Particle-Wave Duality: A Thought Experiment

As I sleeplessly sat in my room this morning waiting for the sun to rise, I noticed the gradual lighting up of my room (a sunrise minus the photo-op). I have seen this event quite a few times but this time was different as I was still working on an idea that carried over from the previous night.

The first thing that came to my mind was particle-wave duality and how it comes into play concerning a sunrise. Less light means less photons to reflect off of an object. Everything we see is the result of reflected light being absorbed by the pupil. In real-time, its impossible to see whether there's a wave of light or individual particles of light bouncing around hitting our eyes so I went ahead and made up a thought experiment.


In this thought experiment, I increased my ability to observe and interpret information well beyond that of the speed of light (a thought experiment Einstein would greatly frown upon). At this speed, I could picture light particles halted to a crawl in their movement around my room. At this point, I relegated any undefineable wave speculation to our inability to process that information at a higher speed.

I did this because I am a believer in the idea of the universe being one big interconnected deterministic system of cause and effect which favors physics expressed in the terms of particles. This model works very well except when dealing with the causeless effect which is a thread on its own that tends to lean more on the meta-physics side so I'll leave that for another day. I take it a step beyond particles but since that hypothesis is still under construction with daily revisions, it will also have to wait.


Then I remembered that matter is also subject to this duality. So, what would matter look like at this level? At first, I thought that since we see it as a rather unchanging solid, it must move really slow. But, if it moves really slow and is infact in particle form, how does the light get reflected by it? Wouldn't it just shoot right through?

Upon thinking of the 4 states of matter, I realized that it is actually quite the opposite. The more energy something has and the faster it moves, the less likely it is to be seen as a result of reflected light with Plasma being the extreme as it emits its own light to drown out any incoming light or its just a non-stop photo-electric effect.

This makes sense when you account for the consistancy with which each state can be hit by incoming photons. A slow moving piece of matter will be hit by more photons than a faster moving piece of matter thus making the former more visible due to the shear volume of photon impact. Matter can also be successfully expressed in terms of particles at this advanced level of observation.


I was feeling pretty good about all this until I remembered gravity. It can't be coherently expressed as a particle at any level or so I thought. I'm a huge graviton opposer but if it is pictured as an invisible overwhelming stream of "pull" particles released from matter like a photon is released from a light source, it could work in the sense of having varying intensities or having a constant, either way could be made to work. I still say nay to a gravity particle because during this experiment, I "saw" creeping gravity particles that don't have an effect in some situations when they would in others (sub-atomic and macro effects). Its ok for some photons to be absorbed but absorbed gravity particles pose a problem.

So, I've stumbled upon an item that can't be expressed as a particle at any level of hypothetical trans-luminal observation. A wave doesn't appear to work as it just equates to an undefineable stream of force but, a field does work at the trans-luminal level of observation. A pulsed field of pull: A faster pulse gives you more pull, while a slower pulse gives you less pull or, they might pulse at the same rate of speed with varying intensities depending upon size (I favor the latter).


I'm not going to lie, gravity is tough even when you slow everything down by speeding up your observation rate. I must note however, that something interesting happens at a certain speed. Going above the speed of light to see these force and particle interactions in slow motion works great up until the point where you observe so fast that nothing happens for long stretches of time.

Here you have particles, fields, etc. not moving and then "ticking" along a path at different rates like a second hand on a clock. At lower speeds where they are constantly moving and spinning (albeit slowly), you can see the deterministic particle aspect in motion. However, at this ridiculously fast rate of observation, there is NO inertia. Something moves and stops again but doesn't carry over any momentum from the motion as back in our "slow" real time, that would cause unprompted acceleration.


This is why Einstein didn't like the idea of trans-luminal anything because it results in us "observing" interactions that can't be made equal with our laws observed in real time. Likewise, anything that exceeds the speed of light demolishes Einstein's theory of relativity as different laws are being observed at different speeds that can't be considered relative to one another. So, at this point I have to ask: Is Relativity a cop out?

Either, the speed of observation I have submitted in this thought experiment is unapplicable to physics as nothing actually occurs that quickly in the universe (its kind of like any insanely large number that holds no value in the universe as there's nothing that numerous to apply it to) or there is an area of physics we are not accounting for. The world of trans-luminal cause and effect.

Maybe this explains why we can never pin anything down to 100% certainty. We overlooked that which can't be seen. Looking from this perspective might shed light on metaphysics topics such as consciousness and many other paranormal topics. We might even be able to stretch this to include God and astral planes.

If you take nothing else away from this borderline rambling, consider this: Trans-luminal causes may be resulting in trans-luminal effects that we observe to be "causes" in our frame of observation. In other words, there are things we're not accounting for but for good reason, they are borderline impossible to observe naturally. When we can no longer ask questions, we have the answer.

No one has any comment whatsoever? No one thought it interesting that inertia doesn't apply (theoretically atleast) in an extremely fast frame of reference? This is the core of Einstein's theory of relativity. Anything transfering or "observing" information beyond the speed of light completely breaks down his theory. Our laws seen at our rate of observation aren't necessarily all the laws there are as this is what transluminal anything implies.

From a transluminal perspective, instead of light bending around a planet, its path could be carved out faster than the speed of light with light traveling at its documented speed. So, the path from the star "connects" to the earth for a given amount of light, a planet or whatever gets in the way after the earth moves so far, and thus the illusion of bending light occurs.

If light bends this way on both sides of an object as the earth goes from the right to the left of an object and then back, there would need to be a varying directional bend in space-time. Its bent one way for one side, and then the bent light seen on the other side implies a completely different bend. Light bending with the rotation of said object then light bending against the rotation of said object. This of course, only happens depending on where someone is observing from relative to the source of light which allows one bend but not a simultaneous counter bend from a different perspective whether or not there is a live observer to see it.

There is a lot to be discussed here like every belief we have that forms our basic understanding of the physical laws that govern us and our surroundings.