Electron is the name of a set of properties we can register with our instruments. Nobody knows what en electron "really" is. You have to understand that all we have in our mind is only a model of something we call reality. It is only mathematics. An electron is not a particle and it is also not a wave. Nevertheless these physical models are very useful. Remember we use it to communicate over large distances.

Thank you Remi. Your concept of interaction seems to me interesting. Could I say that your spherical wave is everywhere and that when I measure it it localizes and that is now a particle?

Remi, that doesn't explain the double split situation physically. Localisation is not a physical process that makes electrons, first measured as waves (as you pretend) suddenly become measured as particles.

It's just a nice mainstream story...

It is even so wrong that the importance of the double split dimensions is totally disregarded in that story. Incomplete means: wrong.

Thierry, what Remi says is that a wave will always be a wave and that when there is an interaction or measurement it becomes very localized, but it doesn´t stop being a wave. It does not suddenly become a particle, it is still a wave. I find this concept very interesting.

You might be interested in this article regarding not "it from bit" but "it from Qubit"  https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/tangled-up-in-spacetime/?WT.mc_id=SA_SPC_20161027

Dina and Remi, I agree that the essence of "wave" remains.

However, what I said is that the "localisation" is not a physical explanation of the fact that the electron is suddenly perceived as a particle after the slits. It is only a story, another name without substantiated underlaying physics.

The only thing that makes a difference between a particle(-wave) and a standard (light)wave is that the wave propagates straight away at speed c, and a particle is "trapped" light, where light propagates maybe at a much higher speed, who knows.

The information transmission speed inside entangled electron-positron particles indeed is many times that of light. It might be the clue of how particles can trap light and become local, without the light escaping.

The fact that standard electrons are less local than localized electrons in the experiment will have to do with the double slit setup itself, of which the slits' distance is related to the wavelength of the standard electrons. It could mean that the standard electrons are broken-up by the slits.

Thierry, then you mean that the electron is only perceived as a particle after being measured, without localization, and actually never becomes a particle? Do I understand well that what we perceive of the particle is trapped light?

The question is: what is called a particle,  what is called a quantum,  why would an electron sometimes be or not be perceived as a wave or a "bullet"?

What makes sense, the story of localisation? What makes an electron physically be perceived such or so? What does really happen physically when an electron has been "detected" before the slits? 

The best description of a particle is that of trapped "light", because some interactions release energy in the form of gamma rays. 

It would be very interesting to know what are tthe further internals of an electron,  because it may explain the double slit phenomenon. 

Mainstream physics theories are missing insight! They tell stories and invent absurd ramifications based on these theories. In gravity,  cosmology and QM. 

 but what is an electron when it has been fired and has still not been detected at the double-slil?

Nobody knows for sure. My best guess is that the electron's diameter is too large and not tight enough to pass the slits without being broken up in "light".

Electron is the name of a set of properties we can register with our instruments. Nobody knows what en electron "really" is. You have to understand that all we have in our mind is only a model of something we call reality. It is only mathematics. An electron is not a particle and it is also not a wave. Nevertheless these physical models are very useful. Remember we use it to communicate over large distances.

Wilfried, I like your comment "all we have in our mind is only a model of something we call reality". Thanks.

Dear Dina,

Please, read the article below:

Kind Regards.

Viktória

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/309374896_The_Language_of_Nature_Information

Article The Language of Nature: Information

Thank you Viktória, I will certainly read your article

Dina,

I think it's a very good question. If we study the data structures appearing in vision we can determine (well I can!) that there are two and each brings us different information about the environment. We then have to infer from both.

In short...I think we are able to take 'something else' from the light array. Not just intensity related data through photoreceptors but something that unfolds into implicit spatial awareness on a mechanobiological basis. This is not proven of course but we are working on that with Muller cells and ECM. 

How is this relevant to the question? When the 'photon' passes through the double slits one by one (well you know what I mean!) we get an impression of the slits. When a shed load go through the slits we can see....an impression of the slits! Yes you can call that an interference pattern if you want but there's information in it?

EM has two orientations with respect to our macro environment. As yet our conceptual thinking is not working as well as our biological function! We should not be surprised about that. We are embedded in the universe and our concepts haven't worked that relationship out properly yet?

You may be interested in our attempts to work something practical out on this and to give us a hand? https://www.researchgate.net/project/Vision-Space-A-new-form-of-illusionary-space-based-on-perceptual-structure-not-optical-projection  

 Dear John,

You wrote: 

"Yes, you can call that an interference pattern if you want but there's information in it?"

In DSE: 

Without measurement/observation electrons/photons 

travel free to the screen: each of them arrives a perfectly determined place: to grow the Interference Patterns.

The wave-function (and also particles) carries information about double nature. On the screen we can see the both properties of matter: particles arrive on the screen but appears the wave-nature too: in the Interference Pattern. It is evident that it is not possible without coded information in the wave-function.

This information guides the energy-wave and in the moment -when the energy-wave arrives to the screen-, the wave nature changes into particle nature, in Planck time: we can see many particle-spots on their determined place.

Please, read:

III./Richard Feynman: (His lecture 37-7.)

"We make now a few remarks on a suggestion that has sometimes been made to try to avoid the description we have given:

“Perhaps the electron has "some kind of internal works—some inner variables"—that we do not yet know about.

Perhaps that is why we cannot predict what will happen. If we could look more closely at the electron, we could be able to tell where it would end up.” So far as we know, that is impossible. We would still be in difficulty.

Suppose we were to assume that inside the electron there is "some kind of machinery" that determines where it is going to end up.

That machine must also determine which hole it is going to go through on its way.

But we must not forget that what is inside the electron should not be dependent on what we do, and in particular upon whether we open or close one of the holes. So if an electron, before it starts, has already „made up its mind” (a) which hole it is going to use, and (b) where it is going to land...

What Richard Feynman says:

1./“Perhaps the electron has "some kind of internal works—some inner variables"—that we do not yet know about.”

He was very near to say it: the „inner variable” is: coded information!

2./„Inside the electron there is "some kind of machinery that determines where it is going to end up.”

He was near to say: There are not any structure of electron: so „some kind of machinery” is:

The coded information what determines where electron is going to end up!

This „kind of machinery” is: Coded Information!

My full article:

The Language of Nature: The Information!

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1hNwdBP81Td08k3ohZb351NPYUOIw9GqB9JL_QepfKQ4/edit

Hello  Nyamaldi 

“Perhaps the electron has "some kind of internal works—some inner variables"—that we do not yet know about.

I am not sure that we don't know about them its just that we don't differentiate. EM or E&M? Yes these force carriers interact but do they have entirely relationships with the macro environment? 

The magnetic element being different to the electrical? The magnetic encounters a gravitational field as a medium. The electrical as a force acting upon it with respect to a centre of a field. Our perceptual system has to deal with both. Hence we have to 'infer'. Measurement being inference. Not something that science is happy to accept?

Two distinct spatial systems that interact. Without the interaction no game?

https://www.researchgate.net/post/The_frame_of_reference_is_a_conceptual_construct_What_place_does_it_actually_have_in_physics

https://www.researchgate.net/project/Vision-Space-A-new-form-of-illusionary-space-based-on-perceptual-structure-not-optical-projection

I am not sure that I ascribe to 'code' but words are used in different contexts. I am not someone that ascribes to neuroscience using the word 'signal'. Signal is something that's exchanged between a receiver and sender sharing a common code. i.e semaphore, email etc. I prefer 'data potential' i.e we are required to to make sense of it. 'Signal' has nothing to do with neuroscience.

'Code' is 1. step removed from this?

 Dear John Jupe,

You had  a good question:

"Yes, you can call that an interference pattern if you want but there's information in it?"

This is a physical problem: I am not an expert in neuroscience. 

I study Quantum Physics and I answer by my "Theory of Special Information". In my theory is very important the DSE: "The mystery which can not go away..."(Richard Feynman)

I recognized a Special Information's effect in DSE. Its effect coded the information into matter: this information determines the properties of all particles. (In living cells too.)

Special Information coded the information so Its effect can decode it. What does it mean? The coded information in electron/photon becomes active in a determined time moment. There are many examples in micro-and macro-world.

If you interested in it: You can read more:

https://independent.academia.edu/NY%C3%81M%C3%81DIVIKT%C3%93RIA  

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Nyamadi_Viktoria/contributions

Best regards:

Viktória Nyámádi

Maybe the coded information is not in the electron-photon, but is simply non-local and it appears in the moment of the measurement as present in spacetime.

Dear Dina Grutzendler,

The measurement itself can not change the matter from wave into particle.

Here is my explanation:

1./We can emit  20000 electrons too: the result will be same: double nature of matter is scientific fact for a long time.

The matter is always ready to change from wave into particle and vice versa, it depends from circumstances. 

2./Electron is non-local in the wave function: its place is possible anywhere, but please read above again:

We can see the Interference Pattern on the screen. Why?  

The quantum-wave carries an information about particle-nature too: it arrives to the screen on its own determined point!  Scientists think about it all over the world: From where "knows" the electron his own place on the screen?

Naturally electrons don't "know" anything: they are objects: they are guided by an information which was coded into the primordial energy-waves in Inflation before the first electrons appeared. 

3./When we take a measurement/observation we can not detect a wave but always a real particle with known properties.

Measurement in DSE is:

"The mystery which can not go away..."(Richard Feynman)

In my opinion,- in Theory of Special Information:

a./It is possible to understand what happens:

There is a Special Information which effects on the coded information in the wave function: it becomes active and the electron appears.

b./In this case we can recognize the Special Information's effect: only Its effect can decode what It coded. It arrives through our human consciousness: we want or not.

Special Information's effect changes the energy-wave into particle: we can experience the same what happened when the Inflation stopped and the first particles appeared in 3D+1: in our space-time.

The Special Information can effect on the matter directly and indirectly too. 

Our consciousness only carries and delivers this Information: Its effect is independent our will.

We human have a very special consciousness: it has an information imprint what determines our human-entity. (Naturally, our brain, consciousness and Genom work together.)

This information imprint like a channel for SI. When we use various observations in DSE: slits, detector, screen (it is a detector too) the energy-wave changes particle at once, in Planck time: SI's effect is faster than speed of light.

We can not "see" the information imprint in our consciousness. (We can not "see" our consciousness, our thoughts -in physical sense- but we know and experience that we have a special consciousness.)

When we take a measurement: the invisible consciousness effect on invisible wave-function and we can see the visible electron.

4./Special Information doesn't violate the Special Relativity Theory (It is also only a theory) because It is outside our space-time and Its celerity was always faster than speed of light. 

If you interested in this task and my theory please, read my more articles and please, study deeply the references too.

https://independent.academia.edu/NY%C3%81M%C3%81DIVIKT%C3%93RIA  

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Nyamadi_Viktoria/contributions

Best wishes:

Viktória Nyámádi

Thanks Nyamadi, I will look at your work as I think your approach fits well with the theory that's inevitable once we comprehend the data-structures presenting within the phenomenon of vision. We, as complex biological systems have evolved with the so called QM reality issues and have formed an accommodation. The 'reality issues' are present in the relationship we form with the real and hence appear in perceptual structure and then in visual art. The visual art that's at the coal-face, not the visual art that 'illustrates science' or 'illustrates ideas/concepts' that is!

With respect to relativity, I do think it violates the theory. Not the accuracy of the measurements made. There is no point really in forming a physical theory the relies on the existence of frames of reference that do not exist! Also on the absolute speed of light that is a violation of the theory of 'relativity'! It's not that the math is irrelevant or that measurements need to be more accurate, it's the theory that has to be replaced with one the acknowledges 'inference'. Its why we have a measurement problem! Why we can't get back to B bang etc.

If we accept that there are two data potentials embedded in light and hence two spatial systems interlocking in our universe (on e of which is not directly accessible to us hence reductionism being inappropriate) I think a lot of the complexities disappear. A bit like all the math and ideas required to explain the retrograde motion of the planets all those years ago?

Nyámádi Viktória

Interesting are your comments.

However we need some more condensed/coherent  URL to see your SI theory in its details in English.

Otherwise we cannot understand why you claim for example that the SI's effect is faster than speed of light.

Regards

Aaron Peled

Dear Aaron Peled,

Thank you for your comment.

Please, read about it in short:

What Happens when a Special Information Effects on Wave-function? Role of Graviton in Quantum-events

https://www.academia.edu/15328364/What_Happens_when_a_Special_Information_Effects_on_Wave-function_Role_of_Graviton_in_Quantum-events

Best regards:

Viktória Nyámádi

Aaron Peled,

I send you another article about SI in English.

About the Double Nature of Matter: Ontological Approach

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/315804485_About_the_Double_Nature_of_Matter_Ontological_Approach

Article About the Double Nature of Matter: Ontological Approach