrow of events in quantum and quantum-like theories

“…This requires one to specify to which version of his interpretation one refers, which I shall do, while focusing on his ultimate, strong RWR, interpretation. 3 As, however, Bohr argued already in the so-called Como lecture of 1927, which presented his first interpretation of QM, in classical physics and relativity 'our . .…”

“…The interpretation adopted in this article gives the situation just outlined a more radical character by adopting the Dirac postulate, defined as such in [4] but in effect also used in [1][2][3]. Both Bohr and the present interpretation assume that the (RWR) reality ultimately responsible for quantum phenomena exists independently, as does nature or matter, in the first place, which amounts to the assumption that it has existed before we existed and will continue to exist when we will no longer exist.…”

“…These qualifications are, however, not germane for this article, because all phenomena considered here involve h, which is essential to the ultimate constitution of nature, if QM and QFT are correct, because h reflects the Planck scale, the ultimate scale of this constitution 2. The concept of RWR and RWR interpretations were discussed in this author's previous works[1][2][3][4] (which also contain references to earlier works addressing the subject). These works will be cited here as appropriate.…”