The aforementioned experiment is simply the scientifically popular double-slit experiment (so you do not really need to watch the video, if you are already familiar with the experiment), and while consensus remains strong that the result of that experiment is bizarre, I logically contrarily maintain that the result actually makes perfect sense.
We start with the fact that no objective distinction has ever been discovered — a fact that is basically ignored within the scientific community, at least based upon anything that I have been exposed to from their circles (which is a fair amount, although please feel free to enlighten me upon your ability to do so).
Prominent physicists (e.g. Dr. Edward Witten, who is the well-known and brilliant founder of M Theory) claim a particle is a “blur”, particle distinction is “fuzzy”, and the quantum level is a “foam” — so no objective distinction, according to the latest mainstream scientific conclusion.
Einstein’s most famous equation basically tells us that mass is highly condensed energy, so all that remains is the fabric of space-time (as time is experimentally concluded to be spatial, hyphenated time is removed for the rest of this post, so just space) in terms of known physical reality. Due to the absence of objective distinction, it only makes sense to conclude that space is energy.
Therefore the observer, the observed particle, the apparatus, and the environment of the double-slit experiment is purely energetic.
Energy can be broken down into a purely sinusoidal form due to the well-established Fourier analysis, and a sine wave is obviously purely logical.
When you focus upon something at our familiar scale, that something resonates to your attention, and while reality itself is arguably bizarre by default, humanity never claims that familiar resonance via common focus is bizarre. That resonance is happening right now as you are reading this, and I reasonably safely assume that you (at least generally) find nothing bizarre about the common process of reading.
The exact same resonating effect is occurring in the double-slit experiment. Observation of a particle seamlessly resonates with that particle to result in the familiar action of a particle, while basically the absence of observing that particulate action instead leaves the relatively looser wavy energetic flow (i.e. the particle is “bizarrely” acting as a wave upon observation or otherwise).
In short, observation is energetically a seamless resonator.
There is nothing bizarre about it, when the mere assumption of (if not human desire for) objective distinction is finally removed, as it should be in conformance with (at least the furthest reach of applying) the scientific method.
Returning to a spatial focus, Einstein’s famous equation can apparently be helpfully extended, so basically ‘energy = mass = space‘. If I were a mathematician, I would focus upon achieving that goal, but alas I’m just a responsible entertainer promoting that logically sound idea to hopefully reach mathematical folks.
Logically considering that the full set of energetically modulating possibilities forms oceanic results from humanity’s perspective, when space is calculated as oceanic energy modulating in an oceanic number of dimensions, the result powerfully scientifically and enormously expands from the obviously relatively crude dimensional signature of four-dimensional space (already with mathematical insistence upon more dimensions needed beyond that signature to mathematically connect the tried-and-true areas of relativity and quantum physics) to an increasingly refined and seriously complex spatial signature.
The overwhelming majority of reality is operating outside of human (and even human technological) perception these days (e.g. dark matter and dark energy form about 85-95% of the known universe), and the absence of a sufficiently complex understanding of the spatial (especially dimensional) signature within the human vicinity of observation is sensibly the reason why our species cannot at least mathematically perceive that enormous realism.
Virtual particles (which ephemerally pop in and out of existence), quantum entanglement (which maintains a connection between two particles, despite being separated by common distance), gravitons (the force particles of gravity), and whatever else I may be missing offhand is energy modulating outside of our (inclusively technological) perception, while rippling results to the perceptive contrary.
The accuracy of that humanly understood spatial signature is limited by chaos theory (basically the same reason why weather forecasting is limited — computers can only calculate so many numbers to the right of the decimal point, and the numbers missed ultimately form strong deviations from predictability). More refined values and/or calculation methodologies expand the understanding of complexity from the human vicinity.
Here is a fitting spot to inject that pseudo-objectivity is the term that I use to mean any result that can only be honestly perceived equally by all human beings (that is what I mean by “from the human vicinity”), but not necessarily the result happening outside of that perception. Although humanity’s honestly perfectly unified subjectivity is not objective, solely that form of subjectivity (pseudo-objectivity) suffices in legitimate scientific pursuits. In short, there is human understanding, which is always sourced via human perception, and then there is reality understanding, which is sourced at reality itself regardless of perception.
Although the purely sinusoidal form of the double-slit experiment is apparently unimaginably complex these days, it is conceivable that a future computer simulation relying upon additive synthesis (the pure combining of sine waves to form more complex waveforms) could eventually produce a complex energy waveform sufficiently replicating the double-slit experiment itself.
Because the experiment is within a computer simulation, an observer outside of that simulation does not affect the observed particle within the simulated experiment.
Because the experiment is purely sinusoidal, the experiment (including the “bizarre” result) can be understood, so humanity can finally advance the barrier of quantum knowledge.
There is no evidence proving anything is unreal. Even information is energy, based upon the fact that every part of the informational process is physical.
Your physical senses prompt a thought. Your thought is physically an energetic symphony via your neurology. Your expression of that thought is physical (by word of mouth, writing, and/or so on).
That entire physicality is energy (remember that mass — including your body — is energy).
Thought is energy. Pain is energy. Reward is energy. Emotion is energy. Consciousness is energy. Control is energy. Math is energy. Science is energy. Life is energy. Death is energy. Experience is energy. Reality is energy.
Your body, mind, and spirit (if you will) are purely energetic without objective distinction.
Distinction is only subjective, and each one of us is reality itself (logically the epitome of spirituality) when that subjectivity is absent.
Now we have enough logical information to answer the fundamental when, what, where, why, and how of reality itself (i.e. the totality of existence itself, or whatever happens, so logically the supreme system seamlessly containing literally every other system — importantly noting that each system requires balance for stability, factually speaking).
Reality is purely all energetic possibilities resonating in the only actual moment (when time is fittingly factored in as a spatial dimension) — this moment.
The future and past are seamlessly happening in the present, despite the human limits of temporal perception. Time is energy.
Because every system requires balance for stability, and science only provides evidence that reality requires that balance too (e.g. relevant laws of physics in this case, and modulating energy naturally includes a balancing act), balancing out all modulating possibilities produces literally supremely destructive interference, so reality is an undefinable extreme, objectively speaking.
Destructive interference is the physics term, but I prefer the term phase cancellation, which is commonly used in audio circles, and removes the possible confusion of destruction being expressed when there is none in this case.
Experience experimentally proves that reality can never be destroyed. As time is a spatial dimension (i.e. all time is simultaneous beyond humanly perception), if any future moment involves reality’s demise, then you could not be reading this right now.
Reality can never die, so always eventually wins any conflict against anyone defined within reality in order to maintain reality’s demonstrably perfect stability.
To help anyone unable to instantly understand phase cancellation, a down-to-Earth example may help. Noise cancelling devices (certain headphones, cars, and so on) leverage phase cancellation by simply most quickly inverting the phase (i.e. changing positive waveform pressures into negative and vice versa) of the recorded ambient noise, and then plays that newly inverted waveform maximally close to simultaneously with that original noise recording (i.e. with a tiny amount of latency) to best cancel out that noise.
Since only one moment exists (this one), there is no latency in the literally supreme version of phase cancellation, so that cancellation is perfect.
Another purely logical way to achieve that undefinable extremeness is to leverage the absence of distinction to conclude that reality can only be one thing, so everything that pertains to relativity (which obviously requires more than one thing) literally does not apply.
Definition, shape, size, central point, and so on is gone via that oneness (because comparison is necessary for those qualities and quantities), so reality again logically objectively becomes an undefinable extreme.
That also answers the question of where reality exists, because location is always relative, and relativity cannot logically exist at the extreme scope of reality itself without objective distinction, so reality’s location cannot make sense.
Why does reality exist? That question also makes no sense, because to answer that question, a definition is required (something after the word because), and reality objectively has no definition, so that question is like asking, “What’s north of the North Pole?”
How reality exists is answered by the inability for anything to exist outside of reality (i.e. it does not make sense to exist outside of all existence) in order to generate reality. Reality “works” by being all energetically modulating possibilities ultimately in perfect balance, so reality is just an undefinable extreme. As time is spatial, cause and effect are subjective (the laws of physics work regardless of the arrow of time), so how (which requires cause and effect) cannot objectively apply. In other words, reality’s means is undefinable extremeness.
Reality Waveform Theory (RWT) — which reasonably briefly explains the above in full-enough detail — has come laboriously from this scientifically enthusiastic and responsible entertainer, so may be instantly recklessly rejected by sufficient amounts of human corruption (e.g. broken egos) due to that “unscientific” source, or maybe upon grounds of subjectively proclaimed rebelliously misfitting formality.
The scientific method cannot uncorruptly discriminate.
Pure and complete logic goes into RWT. Just because that logic leverages certainty within the English language, and not additional mathematical certainty (as apparently sought after in conventional scientific circles), cannot be a sound scientific basis for rejecting RWT.
RWT even explains why there can never be a mathematical equation that forms reality (hint: math is always a complex informational waveform), so the sine wave is literally the sole pattern of reality (the professionally scientifically stated goal of the theory of everything).
A sine wave’s basic mathematical application is obviously via trigonometry — the input parameters of the sine wave function being modulated sinusoidally to modulate the output (basically recursively), but critically note such function is problematically restricted in terms of sinusoidal shaping within an oceanic dimensional signature, so two-dimensional output is ultimately terribly insufficient. That function (and I assume trigonometry itself) needs a dramatic update to incorporate vastly more complex spatial signatures as an input parameter (or set of parameters).
I humbly challenge anyone to provide just one other purely and completely logical possibility that equally fits with literally all established science, and/or expose any part of RWT that is not fully logical and grounded.
As long as that challenge has not been met, there is no reason for me (or anyone else) to remain in any state other than healthily confident that RWT is genuinely the theory of everything (nonetheless nothing and something).
As already basically stated, the deepest scientific challenge is identifying the shape of any given sinusoidal construct. Shape is relative, so perception (pseudo-objectivity) is required for sinusoidal application within reality.
The scientifically popular mathematical frame (used to line up with reality for understanding and prediction) logically presses to ultimately become the sinusoidal frame, as more math focuses upon identifying the relative values of sinusoidal constituents.
When I say the sine wave is the sole pattern of reality — i.e. the sole pattern of an undefinable extreme, noting that extreme is the fundamental “sine wave” without definition that has ‘standing wave end points at nothing and synonymously everything’, the inevitable need for sinusoidal shaping becomes problematically uncertain, because nobody can shape the shapeless.
That shaping forms the seamlessly permanent (albeit movable) threshold of uncertainty that separates humanity’s currently strengthening grasp of reality’s details from the undefinable extremeness that is impossible to grasp (i.e. the seamless boundary between objectivity and pseudo-objectivity, because both are energy).
RWT explains why that is — hint: mental amplification to consciously grasp reality cannot be infinite, because no amplitude can be infinite without breaking the waveform, and reality (i.e. the reality waveform) cannot be broken/destroyed. In other words, if the amplitude is infinite, then the first peak of the waveform disappears into infinity to end the modulation (i.e. breaks the wave).
RWT explains why we experience reality in this complex way as human beings (basically distinction is energy, and the human limits of energetic perception seamlessly energetically form what we call the human experience). In other words, your perception (i.e. your life) — however you define it — is an energetic possibility modulating among literally all such possibilities, so your humanity only perceives the complexly shaped uniqueness of your one possibility among them all. That is (y)our subjectively defined role within reality to help sustain reality for worst through best.
This (apologetically but necessarily lengthy) post serves to announce that I am forming the Reality Waveform Theory entertainment ecosystem (“enteco” for simpler communication), which combines the theory itself (conveniently located at a page within this journal, but also accessible simply by the new domain name of rwave.life) with posts here in the “Keep it Objective” category, comments elsewhere within scientific circles (e.g. at science websites, video channels, and so on), and relevant multimedia projects.
Annually on March 14 — what would be Einstein’s birthday and is Pi Day (importantly noting pi is obviously a major piece of the never-ending sinusoidal puzzle) — until no longer useful or some other limiting factor occurs, I will basically repeat the base information of this post to help fundamentally generate the RWT groove (i.e. a yearly pulsing informational beacon that hopefully strengthens via community support).
For the uninitiated, an enteco is innovatively like combining an open source software project (pertaining to entertainment instead of software development) with the basic idea of an artificial reef (providing a simple fundamental structure for community building and strengthening).
An enteco is naturally shaped by its community, so could be small through large, and even temporary or permanent. The strength of an enteco is contingent upon the strength of its community.
The enteco paradigm was meticulously formed (via the same level of care that went into RWT) for roughly two decades by yours truly from scratch with the internet in mind to adapt entertainment to the highly flexible and greatly expanding expression from internet availability, so includes the merging of all multimedia types (online and off) combined with the amazing global ease of online publication (naturally including the sociality of that community expression).
Establish a name, perhaps a logo, and a simple guideline (e.g. a specific charitable press, pure focus upon a certain subject, a fantasy realm, and/or so on) for identity, and you have an enteco that can contain anything from professional theatrically formatted movies to stage plays to musical band performances to books to journals (news, social commentary, and so on) to video games to virtual reality experiences to whatever your imagination ultimately entertainingly realizes.
“The ‘.life’ domain has vast potential and offers endless possibilities. The term ‘life’ can imply health, community, culture and family. The ‘.life’ extension is the perfect domain for large-scope ideas and concepts.” — formal definition of the ‘.life’ domain extension
I updated all of my enteco domain names to use the ‘.life’ extension (e.g. allsines.life) to distinguish entecos from business entities (‘.com’) or such, and because my/our entecos all have a large-scope (i.e. relatively basic) focus.
For reasonably close example, an informal enteco is the Star Wars universe — which (in addition to a wonderfully massive social community constantly discussing Star Wars) contains ample entertainment created by fans in addition to the obvious professional results (in many, if not all, formats).
The RWT enteco is simply meant to raise public awareness and discussion of RWT, so more scientifically minded folks can weigh in to validate or debunk its legitimacy.
Responsible entertainment is interesting education, so the RWT enteco is also considered an educational ecosystem.
Feel free to harmlessly partake within the RWT enteco (even for the sake of having fun — it’s entertainment after all). Your support is truly appreciated, and logically becomes a seamless part of the enteco (an enteco is energy).
You could be responsible for validating or debunking the most important theory in existence, and receive the credibility rewards that come from that accomplishment.
Note that I am never pretentious, egotistical, arrogant, and so on, because there is no point in establishing that sad state of being upon considering that I am seamlessly energetically modulating with you all and the rest of reality (I am, you are, and we are, energy), so caring about my legacy, securing bragging rights, and whatever other foolishly prideful such that I may be missing on pitiful behalf of my then-broken ego is misfitting.
RWT is not too long, and conveniently (including no registration required, or such) and freely accessible. You can simply read it right now, if you want to, and comment here (or any other relevant post).
Again, to debunk RWT is simple (if possible). Form one other purely grounded and complete logical possibility that fits with literally all conclusive science to date, or expose any absence of logic within RWT to a degree that nobody can remedy that absence.
RWT is lovingly dedicated to the scientific community from the past throughout posterity as a fitting thank you for all of the hard work that they exercise generation after generation to advance human understanding for worst through best.
When you imagine entertainment without the science needed for technology (so no computers, no wardrobe, no props, no musical instruments, no stage, no cameras, no artificial lights, no green screen, and anything else that ultimately forms no tools), you basically understand why that thanks is genuine. Without science, there is no technology, and without technology, entertainment (inclusively education) is severely hampered.
Granted there is still the amazing beauty of nature with its inherently entertaining quality (one worth resonating within and for society), but science is needed to improve humanity’s quality of life in order to better appreciate that natural beauty, and science is also leveraged for humanity to (at least help) heal areas of nature (inclusively from unfortunately scientifically enabled harm against the wilderness) to preserve that beauty.
At worst, RWT is educationally another opportunity to raise interest in the scientific method that critically helps humanity establish consistency in our species’ relationship with reality.
In other words, the scientific method is humanity’s communication with reality.