4 Matter (1) -- The existential mode
4 Matter (1) -- The existential mode
(Leaflet) It is absurd that material things that are solid exist
There remain several unproven but important things in quantum mechanics (Heretical physics)
A variant of the double-slit experiment
The existence of matter
There are no solid bodies (1) -- Based of the Big Bang
There are no solid bodies (2) -- Simple explanation
This is like a spin-off from an interest in consciousness.
I have been interested in consciousness and have thought mainly of consciousness, but while I was thinking, for some reason, I couldn't help but think also about things related to matter and physics. And I have come to see matter differently.
《 (Leaflet) It is absurd that material things that are solid exist 》
When I pick up a pebble and stare at it, I sometimes wonder where this stone came from, why this stone is here.
However, the origin of stones is lava. Lava circulates here, changing its form. So it's not so strange that there are countless rocks and stones on Earth.
However, still, strangeness remains for me. And, its contents seem to be the fact that solid, firm, and rigid stones and substances exist in this world. (Stones and substances look like that superficially (macroscopically). Liquid and gas are also solid. This is because atoms and molecules as their components are externally (macroscopically) particles. And, a particle is solid in our ordinary sense). It's absurd for me that material things that are solid exist. It's absurd that what is material exists.
(However, whatever substance it is, there necessarily are openings between atoms and molecules that compose the substance. That is to say, regardless of the kinds of substances, substances always contain a great deal of vacuum).
And, it cannot be explained well, but it seems absurd actually that material things that are solid exist.
Even if material substances that are solid have existed since ancient times, there is no reason (or, basis) for it.
And, it is said that this universe was born by the Big Bang about 13.7 billion years ago actually --that is to say, this universe, energy, and matter have not existed originally. (However, energy may have existed in a high-demensional world beyond this universe)--, but, even if matter erupted from the Big Bang, it's absurd that solid and material matter erupts. That's impossible. The existence of what is solid and material is absurd fundamentally. (What exist in this universe can exist because they are not material).
From a different point of view, the fact that a substance is solid and material means that the substance is physically inert utterly, lacks flexibility, and figuratively dead as matter. If a substance is solid, material, and physically inert, the substance cannot participate in, for example, kinetic interactions or the fundamental interactions. And it becomes transparent as a physical being. Even though such a substance exists somewhere, since the substance doesn't fulfill the interactions with other substances, it's virtually non-existent.
(This is, so to speak, a proof that what is solid and material cannot exist physically. This is because, for something to be able to exist, it must have internal (microscopic) and physical flexibility enough to be able to externally (macroscopically) fulfill interactions with other being at the least.
(By the way, what embody the flexibility of matter are physical and internal actions inherent in matter. Actions, since they operate spontaneously, independently, actively, and dynamically in the lapse of time, must be physically flexible. And, internal physical actions are the essence of existence. And, it's not that kinetic interactions and the fundamental interactions alone are the internal physical actions)).
Therefore, solid and physically inert substances cannot exist virtually at least in this universe. There is no solid substance (matter) in this universe. (It's not known about the other universe).
What exists cannot be solid and material --dead--. What exists must always be what is flexible and strange of which true nature cannot be known easily by us who reside at a macroscopic world. Matter must be extremely flexible and strange, not as solid --rigid / dead-- as we see. Otherwise it cannot exist.
Being is strange. Even though nothingness doesn't exist, it's unnatural that concrete solid substances exist. It's natural that, as substitutes for nothingness, what are not concrete nor solid but strange exist.
And, matter is equivalent to energy and formed by gathering a lot of materials called energy. Matter is embodied with energy actually. And, fundamentally, energy is extremely strange.
There are various aspects of energy, such as kinetic energy, potential energy, thermal energy, and electric energy. (When looking at energy from the perspective of aspect in this way, it is not impossible to think also of matter as one aspect of energy). The energy that can take such various aspects cannot fundamentally be solid and material. Energy is phantasmagoric, extremely shaky, and mysterious.
In a word, energy itself is very strange. And, matter that is embodied with energy also cannot be solid and material, but is very strange. (Since energy and matter have not existed, if it is that they are extremely strange stuff we humans can hardly understand, it's less inadmissible, unacceptable).
By the way, the substance we who reside at a macroscopic world see is not the substance itself. The substance we see is not really the substance itself, but a trace. Everything we see is just a trace. We can never see the substance itself and can only see the substance that was mapped (transcribed) as a trace.
In other words, the true nature of matter is not a particle nor a wave, but extremely strange actions that are embodied with energy. These actions always continue to work spontaneously, independently, and actively in the microscopic space inside matter. A particle and a wave are just traces --so to speak, mapping and evidence of the work of matter actions-- that are left as the result of the work of strange actions inherent in matter. Matter may exist because the true nature of it is strange things called physical actions.
(Possibly, being able to have some relation to others and being able to be physically detected by others may be the essence of existence. Therefore, the physical actions inherent in matter is the essence of existence. This is because what can have relation to others are (interactions, etc. among) actions inherent in matter alone. Thereby, only actions and energy as their true form can exist in this universe. In this universe, only actions and energy exist).
(Moreover, physical actions are first person subjects because they continue to work spontaneously, independently, and actively. It seems that, except for the physical actions inherent in matter, there is nothing that can bring subjectivity of our consciousness.
And, it seems that, since matter is not solid and material, but flexible and strange, the strange thing called consciousness (= intelligence) could emerge. Consciousness is a new form of the evolution of matter. No matter how it is evanescent, consciousness is advanced, complex, and big physical order. (It seems that, the higher the physical order, the more likely it is to collapse)).
《 There remain several unproven but important things in quantum mechanics (Heretical physics) 》
1) There remain several unproven but important things in quantum mechanics
2) The meaning of a particle at the level of elementary particles is vague
3) Solid bodies do not exist anywhere in this universe
4) The wave function has not yet been demonstrated
5) Quantum mechanics transcends physical causality
6) The root of the wave function
7) The possibility about the modes of particle nature and wave nature
8) Indeterminism and probability interpretation may be quite natural
9) Grope of new substantialism
10) Interference in a wave of matter
11) Conclusion
12) (Postscript) A variant of the double-slit experiment
................
1) There remain several unproven but important things in quantum mechanics
It seems to be supposed in physics that the fact that light --an electromagnetic wave / a photon-- has particle nature as well as wave nature was discovered by the researches of the photoelectric effect by Einstein and other researchers, and by the research of the compton effect by Compton.
Moreover, it seems to be supposed that the fact that an electron --matter-- has wave nature as well as the particle nature was discovered by the proposition of the matter wave --de Broglie wave-- by de Broglie and its demonstration after that by other researchers.
However the meaning of a particle at the level of elementary particles is vague.
For this reason, it doesn't seem to be demonstrated already that a photon, (though it is a wave), is a particle too in a strict sense at the same time.
(It seems that, since a photon flips an electron the moment it collides against the electron, a photon is only presumed to be a particle --or, a particle-like thing-- at that moment. In a word, it is just an interpretation that a photon is a particle. And that has not yet been demonstrated).
Moreover, it also doesn't seem to be demonstrated already that an electron --matter-- is a particle in a strict sense.
Furthermore, it also doesn't seem to be demonstrated already whether or not particle nature and wave nature appear at the same time at a photon or electron.
(However, a particle state and a wave state may change over each other according to the occurrence and the end of an interaction with other matter.
Moreover, a particle may not be a particle in a strict sense but a mere particle-like thing. If the constituent components of a wave concentrate on a single licalized point in space the moment they interact with other matter, they will come to be a particle-like thing and can behave as a particle virtually (being a close wave). And, this can be regarded as a changeover of morphological states. And, in this state, the particle nature and the wave nature, in a sense, can be regarded to coexist.
And, the simultaneousness of the particle nature and the wave nature has not yet been demonstrated. However, it seems that, in quantum mechanics, the morphological composition of a particle or a wave is not cared about and the framework through which the the particle nature and the wave nature change over each other is not supposed. For this reason, it is judged that, in quantum mechanics, it is (tacitly) thought that, although the details are not known, anyway the particle nature and the wave nature coexist at the same time.
In short, in the interpretation by quantum mechanics, the particle nature and the wave nature coexist at the same time. In the first place, the meaning of "the wave-particle duality" is ambiguous, but, in quantum mechanics, this (tacitly) means that the particle nature and the wave nature coexist at the same time.
In quantum mechanics, in matter, its particle and its wave, for some reason, coexist at the same time.
Furthermore, when matter is in a wave state, the physical quantity is not determined and the existence of the matter is vague. In other words, indeterminacy is quite natural in matter in a wave state. Probability interpretation also comes to be natural).
And, it is surmised that the unproven things above influence seriously the formulation and so on of the wave function by Schrödinger. (Plural wave functions are said to be possible to be superposed, but the superposition is also likely to be influenced).
What is more, it seems that the de Broglie wave and the wave suggested in the double-slit experiment differ from the wave formulated by the wave function. For this reason, it seems to follow that the wave formulated by the wave function has also not yet been demonstrated and the wave function itself has also not yet been demonstrated. (The superposition of plural wave functions also doesn't seem to be demonstrated).
(For example, what is confirmed in the double-slit experiment seems to be the fact that some wave nature arises at a sole electron in motion and, caused by the occurrence of an interaction, the wave nature disappears and the electron becomes a particle-like state --not necessarily a particle itself--. The demonstrated is a simple fact of this extent. (However, from this, it seems to follow that that's what the being of matter at the base is). (It was never confirmed that the wave function collapsed)).
The important thing in empirical sciences seems to follow the experimental results. It seems that the best way to confirm the foregoing unproven is to ascertain what embodies (composes) the particle of a photon or an electron and what embodies (composes) the wave of a photon, the de Broglie wave, or the wave in the double slit-experiment.
2) The meaning of a particle at the level of elementary particles is vague
The meaning of a particle at a level of elementary particles seems obscure.
It seems that a particle is not something like innumerable minimum energies (or, superstrings) that have been solidified by glue, but may be like, e. g., the sun or a fixed star looked from a long distance and just like a trace, map, impression arised from a preconception, or interpretation.
Even a wave looks to be a particle if it is looked from a long distance. Moreover, if a wave is concentrated on a single localized point in space, even though it is actually a single integrate aggregate composed of innumerable constituent components, it exactly looks like a particle. (This time, the vibration of the wave may be transformed into the vibration of the particle-like thing --matter--).
(And the meaning of "wave-particle duality" is also obscure. It's also conceivable that wave nature and particle nature do not appear at the same time but only change over each other following the occurrence of interaction with other matter).
3) Solid bodies do not exist anywhere in this universe
It seems that solid bodies --particles / what are material, concrete, and hard-- do not exist anywhere in this universe actually. This can be judged from the fact that a tremendous amount of energy and matter erupted in the Big Bang. If a tremendous amount of energy and matter could perform such intense feats that they erupt instantaneously in the Big Bang, they cannot be solid bodies absolutely.
Energy and matter had not existed originally. It's straightforwardly absurd that what had not existed begins to exist. For this reason, it is speculated that energy and matter only exist at the very limit of their existence, are immaterial and abstract, and cannot be material and concrete solid bodies. The vagueness --indeterminacy-- of the existence of (wave of) matter may be the reflection of such circumstances.
Matter doesn't disguise itself to be a solid body by itself. Matter just feels as if it is a solid body in appearance for us humans and living things who live in a world of large size.
Physically dead solid bodies cannot push back. However, there is also a solid response as a solid body formed from innumerable traces in a substance. And, it seems that there actually are internal actions which are the functional true nature of matter and embodied with energy. (These actions are immaterial, microscopic, and impossible to be observed directly).
And, an action, which (is formulated by the law of action and reaction --Newton's third law of motion--, embodies it, and) pushes back in an interaction, is also included among them. Matter has a push-back action and it pushes back. Even if matter is not a solid body actually, if it has a push-back action, it can disguise itself to be a solid body in appearance. Conversely, if matter doesn't have a push-back action, it comes not to exist in this universe virtually because it becomes transparent for other matter.
The internal actions inherent in matter are the source of matter being a solid body --trace / map/ impression / interpretation of matter--.
For these reasons, it seems that solid bodies do not exist anywhere in this universe.
4) The wave function has not yet been demonstrated
The wave function doesn't seem to formulate a wave as an entity that is formed from some innumerable constituent components as entities embodied with energy.
However, the wave function is described as formulates an ideological and non-physical wave that is formed from innumerable quantum states possible for a single sole matter --or a quantum system--.
It seems that, in quantum mechanics, since the de Broglie wave itself and the wave itself suggested in the double-slit experiment cannot be observed, it is supposed as follows.
Matter (quantum) as a single particle has wave nature too at the same time. However, if a particle as an entity and a wave as an entity exist at the same time, it's irrational. For this reason, the wave nature exists as one which is not an entity (embodied with energy) but abstract.
And, the abstract wave is formed from innumerable quantum states. And, a single quantum state is information that expresses a single state among innumerable states a single matter can take. In short, the wave of a single matter is formed from innumerable information that express innumerable states the matter can take.
And, the wave vibrates as a wave and can cause interference depending on the conditions. In the de Broglie wave or the double-slit experiment, this interference fringes by this interference is observed.
However, it seems that there can be a reason why the wave itself cannot be observed. That is because it's almost impossible for humans to optionally deal with the medium --for exampke, minimum unit of energy-- able to observe the wave itself. The physical reason is conceivable. For this reason, if humans can deal with minimum energies, even matter's wave can be observed.
And, information is an idea and non-physical usually. In other words, a single quantum state is a non-physical idea which expresses one state among innumerable states matter can take. For this reason, the wave formed from innumerable quantum states also comes to be non-physical and ideological. In a word, the wave formulated by the wave function is non-physical and ideological.
However, interference fringes are observed in the de Broglie wave and the double-slit experiment, and, since they are concrete, the wave suggested by them are also judged to be physical and concrete.
It's because it's impossible for a wave to form concrete interference fringes possible to be observed in experiments unless the wave is concrete and physical formed from constituent components as some entities embodied with energy. Such a thing is irrational and absurd.
This world seems a world of monism. And energy seems to be the only foundation. Moreover, according to Spinoza and Bergson, nothingness doesn't exist. That seems true. For this reason, nothingness can embody nothing, and, if there exists something, that must necessarily be some entity embodied with energy, other than nothingness.
And, what is not an entity embodied with energy falls under nothingness physically. For this reason, such a thing can embody nothing and can by no means form concrete interference fringes.
And, since the wave suggested in experiments is concrete, the wave is judged not to be possible to be the wave of non-physical and ideological quantum states, formulated by the wave function. That is distinct from the wave of the wave function.
That is to say, the wave suggested by the de Broglie wave and the double-slit experiment is not the wave of quantum states formulated by the wave function. In the de Broglie wave and the double-slit experiment, the wave of quantum states was not demonstrated. In a word, the wave function has not yet been demonstrated. And, It has not been demonstrated too that a sole matter has the wave nature formed from innumerable quantum states.
Moreover, it has also not yet been demonstrated that non-physical and ideological things of quantum states interact and interfere on their own.
It seems that the wave nature supposed in quantum mechanics indicates the non-physical and ideological wave formed from innumerable quantum states and it's obvious in quantum mechanics that matter has such wave nature. However, it has not yet been demonstrated that matter has such wave nature, and that is not obvious at all.
5) Quantum mechanics transcends physical causality
Moreover, it seems that multiple wave functions can be combined linearly and the combination is called superposition. In other words, it seems that, regardless of contact, wave functions of multiple matter (or, systems) can be combined simply.
However, if the wave of a single matter is an entity, it seems impossible to combine multiple waves simply (as long as it does not base on nuclear fusion or chemical systhesis). (Also from this, it is judged that the wave function formulates a non-physical, ideological, and abstract wave).
It is surmised that, probably, the quantum state, the wave formulated by the wave function, and the superposition of wave functions exist as ideas only in consciousness of researchers, and their realistic correspondents do not exist in this physical world.
Schrödinger who formulated the wave function devised the thought experiment "Schrödinger's cat". However, it is said that he devised the thought experiment to question the superposition of wave functions. That is to say, Schrödinger himself seems to be doubtful of the superposition of wave functions.
(However, contrary to Schrödinger's feeling, "Schrödinger's cat" seems to have taken a life of its own. Moreover, the wave function also seems to have taken a long life of its own without being demonstrated).
Furthermore, the framework of wave functions's superposition seems to be exceedingly powerful. That's almost invincible. This is because, as long as we depend on that framework, we can relate optionally and quite easily every physical event one another with no basis or cause.
However, this world appears to hold by causality. And that framework seems equal to almost transcending the causality.
And, it seems that it's possible because the wave function is still non-physical and ideological.
Consciousness appears for some reason to be involved in external physical events in quantum mechanics. However, it seems that it's because a framework that can disregard causality is adopted in quantum mechanics.
However, consciousness, although it is physical, seems to be perfectly passive and fully confined in a domain where it emerges. Consicousness is not a radar to perform active detection nor a fishfinder, and has nothing to do with external physical events in the framework of causality. It seems that consciousness is not called from external physical events at all and has no part to play.
Even if wave nature appear in a sole matter in motion, if interference fringes are observed actually in an experiment, it's natural that we think the wave suggested by it to be physical and concrete one formed from innumerable components as entities.
However, if multiple wave functions which are supposed to express actual physical systems can be superposed theoretically and easily with no actual basis or cause, outwitting causality, that is like multiple seemingly unrelated physical systems come to be related to one another theoretically. That is a cut above an ordinary sense, very ingenious, and very advanced and abstruse.
However, such a supposiotion may disregard Occam's razor --a guide of parsimony--.
6) The root of the wave function
The wave function seems to formulate a wave of non-physical and ideological quantum states. Where did such a supposition start? It may be the fact that a photon was discovered to have particle nature as well as wave nature by Einstein and Compton.
Why was such a supposition made?
We humans seem to think particles to be certain unconsciously. And such an impression or preconception seems to be very deep-rooted and very strong. Moreover, such an impression seems to be more strong about elementary particles.
That is to say, it seems that the foregoing non-physical and ideological supposition about observed waves was made because the preconception that an electron --elementary particle-- is a single particle was too much. It's extremely unlikely that an electron would suddenly fall apart and form a wave. Or, it's straightforwardly irrational and absurd for an electron, though it is a single hard particle, to have wave nature as an entity.
And, this supposition also implies the supposition that an electron is a wave as well as a single particle at the same time. (As we surmised previously, in quantum mechanics, the particle nature and the wave nature of matter are thought to coexist at the same time).
So the wave nature cannot help being non-physical, ideological, and abstract.
The (compositional) true nature of the de Broglie wave and the wave suggested in the double-slit experiment doesn't seem to have been ascertained already, and that seems to be due to the reason above.
However, the thought that an electron is not likely to fall apart suddenly and form a wave is an unproven supposition originated in the ambiguousness of the meaning of a particle. However, an electron may fall apart suddenly and form a wave. Quantum mechanics as an empirical science may be desirable to confirm things like this.
7) The possibility about the modes of particle nature and wave nature
It's also thinkable that particle nature and wave nature do not appear simultaneously, but simply switch each other in accordance with the occurrence of interaction. (This seems to be influenced further also by the meaning and the morphological existential mode of a particle).
The changeover of a wave to a particle seems to correspond to the collapse of the wave function, and if we think like this, it seems to come quite concise.
At any rate, this universe holds through causality, and whatever physical event it is, some physical cause is necessary for it to occur. And, it seems that, as to the mutual changeover of wave nature and particle nature, an interaction is the cause of it.
The particle nature suggested by the photoelectric effect and the compton effect may be that. The wave of a photon becomes a particle-like state and the physical quantity is determined the moment the photon's wave collides against (the particle of) an electron and an interaction occurs. And, the existence of a photon vague so far comes clear. And, by that, the photon can flip the electron by its definite momentum.
(To begin with, in the Big Bang, a tremendous amount of energy and matter erupted from an initial space as large as 1 meter at the same time. For this reason, they cannot be material and concrete solid bodies and a thing like mutual changeover between a wave state and a particle-like state seems to be a piece of cake).
And, it may be possible that the wave nature change into matter's vibration when the matter is in a close particle-like state.
As long as each constituent element of matter's wave is also a wave, that seems fine.
(In the first place, minimum energy or a superstring may be like a non-solid and immaterial (and spherical) wave. (This is because, for energies and superstrings to be able to exist, they must at least be in motion. This is because energies and superstrings must be actions themselves. And, if they are in motion, they can be actions. And, if they are waves, they can be in motion and be actions)).
Then, whether a single matter is in a wave state or in a particle-like state, its constituent elements may be able to form a big wave or a particle-like close wave through wave superposition.
(Such an interpretation seems simple and natural. And, that interpretation also seems not to disregard Occam's razor --a guide of parsimony--).
8) Indeterminism and probability interpretation may be quite natural
And, furthermore, if an electron is a single integrate aggregate formed from some innumerable constituent components, it's quite natural that its physical quantity --spatial position-- is not settled while it is in a wave state as a basic state and the existence of an electron is, in a way, vague. And, it's also natural that the settlement of the physical quantity can only be predicted by probability when an interaction with other matter occurs. In short, indeterminism and probability interpretation may be quite natural for an electron (matter).
However, it's also conceivable that the basic existential mode of matter is the wave state. And it seems proper.
(It's because it's thinkable that a minimum energy or superstring is like a wave or oscillator. An energy or superstring seems to be physical actions themselves continuing to operate spontaneously, independently, and actively --so energy and matter can be said to be like perpetual motion machines--, and, for it to operate, it's at least indispensable that it can change in the lapse of time. And, being like a wave or oscillator is the best way to change. An energy or superstring may not be able to exist if it doesn't vibrate.
On the other hand, if an energy or superstring is like a wave or oscillator, the concentration of innumerable energies or superstrings is expected to be able to form a bigger and integrative aggregate by (the work of external energy and) wave superposition. That may comes under the emergence of matter --nuclear fusion and chemical synthesis--).
Except electromagnetic waves and molecules of air, almost all substances of Earth are always in contact with other substances. For this reason, the physical quantities of almost all substances of Earth are always determined and their existence are always clear. (This may be a relief for us humans and living things who are always sieged by unpredictable indeterminacy of overwhelming contingency).
9) Grope of new substantialism
There is a book entitled "What is Reality?" (1).
(1) Hayato Saigo and Shigeru Taguchi. "What is Reality?": The Conversion of World Image Starting from Mathematics and Philosophy. Chikma Shobo, 2019
In this book, many things are delved into in depth, such as matter, reality, the way of thinking about them, and so on, basing on phenomenology and category theory in mathematics.
And, it seems that, in this book, both "substantialism of particle" and "substantialism of field" are denied based on a phenomenological way of thinking that "w_e r_e_c_e_i_v_e w_h_a_t a_p_p_e_a_r_s a_s a_p_p_e_a_r_s", and the grope of new physical framework that interprets the existential mode of matter "o_n a m_o_r_e r_e_a_l_i_s_t_i_c b_a_s_i_s" is proposed.
It seems reasonable. And it seems that the ascertainment what embodies (composes) the particle and wave of a photon or electron --matter-- answers for the purpose of the grope of new framework.
10) Interference in a wave of matter
By ther way, it is said that the double-slit experiment is carried out with a photon and interference fringes are also observed with photons. Then, since light is a mass of energy, it is easily speculated that a photon's wave is directly embodied with (composed of) energy and that minimum energies --energy quanta-- directly bring about interference on their own.
The de Broglie wave and the wave in the double-slit experiment may not be abstract and non-physical waves composed of innumerable quantum states but be concrete and physical waves composed of inummerable minimum energies.
The interference of matter's wave may be caused by inummerable minimum energies composing it by themselves.
And, the particle of a photon or an electron --matter-- may also be a particle-like wave that is concrete but closely combined, and is composed of innumerable minimum energies.
11) Conclusion
It seems to that quantum mechanics based on an interpretation of facts (reality), not facts, and the interpretation has not yet been demonstrated.
In quantum mechanics, waves formed from non-physical and ideological quantum states are dealt with seriously. Moreover, it also is supposed that multiple wave functions which formulate such waves can be superposed optionally. For this reason, quantum mechanics seems to transcend the causality of this world.
Quantum mechanics seems likely to end up not being an empirical science, or even physics.
Quantum mechanics seems desirable to fulfill the following things.
i) Ascertain what embodies (composes) the particle and the wave of matter.
ii) Clarify what kind of the morphological mode --compositional state-- of the particle and the wave of matter is.
iiii) Ascertain whether or not the particle nature and the wave nature of matter coexist at the same time.
iv) Demonstrate the existence of the quantum state.
v) Demonstrate the existence of the wave formulated by the wave function and formed from innumerable quantum states.
vi) Demonstrate that the wave formulated by the wave function and formed from innumerable quantum states causes physical interference.
vii) Demonstrate that the superposition of multiple wave functions corresponds with an actual physical event.
12) (Postscript) A variant of the double-slit experiment
As an attempt to clarify the morphological mode of matter, a variant of the double-slit experiment is conceivable as follows.
In the double-slit experiment, cut off completely the space between the left space and the right space beyond the slits with a negatively charged plate or the like. This experiment doesn't aim to observe interference fringes.
The wave of an electron may remain split in two and be unable to merge back into one. And, in each left and right, traces of half of an electron may be left. However, a single electron is composed of a combination of left and right waves. This state seems extremely strong in that an electron is an elementary particle. For this reason, it also seems that such a thing cannot occur. So it's unpredictable what kind of results we will get. Still, it may help us to speculate more closely on what the morphological mode --compositional state-- of an electron might look like.
《 A variant of the double-slit experiment 》
As an attempt to clarify the morphological and compositional existential mode of matter, a variant of the double-slit experiment is conceivable as follows.
In the double-slit experiment, the space between the left space and the right space beyond the slits is cut off completely with a negatively charged plate or the like. (This experiment doesn't aim to observe interference fringes).
The wave of an electron may remain split in two and be unable to merge back into one. And, in each left and right, traces of half of an electron may be left. However, a single electron is composed of a combination of left and right waves. This existential mode seems extremely strong in that an electron is an elementary particle. For this reason, it also seems that such a thing cannot occur. So it's unpredictable what kind of results we will get. Moreover, experimental results may also be greatly influenced by how the left and right half-waves are prevented from re-mergence in the experimental setup.
Still, as to the result, several possibilities are conceivable as follows.
i) If the barrier is weak materially, either of the left and right half waves penetrates the barrier and merges with another half wave the moment the two half waves collide with the plate. And, one collision trace is left on either the left or right plate.
ii) As if nothing had happened, one collision trace is left on either the left or right plate. Either of the left and right half waves goes through the opening in the barrier and merges with another half wave the moment the two half waves collide with the plate.
iii) As if nothing had happened, one collision trace is left on either the left or right plate. Either of the left and right half waves returns to the position of the double-slit in an instant and merges with another half wave from there the moment the two half waves collide with the plate.
iv) As if nothing had happened, one collision trace is left on either the left or right plate. Either of the left and right half waves teleports and merges with another half wave the moment the two half waves collide with the plate.
v) The two half waves collide with the plate on the left and right while being split, leaving traces on each.
vi) Since the two half waves cannot re-merge, they collapse as an elementary particle called an electron, and, while releasing their binding energy as an electron, they are reduced to energy. Traces of the collision may remain on each of the left and right plates.
And, the gained result may help us to speculate more closely on what the morphological and compositional mode of an electron might look like.
Since this experiment deals with the very existence of an electron (matter), it seems to be an experiment in in the field of elementary particle physics. Still, since it may bring clues to ascertain the morphological and compositional existential mode of an electron, it seems to relate also with quantum mechanics deeply.
This experiment doesn't seem meaningless for physics as an empirical science. It is strongly hoped that somewhere this experiment will be carried out and the results obtained.
《 The existence of matter 》
1) The vagueness of the existence of a photon or electron
2) There is no answer without a question
3) Energy seems to have a tendency toward emergence
................
1) The vagueness of the existence of a photon or electron
The wave of a photon or, (as is demonstrated in the double-slit experiment), the wave state of an electron during its sole existence seems to be a basic existential mode of matter. Since, in this aspect, wave's constituent components disperse in the space the wave occupies, its physical quantity --spatial position-- is not determined and the existence of matter, in a way, is vague.
However, the vagueness seems, rather, to be natural. (Before that, the fact that the physical quantity is not determined --the existence of matter is fundamentally indeterministic-- is also natural. This is because constituents disperse). This is because matter had not existed originally, Matter had not existed originally.
In short, for matter, indeterminism --its physical quantity is not determined and its existence is, in a sense, vague-- is natural.
On the other hand, it's straightforwardly absurd that what had not existed begins to exist.
For this reason, matter may exists at the very limit of its existence where it can disguise its existence. Vagueness may be the reflection of such circumstances.
And, it seems that, (since it had not existed originally), matter (and its constituents) are not material. (Since it had not existed originally, it's absurd that what is material exists). In spite of that, matter appears to disguise itself to be a hard matter.
The existential mode becoming a particle-like thing can be regarded as the means of the disguise. This is because, even if sole matter is in a wave state, the matter can claim against the other party of an interaction that it exists here staunchly through making its constituens concentrate on a localized single point in space, confirming its physical quantity, and returning some clear response to the other party.
(For matter, such a thing like that seems to be a piece of cake. This is because, to begin with, in the Big Bang, a tremendous amount of energy and matter erupted from innumerable infinitesimal points in a small initial space as large as 1 meter).
That is to say, even though it's a disguise, to become a particle-like state and return some response to the other party is rational for matter to exist definitely in this universe.
In short, if matter exists in such a framework, the framework is natural and rational. (And this framework also obeys Occam's razor --a guide of parsimony--).
2) There is no answer without a question
Moreover, the double-slit experiment is also adverted in the aforesaid book "What is reality?" (1). And, this experiment is considered in detail from points of view of phenomenology and category theory as well as "substantialism of particle" and "substantialism of field". Furthermore, in this book, "indeterminates", "non-canonical choice", "replacement possibility", "There is no answer without a question", and so on are also considered in detail and explained.
And, if we follow the way of thinking of this book, each constituent of an electron's wave can be regarded as an indeterminate and the wave can be regarded as a sea of indeterminates. Moreover, the occurrence of an interaction can also be regarded as a question asking the existence of an electron. And, strangely, for some reason, the basic existential mode of an electron (matter) (and reality) appear to go along with the way of thinking of this book.
An electron (matter) that had not existed in this universe originally appears to exist fundamentally in a vague state --wave state-- in which it can narrowly exist, but it can also be regarded as a state unnecessary to determine its existence unless it is asked --involved in an interaction--.
And, a sole electron (in a state of the sea of indeterminates) determines its existence to some value (through a non-canonical choice and an adoption of replacement possibility) and returns some response. And, through such movement, the electron comes to exist for the other party of an interaction successfully.
By the way, that the occurrence of a physical interaction can be regarded as an occurrence of a question is not necessarily figurative.
First of all, the occurrence of an interaction must be detected and measured by matter itself. And the work of this detectiona and measurement is ideological. Moreover, matter, according to the measured result, must execute the changing into a particle-like state --determination of the physical quantity--, but something like a plan, design, or instructions for it is necessary for matter to concentrate constituent components on a single localized point in space. And that cannot be brought without some computation. Simply put, there is no thinking (computation) and answer without a question. And computaion is also ideological. And, if an interaction activates ideological works of measurement and computation, the occurrence of an interaction can also be regarded as a question that is ideological.
(By the way, it's indispensable for matter to exist that ideological works, measurement and computation, are fulfilled in matter. This is because the movement of matter --physical events-- is extremely strict. And because measurement and computation are indispensable for the realization of strict movements. Otherwise, the movement of matter becomes random and inconsistent perfectly and, in the first place, this universe and matter cannot exist.
Moreover, the ideological works called measurement and computation are, so to speak, the work of intelligence. For this reason, the fact that matter has the works of measurement and computation implies the fact that matter has intelligence. M_a_t_t_e_r h_a_s i_n_t_e_l_l_i_g_e_n_c_e. And, the intelligence inherent in matter is the source of the intelligence and consciousness of humans and living things. It can also be thinkable that, since matter has intelligence to begin with, humans and living things have also been endowed with intelligence. (However this is not panpsychism. This is because, unlike mind, intelligence is not necessarily limited to living things)).
Possibly, such a framework of the occurrence of a question and the activation of ideological works of measurement and computaion at the basic level of matter existence may be the origin or prototype of the framework of general asking and thinking.
And, furthermore, this also seems to imply that there is no free will. This is because thinking (computing) is activated by an extrinsic interaction as a question --so to speak, a seed of thinking--. Because an extrinsic interaction becomes an opportunity to start thinking and specifies the course of thinking --for example, a course of computation for matter to change into the particle-like state--. Consciousness doesn't start thinking freely and doesn't determine the course of thinking freely.
By the way, the following two seem to be the requirements of free thinking.
i) Consciousness forms its own thinking function (action) by itself.
ii) Consciousness prepares the clue for thinking --initial input / a seed for thinking-- by itself.
Fot the ideological work --prototype of thinking-- to be activated inside matter, the occurrence of an extrinsic interaction as a question is necessary, and this means that matter cannot fulfill ii above. So there is no free thinking (free will).
Moreover, matter cannot also fulfill i above. This is because matter is a creature in the first place.
3) Energy seems to have a tendency toward emergence
The mutual changeover between a wave state and a particle-like state in an electron (matter), since it is an event inside the electron, doesn't seem to be in relation to external energy and entropy. Still, it seems that the vague wave state, which is a basic state of an electron, is of low order and the particle-like state is of a little higher order.
For matter, the wave state as a basic state, in a sense, may be figuratively an easy state.
Outside matter, physical order decays naturally caused by the second law of thermodynamics that entropy increases --by the random movement of external energy--.
However, it seems that, from the mutual changeover of the two kinds of morphological existential mode inside matter (and such a general event as the evolution of matter to more large and complex matter), energy seems to have a tendency to use itself as materials to form higher physical order. This tendency is, so to speak, a tendency toward emergence. Energy has a tendency toward emergence.
This may be important unexpectedly. This is because the natural formation of more large and complex matter may owe to the tendency toward emergence inherent in energy. Moreover, it seems that the emergence of consciousness, the natural formation of crystal masses of various substances having integrate, comprehensive, cooperative, and exquisite shapes --autopoiesis-- and the development, the spontaneous, independent, active, and cooperative movement, and the evolution of living things --autopoiesis-- also owe to the tendency toward emergence inherent in energy.
(By the way, for the present, it seems that the physical framework that brings integrateness, comprehensiveness, cooperativeness, etc. to the whole of each system of autopoiesis is not yet known in physics. (Mere physical force or factors can by no means bring them). So that is an uncharted area for physics and natural sciences. Especially, it is expected that such a framework works surely in the formation process of a crystal mass. And, it seems that, since the formation of a crystal mass is so calm that it is easy to deal with).
《 There are no solid bodies (1) -- Based of the Big Bang 》
Solid bodies are concrete. However, there are no solid bodies originally. This is because this universe has begun from the Big Bang about 13.7 billion years ago.
And, it's straightforwardly absurd that what had not existed originally begins to exist all of a sudden.
The amount of energy and substances existing in this universe is enormous, and, (according to the Big Bang theory), it is said that, in the Big Bang as the beginning of this univers, an infinitesimal cosmic seed swells up to a space as large as 1 meter in a very short time first. And, after that, it is said that an enormous amount of energy and matter --here, matter indicates various kinds of elementary particles erupted in the Big Bang. Atoms are to hydrogen atoms and helium atoms--, in a very short time as expected, erupted from innumerable infinitesimal points in the small initial space at the same time.
However, if energy and matter are concrete solid bodies, it's straightforwardly impossible that an enormous amount of them erupts from infinitesimal points, superposing one another.
Rather, if enormous anount of energy and matter could erupt from infinitesimal points, they must be extremely abstract and strange stuff we humans living in a world of large size cannot understand really.
In that enormous amount of energy and matter could performintense feats that they erupt from innumerable infinitesimal points in a small initial space, they are already judged not to be solid bodies. To begin with, solid bodies did not erupt in the Big Bang. Energy and matter fundamentally cannot be material --a solid body--.
Moreover, it's inconceivable that energy and matter can be transformed into concrete solid bodies after their eruption. This is because, about the quality of morphological existential mode of energy and matter, there are not two kinds, a quality of non-solid body and a quality of solid body. The quality of morphological existential mode of energy and matter when they erupted into this universe seems to remain unchanged forever.
For these reasons, it's absurd in the first place that what are material and concrete and solid bodies which are material and concrete exist in this universe. Energy and matter that had not existed (in this universe) originally begin to exist in this universe as something extremely abstract and mysterious, not solid, and maintain their quality forever.
Therefore, it seems that energy and matter are not solid bodies and solid bodies exist nowhere in this universe actually.
................
By the way, for these reasons, even though what are interpreted as solid bodies appear to exist limitlessly in this universe, they are not solid bodies actually. It seems that solid bodies only exist seemingly through a physical framework in which what are not solid bodies actually are interpreted as solid bodies.
And, such a framework about the quality of morphological existential mode of matter seems to be suggested by the result of double-slit experiment. This is because the result of double-slit experiment can also be interpreted as follows.
Even if matter takes a particle-like existential mode when it interacts with other matter, if it returns to a basic state in which it exists solely, it takes an existential mode of a wave that is formed from some innumerable immaterial and abstract constituents that cannot be observed directly.
................
By the way, moreover, energy seems to be actions themselves. This is because it seems that, if energy is not actions, any movement doesn't arise in the energy and in the first place the energy cannot exist.
(It seems that there are no laws of physics outside energy and, so to speak, (the work of) actions that are the true nature of energy is the laws of physics in energy and the origin of all laws of physics. Actions bring their (= energy) own movement and work spontaneously, independently, and actively by themselves).
And, such energy doesn't seem to be a solid body. This is because a solid body doesn't move. What doesn't move cannot fulfill any work fundamentally and cannot be actions. Since energy, which is actions themselves, moves as acitons, it cannot be a solid body.
(for something to exist in this universe, it must at least be in motion in some state).
And, it seems that, even if energy begin to exist, it has no choice but to begin to exist at the very limit of its existence. Energy must be there just as far as it can go without becoming a solid body and still can move and fulfill actions.
(If it is matter, such a framework was suggested by the double-slit experiment, but it's impossible to carry out the double-slit experiment with minimum energy. (To begin with, since energy is actions themselves, it's impossible to demonstrate something about energy itself. This is because, whatever operation is done to energy, actions of energy work in the operation and interfere)).
That's the existence in an abstract and strange aspect, that is not a solid body. Actions inherent in energy seem to be very abstract and strange ones we humans cannot understand really.
For these reasons, energy is not a solid body.
(From this, furthermore, it is thinkable that being able to move spontaneously, independently, and actively (in the lapse of time) is the fundamental requirement of energy).
................
And, according to Einstein, matter is equivalent to energy and seems to be formed from innumerable energies fundamentally. but it seems that, since energies are not solid bodies, no matter how matter is formed from innumerable energies, it follows that the matter is also not a solid body. (No matter how many things that are not solid bodies are gathered together, it by no means becomes a solid body).
In a word, there are no solid bodies actually in this universe.
................
By the way, a solid body seems to be just a trace, map, impression, or interpretation we humans perceive after innumerable physical interactions that occur between matter and human's consciousness. We humans do not perceive matter directly.
And, being a solid body --a trace, map, impression, or interpretation-- may be the meaning of "material". We humans feel traces, maps, and so on as material.
Conversely, being what is not a solid body but is abstract and strange (= actions) may be the meaning of "immaterial".
It seems that energy and matter exist as actually immaterial, abstract, and strange things, but there in this universe is no such a thing that is a solid body and material.
《 There are no solid bodies (2) -- Simple explanation 》
1) It's not yet clear whether matter is a particle of hard solid body or not
2) The meaning of a solid body
3) humans do not perceive the perception target directly
4) The ultimate constituents of matter are not solid bodies
5) If simple solid bodies can exist for nothing, it's too good
6) The existential mode of a substance resembles bubbles of soap
7) The meaning of a solid body (2)
................
1) It's not yet clear whether matter is a particle of hard solid body or not
From the double-slit experiment, it is almost clear that matter existing alone takes the existential mode of wave formed from innumerable constituents. However, it's not yet clear whether the matter becomes a hard solid particle or only becomes a close aggregate of constituent --only becomes a tightly combined state that concentrates on a single localized point in space-- when it is involved in an interaction with other matter.
If matter becomes a hard solid particle at an interaction, it follows that solid bodies auspiciously exist in this universe, but, otherwise, it follows that solid bodies don't exist.
By the way, if matter is a hard solid body, it seems unable to take the existential mode of wave dispersing in broad space in a flash no matter what it does when it becomes alone.
By the way, moreover, if the true nature of matter is internal actions, it's almost obvious without explanation that matter is not a hard solid body. Conversely, it seems that, if matter is a hard solid body without internal actions, matter, in the first place, cannot exist because it cannot partake in physical interactions with other matter. This also is almost obvious. So, fundamentally, solid bodies cannot exist.
2) The meaning of a solid body
The meaning of a solid body seems to be relatively vague.
Still, it seems that what are concrete, material and motionless correspond to solid bodies usually.
For this reason, also about the substance in a state of liquid or gas, its constituents --molecules or atoms-- seem to be solid.
3) humans do not perceive the perception target directly
However, a solid body seems fundamentally unable to exist. It seems that solid bodies do not really exist anywhere in this universe.
First, humans do not perceive the perception target --substances-- directly.
It is because the observation by humans must inevitably use light or electrons as the medium of information transmission. If light, and so on is a medium, an interaction occurs the moment the medium comes into contact with the observation target. And, if an interaction occurs, the wave disappears and matter becomes a particle-like state existing in a single localized point in space.
And, what is more, humans do not observe the observation targets directly. What are observed in the observation by humans are light or electrons (as the medium) that collided with the observation target and rebounded. An image formed by the medium is interpreted as matter. However, the image is, so to speak, a trace or map of interaction occurred between the medium, such as light or electrons, and the observation target. The image is never the observation target itself. The observation target itself is matter to the end.
(However, the framework in which the image of observation target is formed in a human being's consciousness is not that simple. In observation, physical information about observation target --semantically, a trace or map-- is transmitted limitlessly through innumerable interactions that occur in innumerable substances existing between observation target and a human being's consciousness. And, as a result, the image of observation target --a trace or map-- is formed at last in consciousness).
By the way, matter itself cannot be observed without medium, but, in a sense, the medium to interact directly with the matter of observation target can be said to observe the matter directly.
(And the true nature of matter is internal actions inherent in matter. And there is no way to observe the actions themselves directly. This is because interactions occur).
And, the trace or map formed by the medium generally looks like a particle or solid substance that is a material solid body.
Humans probably have mistaken the image (map) formed by the medium for the observation target --(internal actions inherent in) matter-- itself.
However, even though matter looks like a solid body in the framework of such observation, that does never mean that matter itself is a solid body. (For instance, the sun and fixed stars are good examples).
So, it's not yet settled presently whether matter is a solid body or not.
However, in the world of large size humans reside, substances are generally stuffed with molecules or atoms that are interpreted as solid bodies also in the inside. (However, since, between those constituents, there are vacuums where no matter exists and no aerial molecule exists, it follow that substances really contain a great deal of vacuum). For this reason, it seems no wonder that humans misunderstand that substances are solid bodies.
4) The ultimate constituents of matter are not solid bodies
However, if we go down to the world of elementary particles smaller than atoms, the aspect of matter composition changes considerably.
Elementary particles are generally composed of a small number of other smaller elementary particles of few kinds. And, this framework is repeated recursively in the direction in which the size of elementary particles becomes smaller.
In short, in the world of elementary particles, unlike the substances in the world of large size, it is not that matter is formed from innumerable components of the same kind in its surface and its inside.
And, it seems that it is said that the most small matter in this universe is a neutrino and it is also regarded as a particle, but, if we comes here, its components cannot be found any longer. If forced to say, we cannot help but think that the component of a neutrino is energy.
In other words, even though the trace of neutrino gained through an interaction is a particle, it's not actually clear whether the neutrino is a solid body or not, and solid components are not contained any longer in its inside. (Then it is strongly surmised that the surface of neutrino also is not solid). This is because energy which is presumed to be the constituent of an neutrino cannot be solid. A solid body is completely inert physically, externally, and internally in a facet of spontaneous and independent actions, and, figuratively, physically dead and rigid as matter. Larger substances --larger physical order-- cannot be formed from such things. Substances must inevitably formed from flexible things that have --embody-- active actions working spontaneously and independently. That is energy.
In a word, the ultimate component --energy-- of all substances in this universe is not a solid body.
Then, it is judged that all substances formed from what is not solid --energy-- in this universe are also not solid actually. There is no solid body --particle-- in this universe. The appearance or the touch of a solid body is never a substance itself but just a trace or map (left by the work of actions).
According to Einstein, matter is said to be equivalent to energy. That seems to be true. However, solid matter does not exist actually. Rather, matter is energy itself. Or, actions embodied with energy are matter.
5) If simple solid bodies can exist for nothing, it's too good
If simple solid bodies can exist for nothing, it's too good. It's absurd. Every physical existence in this universe may exist because its true nature is an immaterial and extremely mysterious thing called energy or actions. What exists must fundamentally be mysterious. (If it is that energy and matter are exceedingly strange stuff we humans can hardly understand, it's less inadmissible, unacceptable). Otherwise they cannot exist.
Originally, this universe and matter --their true nature is ultimately energy-- had not existed. It's not ordinary that yet they were created through the Big Bang. The fact that things that didn't exist began to exist is like they were forced into the world of existence and not trivial. The physical mechanism of the creation --mechanism of the creating action-- must be extremely esoteric and incomprehensible to us residing in a world of traces (maps) of large size no matter what we do.
For this reason, the fact that matter takes an existential mode of wave (that is presumed to be a basic existential mode of matter) and the being --physical quantity-- of matter is not settled during the matter exists solely and doesn't interact with other matter is, rather, natural. Since it hasn't existed originally, the fact that the wave vibrates and is indeterminate is like an intermediate state between existence and nonexistence and may be regarded as dynamic warm-up for the existence --so to speak, the formation of higher physical order--.
And, it seems that the same is true for the mechanism of internal actions that are the true nature of matter. Even the mechanism of actions must not be understood by us humans. Such things are not material --physically inert solid--, visible, or physically observable.
However, the fact that it cannot exist unless it is mysterious to us residing in a world of traces of large size seems to be, in a sense, rational and natural.
6) The existential mode of a substance resembles bubbles of soap
The existential mode of a substance in a world of large size seems to resemble bubbles of soap formed from many bubbles. Soap liquid is not contained inside a bubble of soap, and, like this, solid bodies are not contained also inside the components --molecules or atoms-- of a substance. It is speculated that, even if the inside is physical, but it is not material and filled with microscopic actions flexible about the operation of the actions. And the surface is also not solid. Microscopic actions must be exposed on the surface. (This is because, if the surface is solid and inert in a facet of action, molecules or atoms can by no means participate in chemical reactions. First of all, since they cannot be involved in interactions, they cannot exist in this universe).
However, if we humans have no choice but to perceive substances via the trace or map, substances (that are filled with innumerable traces that are mistaken for solid bodies) cannot help but to be misunderstood as solid bodies as expected.
Moreover, there is also a solid response as a solid body formed from innumerable traces. Dead solid bodies cannot push back, but the action that embodies the law of action and reaction --Newton's third law of motion-- pushes back. If matter has a push-back action, it can disguise itself to be a solid body in appearance. There is a push-back action.
7) The meaning of a solid body (2)
Since there is no solid body, it seems difficult to define a solid body. Still, the fact that a solid body doesn't have physical, internal, dynamic, and microscopic actions, is dead about physical, internal, dynamic, and microscopic actions, or dead physically seems to be its meaning.
"Material" seems to be an adjective in a static viewpoint in the outside --macroscopic region-- of substances that regards a trace or map that is left (obtained) as a result of the work of internal actions inherent in matter (and that is static and physically dead) as a substance. In a word, "material" means "solid". And, "immaterial" means "non-solid".
(On the other hand, "physical" is an adjective in a dynamic viewpoint in the inside --microscopic region-- of substances that attach greater importance to actions or the work of them).
By the way, it seems that traces or maps are basically obtained from the work of the law of action and reaction. For this reason, Newton's laws of motion that rule the kinetic interactions --the first law (the law of inertia), the second law, and the third law-- seem to work in a level of internal actions inherent in matter.
Be that as it may, it's a little surprising that a solid body --particle-- cannot exist and there is no solid body anywhere in this universe actually.
