Can we influence reality? Some misguided scientists think we can.
For example the Copenhagen model of Quantum Mechanics suggests the act observing an environment defines its reality as is shown by its interpretation of Thomson’s doubleslit experiments because it holds that the myriad of probabilities it defines are unreal and only become real when their outcomes are observed.
In other words they feel reality is an emergent property of observation because it suggests that before one is made an environment does not exist or is unreal and only appears after being observed.
This is because, in the case of the double slit experiment many assume that the classical concepts of "particle" and "wave" cannot be used to fully describe the wave particle behavior of quantumscale objects exposed by this experiment Therefore many interpretations of quantum mechanics explain this paradox as a fundamental reality of the Universe.
In other words they feel that the act of observing creates its reality because as was mentioned earlier according to most quantum mechanical models an object does not exist as a particle or wave before it is observed and that its final reality, whether it is particle or wave is dependents on the act of observe it.
This prompted Einstein to say “I like to think that the moon is there even if I am not looking at it”.
However it would not be necessary to for anyone to assume that the moon was not there if they were not looking at it if it was possible to explain in terms of classical properties of space and time the wave/particle behavior of quantumscale objects.
As mentioned earlier Thomson’s doubleslit experiment clearly demonstrates the wave/particle behavior that is associated with the reality of a quantum mechanical environment.
This may be why Richard Feynman the farther of Quantum Electrodynamics believed Thomson’s double slit experiment provided the perfect mechanism for its understanding because it clearly demonstrates their inseparability.
However, as of yet no one has been able to explain in classical terms the behavior of the quantum environment encompassed by this experiment.
Yet Einstein may have given us a clue as to why when he said "If a new theory was not based on a physical image simple enough for a child to understand, it was probably worthless."
For example Einstein told us that our physical environment is made up of four dimensional spacetime yet no one has ever observed the physicality of time or a spacetime dimension.
Granted Einstein’s theories give us a very detailed and accurate description of how an interaction of time with the three *spatial* dimensions is responsible for the "reality" our world and he was able to give us a clear physical image how a curvature in spacetime can be responsible for gravity by extrapolating the image of an object moving on a curved two dimensional "surface" in a three dimensional environment to four dimensional spacetime. However this image only contains reference to the physicality of the spatial dimensions and not a time or spacetime dimension.
However, the fact that most humans perceive or define reality in terms of the physicality of the spatial dimensions instead of a time or spacetime dimension suggests that one may be able to form a physical image of how and why the quantum world is what it is by viewing our universe in terms of its spatial instead of its time properties.
Einstein gave us the ability to do this when he used the constant velocity of light to define the geometric properties of spacetime because it allows one to convert a unit of time in his four dimensional spacetime universe to a unit of a space that is physically identical to those of our threedimensional space. Additionally because the velocity of light is constant it is possible to defined a one to one correspondence between his spacetime universe and one made up of four *spatial* dimensions.
In other words by mathematically defining the geometric properties of time in his spacetime universe in terms of the constant velocity of light he provided a qualitative and quantitative means of redefining it in terms of the geometry of four *spatial* dimensions.
The double slit experiment is made up of "A coherent source of photons illuminating a screen after passing through a thin plate with two parallel slits cut in it. The wave nature of light causes the light waves passing through both slits to interfere, creating an interference pattern of bright and dark bands on the screen. However, at the screen, the light is always found to be absorbed as discrete particles, called photons.
When only one slit is open, the pattern on the screen is a diffraction pattern however, when both slits are open, the pattern is similar but with much more detailed. These facts were elucidated by Thomas Young in a paper entitled "Experiments and Calculations Relative to Physical Optics," published in 1803. To a very high degree of success, these results could be explained by the method of Huygens–Fresnel principle that is based on the hypothesis that light consists of waves propagated through some medium. However, discovery of the photoelectric effect made it necessary to go beyond classical physics and take the quantum nature of light into account.
It is a widespread misunderstanding that, when two slits are open but a detector is added to determine which slit a photon has passed through, the interference pattern no longer forms and it yields two simple patterns, one from each slit, without interference. However, there ways to determine which slit a photon passed through in which the interference pattern will be changed but not be completely wiped out. For instance, by placing an atom at the position of each slit and monitoring whether one of these atoms is influenced by a photon passing the interference pattern will be changed but not be completely wiped out.
However the most baffling part of this experiment comes when only one photon at a time impacts a barrier with two opened slits because an interference pattern forms which is similar to what it was when multiple photons were impacting the barrier. This is a clear implication the particle called a photon has a wave component, which simultaneously passes through both slits and interferes with itself. (The experiment works with electrons, atoms, and even some molecules too.)"
Yet as mentioned earlier one may be able to understand the wave particle duality of quantum objects such as a photon as is demonstrated in Thomson’s double slit experiment in terms of our classical reality if one converts or transposes Einstein’s spacetime universe to four *spatial* dimension equivalent.
For example the article, "Why is energy/mass quantized?" Oct. 4, 2007 showed that one can explain and understand the physicality of the wave and particle properties of quantum object’s by extrapolating the laws of classical resonance in a three dimensional environment to a matter wave moving on “surface” of a three dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension. It also explains why all energy must be quantized or exists in these discrete resonant systems when observed.
Briefly it showed the four conditions required for resonance to occur in a classical environment, an object, or substance with a natural frequency, a forcing function at the same frequency as the natural frequency, the lack of a damping frequency and the ability for the substance to oscillate spatial would occur in a matter wave moving in four *spatial* dimensions.
The existence of four *spatial* dimensions would give a matter wave the ability to oscillate spatially on a "surface" between a third and fourth *spatial* dimensions thereby fulfilling one of the requirements for classical resonance to occur.
These oscillations would be caused by an event such as the decay of a subatomic particle or the shifting of an electron in an atomic orbital. This would force the "surface" of a threedimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension to oscillate with the frequency associated with the energy of that event.
However, the oscillations caused by such an event would serve as forcing function allowing a resonant system or "structure" to be established in four spatial dimensions.
As was shown in that article these resonant systems in four *spatial* dimensions are responsible for its quantum mechanical properties.
However, it does not explain in classical terms why the energy of these waves not continuously distribute throughout space instead of being package in discrete units we call particles.
In classical physics, a point on the twodimensional surface of paper is confined to that surface. However, that surface can oscillate up or down with respect to threedimensional space.
Similarly an object occupying a volume of threedimensional space would be confined to it however, it could, similar to the surface of the paper oscillate "up" or "down" with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension.
The confinement of the "upward" and "downward" oscillations of a threedimension volume with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension is what defines the spatial boundaries of the resonant system associated with all quantum objects including a photon in the article "Why is energy/mass quantized?".
This provides the ability to understand, in terms of our classical reality the inseparability of the waveparticle duality of energy/mass because clearly demonstrates how the one is dependent on the other.
However, it also defines why the interference patterns remains in Thomson’s double slit experiment when one photon at a time is fired at the barrier with both slits open or "the most baffling part of this experiment" is because, as mentioned earlier it is made up of a resonant system or "structure" therefore it occupies an extended volume which is directly related to the wavelength of its particle system.
This means a portion of a particles energy could simultaneously pass both slits, if the diameter of its volume exceeds the separation of the slits and recombine on the other side to generate an interference pattern.
It also explains why the interference pattern disappears, in most cases when a detector is added to determine which slit a photon has passed through. The energy required to measure which one of the two slits it passes through interacts with it causing the wavelength of that portion to change so that it will not have the same resonant characteristics as one that passed through the other slit Therefore, the energy passing thought that slit will not be able to interact, in most cases with the energy passing through the other one to form an interference pattern on the screen.
However it also explains why, as was mentioned "there are ways to determine which slit a photon passed through that will cause a change in the interference pattern but will not completely wiped it out.
The fact that the interference pattern can still occur even if a measurement is made is because if the energy passing through one of the two slits is altered by a relatively small amount compared to what it originally was, classical wave mechanics tells us it will be able to interact to form a slightly different resonant system with a slightly different interference pattern on the other side than would be the case if no measurement was taken.
It should be pointed out that the fact that an interference pattern can be observed when a detector is added is a direct contraction of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. It demands when a detector is added to the experiment to determine which slit a photon has passed through the interference pattern can no longer form.
However, this also means there should be a quantifiable minimum value of interaction between a measuring device and a photon that will permit the interference pattern to be reestablished on the other side after measuring which slit the photon passes through.
It also defines in classical terms the reason, why the measurements always takes the form particles and not waves in Thomson’s double slit experiment
As mentioned earlier, the article "Why is energy/mass quantized?" showed energy must be propagated through space in quantized resonant systems if one applies the concepts of classical reality to a matter wave on "surface" of a threedimension space. Therefore, because its energy must be propagated through space to be observed the energy impacting the screen always will have the discrete nonwavelike characteristics of a particle.
The above article demonstrates why it is not necessary for anyone to assume that observing a quantum environment influences or changes its reality to explain the results of the double slit experiment because it clearly shows they can be explained in terms of the unchanging reality of our classical physical environment.
Latter Jeff
Copyright Jeffrey O’Callaghan 2014
Anthology of


The Imagineer’s

The Reality 
The Imagineer’s 

The Higgs Boson which was tentatively confirmed to exist on 14 March 2013 appears to confirm the existence of the Higgs field. Its discovery is pivotal to the Standard Model and other theories within particle physics because it explains, in terms of an asymmetry created by it why some fundamental particles have mass when the symmetries controlling their interactions should require them to be massless. Many feel this discovery will allow physicists to finally validate the last untested area of the Standard Model’s approach to fundamental particles and forces, guide other theories and discoveries in particle physics, and potentially lead to developments in New Physics.

However it may also provide a way of integrating gravity into the Standard Model because it would allow one to physically connect its particle concept of mass associated with the Higgs field to the field properties Einstein associated with gravity.
This is true because even though Einstein was only able tell us how mass interacts with the field properties of spacetime not what it was.
As Steven Weinberg said "Mass tells spacetime how to curve while spacetime tells mass how to move".
In other words Einstein was only able to explain how the field properties of space interact to create gravity while the Standard Model defines how the asymmetry of those fields gives particles their mass.
However this suggests that one may be able to integrate Einstein’s concept of gravity into the Standard Model if one can define a common physical mechanism responsible for how particles break the symmetry of space to create mass while at the same time explaining how and why the field properties of his spacetime universe interact to create the force of gravity.
Einstein gave us a method for accomplishing this when he said "If a new theory (such as that associated with the Higgs boson) was not based on a physical image simple enough for a child to understand, it was probably worthless."
For example Newton was troubled by the fact that that his gravitational theory meant ." that inanimate brute matter should, without the mediation of something else which is not material, operate upon and affect other matter without mutual contact…That gravity should be innate, inherent, and essential to matter, so that one body may act upon another at a distance through a vacuum, without the mediation of anything else, by and through which their action and force may be conveyed from one to another, is to me so great an absurdity that I believe no man who has in philosophical matters a competent faculty of thinking can ever fall into it."
However Einstein realized that one can understand how gravity "may act upon another at a distance through a vacuum" by extrapolating the physical image of how objects move on a curve surface in a threedimensional environment to a curved four dimensional spacetime manifold. This allowed him to conceptually understand gravity in terms of a physical image based on our threedimension environment.
In other words the mathematics developed by Newton was only able to quantitatively predict gravitational forces while Einstein gave us the ability to conceptually understand why "one body may act upon another at a distance" by physically connecting it to the reality of what we can see and touch.
However, as mentioned earlier he was unable to tell us what mass is, he was only able tell us how mass interacts with spacetime.
Similarly the Standard Model is able to define mass in terms of the symmetry breaking properties of the Higgs field however it is unable to define in terms of a physical image of how it interacts with the field properties of spacetime to create gravity or the forces associated with mass.
This fact is difficult to understand because the Standard model is based on a Relativistic Quantum Field Theory which has its foundation in Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity. Therefore one would think that it would be easy to integrate it into his General Theory of Relativity.
However Einstein’s and modern scientist’s inability to connect the Standard Models explanation for mass to Einstein’s explanation of gravity can be traced to the fact that they chose to define the universe in terms of energy instead of mass.
Einstein told us that a curvature in spacetime is responsible for gravitational energy and because of the equivalence between energy and mass defined by his equation E=mc^2 one must also assume that it is responsible for mass.
This suggest that one may be able to incorporate Einstein’s explanation of the gravity into the Standard Model if one converts or transposes the his spacetime universe which defines field properties of energy in terms of geometry of spacetime to one that defines mass of in terms of its field properties.
Einstein gave us the ability to do this when he used the constant velocity of light and the equation E=mc^2 to define the dynamic balance between mass and energy because that provided a method of converting the spacetime displacement he associated with energy in a spacetime universe to one we believe he would have associated with mass in a universe consisting of only four *spatial* dimensions. Additionally because the velocity of light is constant he also allows us to defined a one to one quantitative and qualitative correspondence between his spacetime universe and one made up of four *spatial* dimensions.
In other words by defining the geometric properties of a spacetime universe in terms of mass/energy and the constant velocity of light he provided a qualitative and quantitative means of redefining his spacetime universe in terms of the geometry of four *spatial* dimensions.
The fact that the equation E=mc^2 allows us to both qualitatively and quantitatively derive the spatial properties of energy in a spacetime universe in terms of four *spatial* dimensions is the bases for assuming as was done in the article “Defining energy” Nov 27, 2007 that all forms of energy/mass, including that associated with the Higgs field can be derived in terms of a spatial displacement in a "surface" of a threedimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension.
However changing ones perspective on the geometric structure of the universe form one of spacetime to four *spatial* dimensions, as was just shown to be possible gives one the ability to define the physical mechanism by which the Higgs Field or the field properties of four *spatial* dimensions interacts with particles to create mass and why they are quantized in terms of a physical image formed in our threedimensional environment.
For example one can form a physical image of why mass is quantized, as was done in the article "Why is energy/mass quantized?" Oct. 4, 2007" by extrapolating the image of a wave and its resonant properties in three dimension environment to one made up of four *spatial* dimensions.
This would be analogous to how Einstein, as mentioned earlier was able to explain gravity by extrapolating the physical image of how objects move on a curved surface of threedimension space to one consisting of four dimensional spacetime.
(Louis de Broglie was the first to predict the existence of the wave properties of mass when he theorized that all particles have a wave component. His theories were confirmed by the discovery of electron diffraction by crystals in 1927 by Davisson and Germer).
Briefly that article showed the four conditions required for resonance to occur in a classical environment, an object, or substance with a natural frequency, a forcing function at the same frequency as the natural frequency, the lack of a damping frequency and the ability for the substance to oscillate spatial would be meet in one consisting of four.
The existence of four *spatial* dimensions would give a matter wave that Louis de Broglie associated with a particle the ability to oscillate spatially on a "surface" between a third and fourth *spatial* dimensions thereby fulfilling one of the requirements for resonance to occur.
These oscillations would be caused by an event such as the decay of a subatomic particle or the shifting of an electron in an atomic orbital. This would force the "surface" of a threedimensional space manifold to oscillate with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension at a frequency associated with the energy of that event.
However, the oscillations caused by such an event would serve as forcing function allowing a resonant system or "structure" to be established in four *spatial* dimensions.
Classical mechanics and physical observations of our three dimensional environment tell us that resonant systems can only take on the discrete or quantized energies associated with a fundamental or a harmonic of their fundamental frequency
Therefore, these resonant systems in a four *spatial* dimensions would define mass and its quantum mechanical properties because of the fact that the volumes of space containing them would have a higher concentration of energy and therefore the mass associated with those volumes would be greater.
However can also understand in terms of a "physical image" of the boundaries of the point particles of the Standard Model using the above concepts.
In classical physics, a point on the twodimensional surface of paper is confined to that surface. However, that surface can oscillate up or down with respect to threedimensional space.
Similarly an object occupying a volume of threedimensional space would be confined to it however, it could, similar to the surface of the paper oscillate "up" or "down" with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension.
The confinement of the "upward" and "downward" oscillations of a threedimension volume with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension is what defines the geometric boundaries of the "box" containing the resonant system the article "Why is energy/mass quantized?" associated with a particle.
(The reasons why particles can be treated as a mathematical points in the Standard Model is because according to the above theoretical model the components of their energy/mass and forces associated with them would be evenly distributed around a point located at it center.)
This suggest the symmetry breaking properties the standard model associate with the Higgs field may be related to the geometric properties of four *spatial* dimensions.
If true one should be able to use those field concepts to explain how it interacts with particles to give them mass and why the mass of the corresponding particle types across the three fundamental families of particles in the Standard Model listed in the table below grows larger in each successive family.
Family 1  Family 2  Family 3  
Particle  Mass  Particle  Mass  Particle  Mass 
Electron  .00054  Muon  .11  Tau  1.9 
Electron Neutrino 
< 10^8  Muon Neutrino 
< .0003  Tau Neutrino 
< .033 
Up Quark  .0047  Charm Quark  1.6  Top Quark  189 
Down Quark  .0074  Strange Quark  .16  Bottom Quark  5.2 
As mentioned earlier the article "Why is energy/mass quantized?” showed that one can derive the mass of a particle in terms of the energy contained within a resonant system generated by a matter wave on a "surface" of a threedimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension while the article “Defining energy" showed that one can derive the energy or temperature of an environment in terms a displacement in the same threedimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension.
Therefore using the concepts developed in those articles one could derive the total mass of a particle in terms of the sum of the energies associated with that resonant structure and the displacement in the "surface" of threedimensional space associated with the energy of the environment it is occupying.
Yet Classical Mechanics tells us there will be specific points in space where the matter wave that Louis de Broglie associated with a particle can interact with the energy content or temperature of its environment to form a resonant system.
Therefore, the mass of each family member would not only be dependent on the energy associated with the resonant system that defined their quantum mechanical properties in the article "Why is energy/mass quantized?” but also on temperature or energy of the environment they are occupying.
Thus suggest the reason “The corresponding particle types across the three families in the Standard Model have identical properties except for their mass, which grows larger in each successive family." is because of an interaction between the resonant properties defined in the article "Why is energy/mass quantized?” and the mass content of the environment they are occupying.
This means the particles in the first family would be found in relativity low energy environments, are relatively stable, and for the most part can be observed in nature. However, the particles in the second and third families would be for the most part unstable and can be observed only in highenergy environments of particle accelerators. The exception is the Muon in the second family, which is only observed in the highenergy environment of cosmic radiation.
The relative masses of the fundamental particles increases in each successive family because the higherenergy environments where they occupy would result in the corresponding particles in each successive family to be formed with a greater relative "separation" in the “surfaces” of a threedimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension.
Therefore, the corresponding particles in the second family will have a greater mass than the particles in the first family because the "separation", with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension of the threedimensional space manifold associated with them is greater than the "separation" associated with the first family.
Similarly, the corresponding particles in the third family will have a greater mass than those in the second family because the "separation", with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension, of the threedimensional space manifold associated with them is greater than the spatial "separation" associated with the second family.
Additionally the corresponding particle types across the three families have "identical properties" because as shown in the article "The geometry of quarks" Mar. 15, 2009 they are related to the orientation of the "W" axis of the fourth *spatial* dimension with the axis of threedimensional space. Therefore, each corresponding particle across the three families will have similar properties because the orientation of the "W" axis of the fourth *spatial* dimension with respect to the axis of threedimensional space is the same for the corresponding particles in all of the families.
This explains why "The corresponding particle types across the three families having identical properties except for their mass, which grows larger in each successive family” in terms of the asymmetrical field of four *spatial* dimensions.
However it also shows how one can use the asymmetrical field properties of four *spatial* dimensions or the Higgs Field to understand the causality of the masses of the fundamental particles in the Standard model in terms of a physical image based on the "reality" of what we can see and touch in our three dimensional environment. This is similar to how Einstein, as mentioned earlier was able to shown that a mass "may act upon another at a distance through a vacuum" by extrapolating the physical image of how objects move on a curve surface in a threedimensional environment to a curved four dimensional spacetime manifold.
As mentioned earlier the article "Why is energy/mass quantized?” showed that one can derive the total mass of all particles in terms of the sum of energy contained within a resonant system generated by a matter wave on a "surface" of a threedimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension and the energy associated with displacement in the "surface" of threedimensional space associated the environment it is occupying.
However if one assumes, as was done above the Higgs field is created by a spatial displacement in the "surface" of a threedimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension one can also understand how its asymmetric properties interacts with particles to create their mass in terms of the physical image formed by water in a dam.
This is because the potential energy of water molecule in a dam is defined by its asymmetrical spatial separation with respect to the bottom of the dam.
Similarly, according to the above theoretical model, the potential energy or mass contained in particles would be defined by an asymmetrical displacement in a "surface" of a threedimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension.
In other words it gives one the ability to define the asymmetrical properties the Standard Model associates with the Higgs field in terms of a physical image of water in a dam because as mentioned earlier the potential energy of water in a dam is solely dependent on the height of the dam while that of a particle would be dependent on magnitude of the spatial separation or the "height" of the threedimension space manifold it is occupying with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension.
However, as was mentioned earlier Einstein also defined gravity in terms of an asymmetrical displacement or curvature or a "surface" of a three dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension or a spacetime manifold.
This suggest that one may be able to unite Einstein’s concept of gravity with the Standard Model if one can find a way of integrating the effects an asymmetrical curvature in "surface" of a threedimensional manifold with respect to either spacetime or a higher or fourth *spatial* dimension would have on a particle with the asymmetrical properties of the Higgs field.
It should be remember that Einstein’s genius allows us to choose whether to view the reality of the Higgs Field in either a spacetime environment or one consisting of four *spatial* dimension when he defined the geometry of spacetime in terms of energy/mass and the constant velocity of light.
Later Jeff
Copyright Jeffrey O’Callaghan 2014
Anthology of


The Imagineer’s

The Reality 
The Imagineer’s 
