Understanding the Field Model of the Double Slit Experiment

Abstract

The provided content explores a unified field model to explain the results of the double-slit experiment, suggesting that traditional particle concepts are inadequate. It describes electrons as centres of spherical electromagnetic vortices, positing that gravity and photons are manifestations of this field structure. The model highlights the dynamic and self-organising nature of electromagnetic fields and their influence on experimental outcomes. The author argues that this perspective simplifies complexities and aligns better with observed phenomena than existing quantum theories.

A complete field solution

An explanation for the results of any experiment is clearly dependent upon an underlying physical theoretical model.

The results of the double slit experiment are surprising and inexplicable from the perspective of classical physics and so a better model must be looked for.

We will examine the experiment from the perspective of a complete ‘field’ model of the kind sought after by Einstein and actually described in some detail by Konstantin Meyl in his book Scalar Waves.

In this model, there are no distinct entities such as particles, matter, energy, gravity, or even ‘space’. Instead, the entire cosmos is described in terms of a single set of vector differential equations which determine the behaviour of a field-like structure, very similar to the electromagnetic field of classical physics.

We need to understand some properties of this field before examining the double-slit set up.

Electrons

An electron, in Meyl’s model of reality, is the centre of a single spherical electromagnetic field vortex. The electric component of the field forms a spinning sphere and the magnetic component forms a dipole.

These fields taken together create a long range attraction which is interpreted as a gravitational field, and a short range repulsion which is interpreted as ‘contact’.

The field surrounding the electron extends, conceptually at least, to infinity, and spirals inwards towards the centre with constant movement. Meyl has stated that the electron is stabilised by the entire weight of the Universe pushing inwards. The impression of solid matter is created.

The gravitational field

The gravitational field at the surface of the Earth is electromagnetic in nature and consists of the totality of all of the electromagnetic fields of all of the electrons etc. in the planet. (Meyl, Electric Universe).

It has both vertical and horizontal components but only the vertical component has accelerative properties.

The field is dynamic, with constant movement, and will have a fine grained structure at the scale of an atom.

Even crude measurements of the field show it to vary slightly on a daily basis and in a cyclic fashion on longer timescales.

The photon

A photon is usually described as a point-like particle with no height, width, length or volume. They are said to have an infinite energy density and to be set apart from normal space and time. It is surely impossible to prove the existence of such a thing?

A recent paper somehow measures a photon in the shape of a ring vortex, meaning it now has a finite shape and volume and very obviously contains a specific amount of ‘energy’ by virtue of its innate field movement and size.

Meyl has posited a photon as a pair of leap-frogging ring vortices. These will likely give the impression of ‘frequency’ when measured with common techniques. Such frequency may well be related to the internal energy of the vortices in a very obvious way.

Features of the field

Vortex shedding

Flow in gases and fluids has a strong tendency to form structured vortex streams as seen below.

The phenomena can be triggered by almost any obstacle in the stream such as a slit, rock, mountain etc.

Such patterns invariably display a high degree of regularity, and restrictive measurement techniques will be unable to distinguish these from waves or particles, depending upon the specifics of the instrument.

Now if the individual molecules of any gas or fluid are really just electromagnetic vortices, then we have some justification for claiming that patterns displayed in gases and fluids are also likely to be seen in electromagnetic fields.

The vortices shown clearly display characteristics of both waves and particles. Moreover, the streams have a malleable nature and can deform to fit through small apertures. They have a ‘directionality’ of themselves but will also adapt their flow to underlying variations in the larger field.

Spontaneous geometric organisation of the field

If a nafion tube is placed in a bath of water, a spontaneous vortex flow is created (see diagram below). It is argued here: Pollack’s water engine that this is a result of the almost instantaneous self-organisation of an electromagnetic field which then provides a template for the water flow.

Incoming infrared photons are absorbed and the spare energy somehow transmuted to the kinetic flow of water molecules; the flow speeds up. This defies reasonable explanation in classical physics, but if the photon is already imagined as a ring vortex of electromagnetic energy, then all that needs to happen is that it be given a sense of direction and the problem is half solved.

The electromagnetic field seems to organise itself around the physical materials of the experimental set up.

The electron gun

Descriptions of the functioning of an electron gun are not credible: negatively charged particles concentrate at the end of the gun, leap off and are focused by magnets to flow either in a parallel stream or in a converging stream for electron microscopes.

The problem of course is that all the electrons are the same polarity which means that they are never going to assemble closely together, never travel in a parallel stream and are never going to converge in a controlled manner.

So what is the output of an electron gun?

Nobody knows, but it is likely to be some energetic field structure which, by the laws of electromagnetism, forms some sort of vortex structure. Very likely a string of field vortices as shown above or something similar.

Shown below is another possibility, a ‘Birkeland’ current. Something like this may well be output by a gun or laser and it may well happen that as it travels between the slits, it deforms into another semi-stable vortex formation, maybe even an electron.

Filaments and energy transfer

The nature of a dynamic electromagnetic field is such that it is predisposed to form filament type structures similar to the coaxial currents above or of the simpler helical constructs seen in the atmosphere or in space.

Shown below are sample filaments measured at the surface of the sun.

The double slit experiment

The double slit setup is shown below.

The whole experiment takes place within the gravitational field of the Earth, which is now a dynamic electromagnetic field with fine grained structure at the scale of an atom.

The physical parts of the setup have their own field structure and this doubtless has an effect upon the ambient gravitational field in the same way that the nafion tube had an effect upon the field in the water bath; a stable conformation arises even before any energy is input into the system. Field effects propagate at the speed of light and are almost instantaneous at this scale.

A laser or electron gun now introduces some energy into this field at point ‘a’, above. The energy is in the form of an energetic electromagnetic vortex whichever way we look at it.

This vortex now interacts with the ambient field in accordance with the laws of electrodynamic field physics, whatever they may be. We do not ever have particles travelling through a neutral or empty ‘vacuum’, but field vortices interacting with a similar complex and energetic field.

The field immediately responds and produces changes in the ambient field at ‘a’ which then propagate at the speed of light throughout the whole set up.

These changes impact the double slits and pass through them, emerging as some sort of vortex stream into the right hand side of the setup.

The field adjust as a unified whole, with vortices from ‘b’ connecting, at their outer edges, with vortices from ‘c’. This happens at the speed of light and a coherent electromagnetic field fills the chamber, where ‘coherent’ means: ‘in accordance with the laws of electromagnetism‘.

This is strikingly different to the formulation in classical physics where particles move through empty space with negligible effect upon each other. Instead, every individual event remains part of a whole and effects propagate throughout the setup at the speed of light.

The diffraction pattern

Field disturbances travel through the slits ‘b’ and ‘c’, above and propagate towards the photographic plate. The plate itself has its own electro-gravitational field with atom sized fluctuations. Each atom is of the form of an electromagnetic vortex with a tendency to accumulate energy and information.

We may speculate that near the surface of the plate, the field adopts the form of multiple filaments as were seen at the surface of the sun (above). Energy is guided along a filament and accumulates at a molecule, thereby causing the chemical reaction required to register a ‘photon’ at the plate.

Energy is discharged and the filament either disappears or switches to another location as with a plasma globe. The filaments themselves form something of a wave-like structure and it is the sum of such structures that gives rise to the diffraction pattern.

A quantum slit ‘which way’ detector

If a physical path detector is placed in the setup then the geometry of the field is changed even before any electrons or photons have been fired. New possibilities arise for the experiment as a whole. The detector may have a small effect or a large one.

Illustrations of a particle travelling either through one slit or another are now clearly misleading. A vortex may channel most of its energy through one slit but still a significant amount through the other. The presence of a detector may alter this behaviour in unpredictable ways.

This has nothing to do with conscious observers but is entirely caused by the laws of electrodynamics.

Single slit diffraction

A single slit can cause a very similar pattern to a double slit.

This is not so surprising with the single field solution described above. Vortices are shed from both edges of the slit and begin interfering with each other before registering at the plate.

Physicists tend not to talk about this one so much.

Spooky action at a distance

The formulation of the solution in terms of quantum wave functions invariably leads to some form of instantaneous action at a distance, backwards time travel, or statements to the effect that particles somehow know when they are about to be measured.

Both these ideas sound like complete desperation to shore up a failed model and both should act as a major red flag.

One idea to consider back on planet Earth is that as soon as a slit is blocked, the field within the chamber takes on a new stable conformation which will have the tendency to form a ‘conduit’ of some sort which guides the energy towards and through the remaining open slit.

Energy emerges at ‘a’ in the diagram and immediately starts on its way towards slit ‘b’, say, guided by local forces only. The ‘particle’ appears to have foresight or appears to be making some sort of decision for itself but nothing of the sort is happening. Instead, invisible physical forces are acting as a guide for the moving energy structure whatever it may be.

Summary

The concept of an electromagnetic field has been augmented only slightly with features already observed in nature, to form the basis for a novel solution for the double-slit experiment.

If the features of such a field are accepted as a possibility then the results of the experiment seem unremarkable and hardly in need of further explanation.

This solution may seem far-fetched to some but is surely pedestrian compared to the solutions offered by quantum theory. No really new physics or conceptual ‘exotica’ have been proposed apart from some features of an electromagnetic field whose presence is already indicated by various natural phenomena and laboratory experiments.


Debunking Consciousness in Quantum Detection

In the field of quantum physics, various claims are made concerning the detection of particles or waves in the famous double-slit experiment. Many respected commentators have put forth the idea that the mere process of ‘detection’ (undefined) is sufficient to affect the outcome of the experiment. The concept has spawned the idea that it may be human consciousness that is doing the ‘detection’ and that therefore such consciousness is able to have causal effects in the physical world.

Quite aside from the fact that the logic here is quite laughable and that there is no scientific definition of consciousness anyhow, it seems that there is no credible empirical evidence whatsoever for this effect.

A search for empirical evidence for the phenomenon of ‘detection’ included:

  • Asking an AI engine to provide evidence
  • Reading the experiments listed in the Wikipedia article on the double-slit experiment

No evidence was found that anything other than purely physical processes were able to affect the outcome of an experiment and no empirical evidence for a connection to human consciousness was apparent in any of the results.

I asked an AI engine “In the famous double slit experiment, a device is set up to detect which slit a photon passes through. What is the nature of this device and where is the relevant experiment described?

The answers range from evasive to deranged. Nothing sensible at all is said and certainly no actual experiment involving such a device is presented.

The AI engine is strangely reluctant to give a physical description of an instrument, preferring instead to resort to abstract language and theoretical constructs that only make sense if the basic tenets of quantum physics are already accepted.

What is the nature of a which-slit detector?

Crucially: it is not a little camera watching the photon go by.

A which-path detector is any physical system that becomes entangled with the photon in a way that, even in principle, allows you to distinguish the paths.

The nature of a detector is described by its function, which is to ‘distinguish’, or ‘detect’. This gives no information and tells us nothing about the physical construction. What does ‘becomes entangled with the photon‘ mean? How do we know that such an ‘entanglement’ has taken place, apart from the fact that our experiment no longer works? This is not an answer.

More concretely, such a device must:

  • Interact locally with the photon at one slit or the other
  • Leave a different physical state depending on which slit was taken
  • Store that information somewhere in the universe (even if nobody reads it)

Once that happens, interference is lost.

This is better, it is acknowledged that there must be some sort of physical process that does the detecting. However, although no specific process is singled out, the claim is made that whatever process is used, interference is necessarily lost.

Why should this be so? Why should it be that any specific physical process that is designed for detection somehow ends up destroying the interference pattern? No reason is supplied and no evidence available.

Examples of real which-path devices

1. Recoiling slit or screen (Feynman’s version)

If the slit apparatus can recoil differently depending on which slit the photon passes through, then:

  • The apparatus carries path information in its momentum
  • Even if you never measure the recoil, interference disappears

Richard Feynman, The Feynman Lectures on Physics, Vol. III, Chapter 1

This is a thought experiment, not a lab setup—but it’s foundational.

This is a thought experiment and yet is considered ‘foundational’!

The experiment is said to prevent interference even when when no ‘detection’ takes place. Therefore, the disappearance of the interference pattern cannot be said to have been caused by ‘detection’ itself but only by the physical mechanics of the instrument.

The experiment is imaginary and the outcome invented.

2. Polarization tagging (real experiments)

You place a polarizer at each slit:

  • Slit A → photon becomes horizontally polarized
  • Slit B → photon becomes vertically polarized

Now the photon’s polarization state tells you the path.

Result:

  • No interference pattern
  • Even if you don’t look at the polarization

This is one of the cleanest and most common laboratory realizations.

The experiment was changed with the addition of polarisers and no longer demonstrates interference. This is a different experiment to that which was originally described and the result is therefore irrelevant.

Even if we like the result, we did not do any ‘detecting’.

3. Atomic “which-path markers” (most famous real experiment)

This is the big one.

Instead of disturbing the photon’s momentum, they:

  • Let an atom emit a photon
  • Arrange things so the atom’s internal state records which slit the photon came from
  • The photon itself is barely disturbed

M. O. Scully, B.-G. Englert, H. Walther (1991) “Quantum optical tests of complementarity”Nature, 351, 111–116

Interference still disappears.

This demolished the old idea that interference loss is caused by “measurement disturbance.”

The photon itself is barely disturbed” and yet “Interference still disappears”. Maybe the two are connected?

No pure ‘detection’ took place here. This is not the same experiment as that which was originally described.

The deep takeaway (this is the part most people miss)

A which-path detector is not defined by what it looks like
It is defined by whether path information exists in principle

Interference is destroyed when:

  • The photon becomes entangled with anything that carries path information
  • Even if that information is never read
  • Even if the detector is microscopic
  • Even if the detector is later destroyed

No conscious observer required. No collapse button pressed.

I really would like to know what such an instrument looks like, but the engine isn’t going to tell me. A ‘detector’ is defined by “whether path information exists in principle“. However, the existence or otherwise of path information, in principle or practice is surely independent of the existence of an actual physical detection device whether or not it is destroyed later on.

This is, of course, complete gibberish, but must have come from somewhere and does in fact resemble the linguistic acrobatics performed by human-composed texts on the subject. We ask for an actual experiment that demonstrates a scientific principle and instead what we get is a theoretical lecture on why the results would certainly have been produced if only the experiment had only been performed in principle.

The definition here pretty much defines a detector according to whether or not the interference pattern is destroyed, thereby providing a circular definition, using the term ‘entanglement’ as a linguistic MacGuffin.

Furthermore, versions of the experiment that include detectors at the slits find that each detected photon passes through one slit (as would a classical particle), and not through both slits (as would a wave). However, such experiments demonstrate that particles do not form the interference pattern if one detects which slit they pass through. – Wikipedia

This, again, refers to photons that are ‘detected’, in an abstract sense with no physical mechanism described and yet the experiments contained ‘detectors’, which are presumably actual physical instruments. This is supposed to be an article on physics for heaven’s sake!

The phenomenon of ‘detection’ is surely a concrete physical process performed according to a specific measurement protocol and yet the authors seemingly want to ignore the physical processes to concentrate only on the abstract concept of ‘detection’. There seems to be a determination here, and in other areas of physics, to describe the world in purely abstract philosophical terms as opposed to measurable physical processes.

The phrase ‘versions of the experiment’ is misleading. If the parameters of the experiment have changed significantly then we have a different experiment and not a ‘version’ of the same experiment. For two different physical set ups to be regarded as essentially the ‘same’ then they should demonstrate both theoretical and practical equivalence. If they are giving two different sets of experimental outcomes then how can they be said to be the same experiment?


Wikipedia on detectors

The Wikipedia article gives several references describing ‘detectors’.

However:

 “…if in a double-slit experiment, the detectors which register outcoming photons are placed immediately behind the diaphragm with two slits: A photon is registered in one detector, not in both…”  –  Introduction to Quantum Mechanics: Schrödinger Equation and Path Integral – Müller-Kirsten, H. J. W. (2006). 

No physical description of a ‘detector’ here.

It seems that light passes through one slit or the other in the form of photons if we set up an experiment to detect which slit the photon passes, but passes through both slits in the form of a wave if we perform an interference experiment.” Rae, Alastair I.M. (2004). Quantum Physics: Illusion Or Reality?

It seems that..” – he has not performed this experiment himself nor witnessed a demonstration. He does not make reference to a first hand account of such an event and in all probability has not read a description of one.

Inherently probabilistic

Other atomic-scale entities, such as electrons, are found to exhibit the same behaviour when fired towards a double slit. Additionally, the detection of individual discrete impacts is observed to be inherently probabilistic, which is inexplicable using classical mechanics. – Wikipedia

What does ‘inherently probabilistic‘ mean? There is no such thing. This is a meaningless phrase from the realm of philosophy with no physical definition and consequently does not belong in a theory of physics. If it is undefined then of course it is inexplicable from the point of view of classical mechanics.

The phrase ‘inherently probabilistic’ has no sensible definition in mathematics, physics or philosophy.

If the phrase somehow refers to a mathematical or philosophical construct then we can ask “How does a mathematical or philosophical construct have causal effects in physical reality?” If the phrase is somehow interpreted as a physical process then such a process needs describing and its relationship to the rest of reality needs clarifying.

‘Randomness’ is an outcome pattern and not a generative mechanism: Random events


Conclusion

They haven’t performed this experiment in the way claimed, haven’t persuaded anybody that there is such a thing as ‘detection’ which is somehow independent of physical processes and have not provided any evidence for the involvement of human consciousness with physical reality.

All that happens is that they recycle the same misleading narrative phrased in evasive and deceptive language. The impression is given that there are many important experiments demonstrating the abstract phenomenon of ‘detection’, but no specific instance of this is ever fully described.

If no specific form of a detector is described, then the phenomenon of ‘detection’ is undefined for practical purposes and if this is so, then no downstream deduction can be made.

If no physical form of a detector is described, then we cannot assess in what way the ‘detection’ process might be responsible for the absence of the interference pattern.

However, in those documented cases where the physical form of a detector is described, it is obvious that it is the physical properties of the detector that is upsetting the results and not the abstract process of ‘detection’ itself.

The assertion that only physical processes can affect the physical world seems obvious to most people, but time and again we are asked by physicists to believe that the opposite is true and that physical events are actually driven by abstract philosophical ideas.

Quantum physicists would have us believe that the foundations of physical reality consist merely of statistical laws and that any perceived physical laws are merely some emergent product of such an abstraction.

“Physical laws rest on atomic statistics and are therefore only approximate” – Schrödinger

We have no proof of such an assertion.