On The Fallacy of Tiny Observations (Updated)

(UPDATE: The update is now included in this piece. See the section below on Superposition. Clearly marked.

This piece is NOT intended for the normal site visitor and is essentially a bit early in the time table but nonetheless here it is. If you are not seriously into Quantum Physics and Mechanics, skip this one. Trust me.

Ever since I first acquired the explanation that led to the equation and the applications of it (about 34 years ago and no I will not say where it came from or how I acquired it: yet) there has been one nagging topic I have purposely not evaluated and not written about. My first excuse was not knowing enough about the equation or its applications to apply it to a near religious field. Physics is that field. Now, having calculated the equation as far back as is possible it is possible to move forward. Near religious because so much of it is literally accepted only by using the same excuse that declared the sun rotated around the earth and was a god. We’ll get to that.

Normally when I write a paper I sit down at the keyboard and just write. Hardly ever having to rewrite anything, other than catching typos (I type too fast). Usually its a one time event and when done I feel finished. I have a feeling this one won’t go that way. I’ll let you know how it went.

Nothing discussed here will change the application of the specific science discussed. Just the why and how. Lasers, transistors, satellites and medical imaging are all safe.

So here we go…

If I were to tell you that the concept of Superpositions, where “objects can exist in multiple states or locations simultaneously until measured” [1] is a misinterpretation of observation you would probably just assume i didn’t understand quantum physics.

If I were to tell you that Entanglement, “a connection between particles that persists even when separated by vast distances, often described as ‘spooky action at a distance,'”[1] (Einstein did that) is a misinterpretation of the observational delusion that considers existence to be particles, you would probably just assume i didn’t understand quantum physics.

If I were to tell you that Quantization, “the principle that properties like energy and momentum exist only in discrete, specific values rather than a continuous range.”[1] is a fundemental misinterpretation of energy, you would probably just assume i didn’t understand quantum physics.

If I were to tell you that wave-particle duality is

an underpinning concept in Quantum mechanics “that explains how extremely small objects simultaneously have the characteristics of both particles (tiny pieces of matter) and waves (a disturbance or variation that transfers energy)”[2], is a misinterpretation of both energy and waves, you would probably just assume i didn’t understand quantum physics.

If I were to tell you that a particle’s ‘wave function,’ “a mathematical representation used to describe the probability that a particle exists at a certain location at a certain time with a certain momentum,”[2] is both a misrepresentation of both waves and particles as well as energy and the imposition of human observational superiority, you would probably just assume i didn’t understand quantum physics.

If I were to tell you that The world of quantum mechanics, where “observations are very different from how we usually see our macroscopic world, which is controlled by what physicists call classical mechanics,”[2] is a misinterpretation of observation. If something can be explained by what is already known it seems macroscopic. If it cannot it is considered microscopic, you would probably just assume i didn’t understand quantum physics.

“Quantum mechanics grew out of the tremendous progress that physicists made in the early 20th century toward understanding the microscopic world around us and how it differed from the macroscopic world.” [2] But it was only so because humans compare what is new to what is already known and the result in either a blend of the two (macroscopic physics) and (microscopic physics) both described by the same language but neither the same way. It makes the results appear different. And when the results are different the menu becomes the meal.

Brave’s AI regurgitation says it well:

“Quantum mechanics is difficult to understand primarily because it is highly counterintuitive and defies the common-sense logic derived from our everyday macroscopic experiences. Unlike classical physics, which describes objects like balls rolling down hills, quantum particles do not obey classical laws and behave in ways that have no direct analog in daily life, such as existing in superpositions of multiple states simultaneously until measured.

The core challenges stem from three main areas:

Lack of Intuition: Concepts like wave-particle duality, entanglement, and probabilistic outcomes are impossible to visualize using mental models based on the macroscopic world.

Mathematical Complexity: True understanding requires advanced mathematics, including complex numbers, abstract algebra, and probability theory, as simplified explanations without math are often incomplete or misleading.

Interpretational Issues: There is no consensus on how the mathematical formalism maps to physical reality, leading to various competing interpretations (e.g., Copenhagen, Many-Worlds) regarding what the theory actually describes.

While physicists can use the theory to make spectacularly accurate predictions (such as the magnetic moment of the electron to one part in a trillion), the theory itself remains a “black box” for many because it separates the rules for unobserved systems (superpositions) from the rules for observed systems (collapses), a duality that is hard to reconcile with a single, coherent picture of the physical world.” [3]

It really isn’t fair to address this topic by withholding anything so let me begin by declaring an argumentative fact. Energy is not its potential or its work intent. Energy is a vibrating field. There are two. One is electromagnetic, the other is not. We can observe the electromagnetic but when we attempt to describe the other energy field we simply declare it does not make light so it is dark. That observational delusion, naming something for what it looks like, is the bane in science and all human endeavors.

“A single, coherent picture of the physical world” [3] starts with knowing what the parts are and finishes with not assuming what one sees is responsible for what one sees.

Of course classical physics came first and from there everything else is judged. The universe holds solid matter.

Science Direct puts it quite well:

“Isaac Newton’s masterwork, Principia, published in 1687, marks the beginning of modern physical science. Not only did Newton delineate the fundamental laws governing motion and gravitation but he established a general philosophical worldview which guided all scientific thinking for two centuries afterwards. This system of theories about the physical world is known as “Classical Physics.” Its most notable feature is the primacy of cause and effect relationships. Given sufficient information about the present state of the Universe, it should be possible, at least in principle, to predict its future behavior (as well as its complete history.) This capability is known as determinism. For example, solar and lunar eclipses can be predicted centuries ahead, within an accuracy of several seconds. (But interestingly, we can’t predict even a couple of days in advance if the weather will be clear enough to view the eclipse!)

The other great pillar of classical physics is Maxwell’s theory of electromagnetism. The origin of quantum theory is presaged by three anomalous phenomena involving electromagnetic radiation, which could not be adequately explained by the methods of classical physics. First among these was blackbody radiation, which led to the contribution of Max Planck in 1900. Next was the photoelectric effect, treated by Albert Einstein in 1905. Third was the origin of line spectra, the hero being Neils Bohr in 1913. A coherent formulation of quantum mechanics was eventually developed in 1925 and 1926, principally the work of Schrödinger, Heisenberg and Dirac.” [4]

Classical physics is centered on the premise that “every observable change is inevitably preceded by a necessary and sufficient cause.” [5] The problem is when the parts of the cause are not understood, or are not considered at all. That makes the outcome potentially correct, but impossible to coagulate with the causes of very small things. After all, matter is made up of particles. Isn’t it? Therefore the cause must be particles. No it is not.

Nobody ever asks where do particles come from? Until 1988, when two scientists using the Hubble telescope discovered what they termed ‘dark energy’ there was not two parts known to construct any thing new from. And that relationship , the existence of a non electromagnetic energy field was both ignored and rejected at the same time. Rejected is obvious. It wasn’t something that could be compared to anything already known. That is the obstacle to all human endeavors. But it was another ‘thing’ comparable to energy that did give light. Why then was it ignored? Same reason.

The concept of Superpositions, where “objects can exist in multiple states or locations simultaneously until measured,” [1] is ignoring what the causality really is. Physics has been searching for particles when it should have been searching for what makes particles. That alone changes everything.

THIS SECTION IS UPDATED FROM THE ORIGINAL

Only Quantum Physics makes ‘superposition’ a functioning fiction.

“Superposition is a fundamental principle in physics and mathematics describing the combination of two or more states, waves, or phenomena. Its meaning varies significantly by context:

Quantum Mechanics: It refers to a quantum system existing in multiple states simultaneously (such as a qubit being both 0 and 1) until it is measured, at which point the wave function collapses into a single state. This principle enables quantum parallelism, allowing quantum computers to process multiple computations at once.

Wave Physics: It is the principle that when two or more waves overlap in space, the resulting disturbance is the algebraic sum of the individual disturbances. This leads to interference, where waves can reinforce each other (constructive) or cancel each other out (destructive).

Electrical Engineering: The Superposition Theorem states that in a linear circuit with multiple power sources, the total voltage or current is the algebraic sum of the effects produced by each source acting independently.

Geology: It refers to the principle of superposition, which dictates that in undisturbed sedimentary rock layers, the lower strata are older than the upper ones.

General Definition: Broadly, it means the placing of one thing on top of another or the combination of distinct physical phenomena so they coexist as part of the same event. ” [10]

The “quantum system existing in multiple states simultaneously” is a mathematical entity. Not a real thing. Mathematics is a language. That is all it is. Yet Quantum Physics makes math a real thing. Albeit enticing and mystical and interesting and tempting: superposition, as used in Quantum Physics, is a misunderstanding of results.

Take the equation 2+2. Until the equation is actually run the answer could be 0 or 4. Once it is run the answer is 4. But there is no answer until it is run.

In Wave Physics superposition “is the principle that when two or more waves overlap in space, the resulting disturbance is the algebraic sum of the individual disturbances.” In this context, superposition is a result. In Quantum superposition is a potential result.

Potential results DO NOT EXIST until they are caused. Observation causes change just like interaction naturally. It is not dependent upon one’s awareness.

So then why does superposition work in quantum computing? It doesn’t. The math does. The math is NOT the superposition. The math is NOT the elements. The math is the language used to describe the concept. The concept works because the math is describing it.

Superposition in Quantum Physics is an illusion.

Since the particle, or qubit, or photon or billiard ball is not made until it is made, the potential of what it will be once it is made is not relevant to its being made. Something in several states simultaneously is an illusion.

Throw a ball into the air. While it is in the air Quantum Physics would declare it is both landed and flying because it will be one or the other eventually. No. It is either one or the other and its position of being in the air precludes it from being landed. Regardless of what its potential of landing might be.

The interaction equation of opposing energy waves P-n/2+n results in the electromagnetic becoming a solid by encapsulating the non-electromagnetic as its pilot wave, based on its frequency. That same function replicates in every thing in the electromagnetic Universe. Electricity is comprised of the electromagnetic charge attached to the non-electromagnetic pilot wave. That is the condition from which the pilot non-electromagnetic energy force was extracted in 1992 and used in the first fully autonomous robot ever built. Except for the motor that ran its movement, it ran completely on what was termed ‘neutricity’ (not because that term was coined years earlier for something completely different [19], but because it was extracted by employing modified Casimir plates [20] creating a near neutral condition, resulting in the extraction. ) The Robot, Little Ricci by name (Little because it was tiny compared to the next version. And R.I.C.C.I. For real independently controlled computational intelligence. [21] [22] [23]

The particle IS NOT the wave. The wave IS NOT the particle. Yet the wave IS the particle and the particle IS the wave. This is the concept of ‘one’. Two parts join to create one thing. That thing is both parts but it is also not both parts. It is its own ‘thing’. But not until it is created. The wave is not the particle until it interacts with its opposing wave to create the particle. Then it is both. But it is only the wave until that happens. Imposing the result upon the parts before the calculation is just stupid.

Why can’t we know the momentum and the position at the same time? They do not exist at the same time. Regardless of how the resulting particle is created.

Superposition posits that the wave is the particle and the particle is the wave regardless of whether the interaction has taken place. For a science based in cause and effect, cause has been relegated to religion. A belief system that requires suspension of reality to accept. And since mathematics can make that acceptable appear real, it becomes the science.

END OF ADDED UPDATE

The concept of cause and effect being so paramount to physics is thrown to the ignore pile when talking about particles.

What exactly is a particle and where do they come from? “What Is a Particle?” [6] ByNatalie Wolchover published November 12, 2020 in Quanta Magazine; Wolchover describes the quest to decide what a particle actually is this way:

“Given that everything in the universe reduces to particles, a question presents itself: What are particles?

The easy answer quickly shows itself to be unsatisfying. Namely, electrons, photons, quarks and other ‘fundamental’ particles supposedly lack substructure or physical extent. ‘We basically think of a particle as a point-like object,’ said Mary Gaillard(opens a new tab), a particle theorist at the University of California, Berkeley who predicted the masses of two types of quarks in the 1970s. And yet particles have distinct traits, such as charge and mass. How can a dimensionless point bear weight?

‘We say they are ‘fundamental,’’ said Xiao-Gang Wen(opens a new tab), a theoretical physicist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. ‘But that’s just a [way to say] to students, ‘Don’t ask! I don’t know the answer. It’s fundamental; don’t ask anymore.’’

With any other object, the object’s properties depend on its physical makeup — ultimately, its constituent particles. But those particles’ properties derive not from constituents of their own but from mathematical patterns. As points of contact between mathematics and reality, particles straddle both worlds with an uncertain footing.

When I recently asked a dozen particle physicists what a particle is, they gave remarkably diverse descriptions. They emphasized that their answers don’t conflict so much as capture different facets of the truth. They also described two major research thrusts in fundamental physics today that are pursuing a more satisfying, all-encompassing picture of particles.

‘What is a particle? indeed is a very interesting question,’ said Wen. ‘Nowadays there is progress in this direction. I should not say there’s a unified point of view, but there’s several different points of view,(opens a new tab) and all look interesting.'” [6]

The direction of this query is taking the same observational delusion most other observations take. The descriptions are based on what particles look like, what they do and what they present. Not one consideration is made to what they actually are.

Wolchover piece continues: “The quest to understand nature’s fundamental building blocks began with the ancient Greek philosopher Democritus’s assertion that such things exist. Two millennia later, Isaac Newton and Christiaan Huygens debated whether light is made of particles or waves. The discovery of quantum mechanics some 250 years after that proved both luminaries right: Light comes in individual packets of energy known as photons, which behave as both particles and waves.” [6]

How something ‘behaves’ is not what it is. And the misinterpretation of the behavior leads to error.

“Wave-particle duality turned out to be a symptom of a deep strangeness. Quantum mechanics revealed to its discoverers in the 1920s that photons and other quantum objects are best described not as particles or waves but by abstract “wave functions” — evolving mathematical functions that indicate a particle’s probability of having various properties. The wave function representing an electron, say, is spatially spread out, so that the electron has possible locations rather than a definite one. But somehow, strangely, when you stick a detector in the scene and measure the electron’s location, its wave function suddenly “collapses” to a point, and the particle clicks at that position in the detector.” [6]

Not understanding what was being observed, the result was a description of the observation based on what was already known. Not one consideration for what was not known. And it holds to this day. Mathematics, nothing more than a language to describe the meal has, become the meal. If one does not understand something describe it with mathematics and everyone will understand the description but no one will understand what is being described.

“A particle is thus a collapsed wave function. But what in the world does that mean? Why does observation cause a distended(opens a new tab) mathematical function to collapse and a concrete particle to appear? And what decides the measurement’s outcome? Nearly a century later, physicists have no idea.” [6]

So it needs explanation.

Not one idea what a particle is only what it does, what it looks like and a guess based in known quantities of what makes it show up. Sorry. This is all wrong. Opinions include:

“’At the moment that I detect it, it collapses the wave and becomes a particle. … [The particle is] the collapsed wave function.’ —Dimitri Nanopoulos” [6] There is a big hint there but it is ignored.

“’What is a particle from a physicist’s point of view? It’s a quantum excitation of a field. We write particle physics in a math called quantum field theory. In that, there are a bunch of different fields; each field has different properties and excitations, and they are different depending on the properties, and those excitations we can think of as a particle.’ —Helen Quinn” [6] Still not defining a particle.

“’Particles are at a very minimum described by irreducible representations of the Poincaré group.’ — Sheldon Glashow” [6] “The Poincaré group, sometimes called the inhomogeneous Lorentz group, serves as the mathematical foundation for relativistic invariance, ensuring that physical laws remain consistent regardless of the observer’s uniform motion. In quantum field theory, elementary particles are classified as unitary irreducible representations of this group, indexed by their mass and spin.” [7]

How they behave. Not what they are.

“’Ever since the fundamental paper of Wigner on the irreducible representations of the Poincaré group, it has been a (perhaps implicit) definition in physics that an elementary particle ‘is’ an irreducible representation of the group, G, of ‘symmetries of nature.’’ —Yuval Ne’eman and Shlomo Sternberg” [6]

That’s nice but not one thing about what a particle actually is.

“’What we think of as elementary particles, instead they might be vibrating strings.’ —Mary Gaillard” [6] Another stab in the dark attempting definition but without a single source or proof.

“’Every particle is a quantized wave. The wave is a deformation of the qubit ocean.’ —Xiao-Gang Wen” [6] “While the search results describe various physical implementations of qubits—such as the spin of an electron, the polarization of a photon, or superconducting circuits—none of them utilize the term “ocean” or suggest a specific physical medium known as a “qubit ocean.” The term may be a confusion with “quantum ocean” (a metaphor for the vast space of possible quantum states) or a misunderstanding of a specific quantum simulation involving fluid dynamics, but no such definition exists in the provided information.” [8]

Focusing on the context: “A quantized wave is a wave resulting from a process where a classical continuous signal is converted into discrete values, meaning its amplitude or energy can only exist in finite steps rather than an infinite continuum. In physics, this specifically refers to electromagnetic waves or matter waves where energy is confined to quanta (discrete packets), such as photons for light or standing waves for electrons in bound states.” [9] What happened to the particle?

“’Particles are what we measure in detectors. … We start slipping into the language of saying that it’s the quantum fields that are real, and particles are excitations. We talk about virtual particles, all this stuff — but it doesn’t go click, click, click in anyone’s detector.’ —Nima Arkani-Hamed” [6] Speed is what we measure in an odometer but speed is not a ‘thing’. It is a result of something.

“A Particle Is a ‘Quantum Excitation of a Field.’

A Particle Is an ‘Irreducible Representation of a Group.’

Particles ‘Might Be Vibrating Strings.’

A Particle Is a ‘Deformation of the Qubit Ocean.’

‘Particles Are What We Measure in Detectors.’” [6]

“Another camp of researchers who call themselves ‘amplitudeologists’ seeks to return the spotlight to the particles themselves.

These researchers argue that quantum field theory, the current lingua franca of particle physics, tells far too convoluted a story. Physicists use quantum field theory to calculate essential formulas called scattering amplitudes, some of the most basic calculable features of reality. When particles collide, amplitudes indicate how the particles might morph or scatter. Particle interactions make the world, so the way physicists test their description of the world is to compare their scattering amplitude formulas to the outcomes of particle collisions in experiments such as Europe’s Large Hadron Collider.” [6]

Heading in the right direction, but ignoring the amplitudes of energy that precede the particle.

Particles are the result of the frequency and amplitude of an electromagnetic wave and the frequency and amplitude of the non-electromagnetic wave. Together, the result is a particle.

T = P-n/2+n

P = Electromagnetic energy wave

n = non-electromagnetic energy wave (dark energy for those insisting on calling it what it looks like from the electromagnetic perspective)

T = the particle

The same equation. The same rule. The same law. For everything.

The double slit: how to misinterpret observation for a very similar event.

“The double-slit experiment is a fundamental demonstration of wave-particle duality, proving that entities like light and electrons exhibit properties of both waves and particles depending on how they are measured.” [10] No. The double slit displays an energy wave passing through an opening, thereby not interacting with any other energy wave. It is not duality. It clarity. What we see as visible light does not exist until it interacts with some other energy way or result of energy waves.

“When particles are fired through two parallel slits without observation, they create an interference pattern of alternating bright and dark bands on a screen, indicating they behave as waves passing through both slits simultaneously.” [10] As a wave would do that has not interreacted with any other wave.

“However, if a detector is used to observe which slit a particle passes through, the interference pattern vanishes, and the particles behave like classical objects, forming two distinct clusters. ” [10] No particle has passed through anything. The particle does not exist until it is either measured (interacting with an artificial device) or interacts with some other entity. Like a wall. You don’t see light move from the source to the place that shines because the electromagnetic frequency has not interacted with anything to create a particle (photon.)

“This experiment, first performed by Thomas Young in 1801 with light and later with electrons, reveals that the act of measurement or observation fundamentally alters the behavior of quantum systems. The standard interpretation suggests that particles exist in a superposition of states until they are detected, at which point the probability amplitudes collapse, forcing the system into a classical particle state. Recent studies, such as those highlighted in 2025, confirm that these quantum essentials hold true even when the experiment is stripped to its most basic components, reinforcing that the phenomenon is intrinsic to quantum mechanics rather than an artifact of complex equipment.” [10]

It is a complete misinterpretation of what energy is. Of what particles are. Of what creates particles. It is simply an observational delusion based on how things are observed in other areas and fields.

There is NO superposition of states for a particle. It either exists (for as long as the waves interact) or it does not.

Uncertainty:

One of the most completely wrong aspects of physics.

“The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle states that it is fundamentally impossible to simultaneously know both the exact position and the exact momentum (or velocity) of a particle with perfect precision.” [11] Oh, but it is. When one understands the particle will not exist until it interacts with something the velocity is the frequency of the energy wave not the particle. The particle’s velocity is always -0-. It is not created until the energy wave it will generate from interacts with something.

This has been so over-thought that it has become its own believe system. It is wrong.

Entanglement:

“Quantum entanglement is a phenomenon where two or more particles become linked so that the quantum state of each particle cannot be described independently of the others, even when separated by vast distances. When particles are entangled, they share a single, unified quantum state, meaning that measuring a property (such as spin or polarization) of one particle instantly determines the corresponding property of its partner, regardless of the space between them. ” [12] All it is, is the same non-electomagnetic energy wave frequency. The non-electromagnetic energy wave does not operate in the constraints of electromagnetism. A variable amplitude riding on a non-electromagnetic energy wave it the same wherever that wave might be. In other words: everywhere. Electromagnetic energy waves are constricted by the medium they traverse in or around.

“This behavior, which Albert Einstein famously called ‘spooky action at a distance,’ arises because the particles lose their individual identities and form a collective system.” [12] In reality that loss is not a loss. It is the sate of the non-electromagnetic energy wave.

“The particles do not send signals to each other; rather, their states are intrinsically linked, so a measurement on one reveals the state of the other without a causal mechanism transmitting data.” [12] Yes. They are connected through the non-electromagnetic energy wave. All the time.

“The phenomenon has been proven through experiments violating Bell’s inequality, confirming that the correlations cannot be explained by “local hidden variables” or classical physics.” [12] True. It can only be explained by the elements that make up its existence.

Quantization:

“This concept, first proposed by Max Planck in 1900, emerged to explain phenomena like blackbody radiation and atomic stability, where properties are restricted to specific levels known as quanta. ” [13]

That is an observationally delusional way of describing a result made of the same parts.

“Energy is emitted or absorbed in packets called quanta, described by the equation E = hf, where h is Planck’s constant and f is frequency.” [13] So we call the result of two opposing spectrum waves: a quanta. Without actually knowing there are two spectrums and their interaction results in matter within the electromagnetic spectrum.

The world of quantum mechanics, is where “observations are very different from how we usually see our macroscopic world, which is controlled by what physicists call classical mechanics,”[2] Is simply a misinterpretation of cause.

The same equation. The same rule. The same law. For everything. Everything comes in two parts.

Just as every other ancient mistake made by humans, the meaning of the term ‘energy’, means what it looked like to ignorant minds. Energy [14] “… in physics, the capacity for doing work. It may exist in potential, kinetic, thermal, electrical, chemical, nuclear, or other various forms. There are, moreover, heat and work—i.e., energy in the process of transfer from one body to another. After it has been transferred, energy is always designated according to its nature. Hence, heat transferred may become thermal energy, while work done may manifest itself in the form of mechanical energy.” Is totally ABSURD. [25]

Capacity is potential. A lazy observational delusion.

Energy is NOT what it looks like it does.

Energy is NOT in forms to match what it does.

Energy is NOT a capacity for anything.

Energy is NOT a potential.

Energy is NOT kinetic (it is not motion)

Energy is NOT its condition, thermal, electrical , chemical or nuclear and any other ‘form’.

If it looks like its hot it is thermal. THAT DOES NOT MEAN ENERGY IS THERMAL. That is inductive STUPIDITY.

Calling something by what it appears to be doing is lazy ignorance. A car is stationary or moving. It does not become a different car when it changes from one to the other.

Still have your panties in a bunch? Oh there’s a lot more you have been led to believe that is pure bullcrap. Just remember while you work today the definitions you depend upon were defined by wholly ignorant people, back when the earth was flat and the Sun was god.

Energy in the Universe we live in comes in two spectrums. (Spell checking can’t find a plural spectrum to agree with.) One, you are familiar with. It can kill you. The other you have never heard of. It is what gives you life. It is what permits mass. It is what is contained within the electromagnetic spectrum as the ‘pilot’. A good reason to rethink that absurd tree falling in the forest bullcrap.

Energy is a force that naturally vibrates. It, like everything else, comes in two parts.

There are two of everything. Everything is made of two parts. Energy is made of Electromagnetic energy and Primordial Energy. The non-electromagnitic energy. We call that ‘dark energy’ on account it doesn’t show light. Well, it doesn’t show electromagnetic light. The name given to ‘dark energy’ is just as absurd an observational delusion as any other thing named for what it looks like and not what it is. But that’s ok. Until now, very few people, knew of another ‘energy’ spectrum. Actually that number is quite small. And understandably it is very hard to accept anything other than what is already known.” [15]

The concept that particles do not exist until either observed, collided or measured is foreign to today’s physics. But understanding it to be true solves every unknown.

The quest for a unifying theory has ventured into the absurd for one reason. It is not possible to properly calculate anything if you are not aware of all of its parts. It places the measurement problem is a completely different ‘light’.

“”The quantum measurement problem is the unresolved issue in quantum mechanics concerning how or why a quantum system transitions from a superposition of multiple states to a single definite state upon measurement. According to the Schrödinger equation, a quantum system evolves deterministically and linearly, remaining in a superposition. However, measurements always yield one specific outcome—such as a particle being in a single location or a cat being definitively alive or dead—suggesting a collapse of the wave function. This collapse is not described by the Schrödinger equation, creating a fundamental inconsistency. “ [16]

Once again the measurement problem addresses only the act of measurement and not the act of interaction that a measurement replicates. Not understanding the creation of a particle throws off everything involving its calculation. That one specific outcome will indeed suggest the collapse of a wave. That collapse is the result of its interaction with the opposing spectrum; whether that is electromagnetic in measurement or Primordial in reality.

Schrödinger’s cat is a thought experiment illustrating that if quantum rules apply universally, a cat in a box with a quantum-triggered mechanism should be in a superposition of alive and dead states until observed—yet we never observe such superpositions. Because the initial assumption is incorrect. There is no such thing as a superposition. It is like saying your paycheck is in a superposition until you receive it. No it is not. The cat is either alive because that is what it was when you put it into the box, or it is dead if that is how you put it into the box or it was in the box too long to survive. There is no mystical superposition in which it may reside while awaiting your measurement of it.

Fundamentally ignoring actual cause has created more confusion than its worth.

If an electromagnetic energy wave and a Primordial energy wave carry the same frequency and amplitude as before the resulting particle or photon will always be the same. If you push a key for middle C on a piano it will always be middle C on the piano.

“The quantum measurement problem persists as a central mystery in physics, not because of experimental difficulty, but due to a deep theoretical tension between the deterministic evolution of quantum states and the definite outcomes we observe. “ [16] And a great deal of observational delusion ignoring actual cause and the ignorance of a second spectrum.

The foundational error in this issue is at the very beginning: “The quantum measurement problem is the unresolved issue in quantum mechanics concerning how or why a quantum system transitions from a superposition of multiple states to a single definite state upon measurement.” The assumption is based on particle illusion. Particle Physics is the very reason the cause of particles has been ignored. It is like studying music theory only to observe the notes that are higher than the last note and ignore those that are lower than the last note.

It is assumed that particles are the reality. When in reality the wave is reality as well as the particle and particles do not exist as particles until they are caused. A particle is not in a superposition or a potential position: it does not exist.

Because your Uber has not yet arrived and you cannot observe it, does not mean it is a potential Uber. It means it has not arrived. Because you cannot measure the position of a particle at the same time you measure the momentum of the particle does not mean the particle is in a superposition or is in a potential state. It means the particle has not yet been created. Once you measure the energy, you can observe the particle that results from that measurement.

The problem persists because observers do not consider anything other than particles. Particles are observable. Waves are generally not. The misinterpretation of energy is causing this illusion.

You can see balls. Particles are like balls. But to paraphrase an ancient story it is NOT balls all the way down.

“Put simply: Life is the energy source (Einstein referred to it as negative energy [17] but it is not electromagnetic so it is not negative at all just opposite) that allows matter to exist and living organisms to live. Now don’t get your panties in a bunch. The word ‘energy’ is a disaster. It is likewise known by what it does, not what it is. That needs to change.

The same excuse that declared the sun rotated around the earth and was a god, is simply ignorant observation, misunderstanding and inductions based on existing knowledge. For real: everything is the same. Every thing functions the same way. Mathematics provides many descriptions of the same thing. But it is all the same.

As I promised in the beginning: this piece took three settings over two days. Part of the second setting was fraught with argument as my best friend cat Abbey insisted on resting between the keyboard and the computer and really really wanted to lay her head of the top of the keyboard. Continuously. It was fun.

The update added 4/20/2026 took an hour. It addresses superpositions from comments submitted. Some reference numbers are out of order. Those are the updated section I was too lazy to renumber. Reference 18 through 23.

REFERENCES:

Lee Kent Hempfling Logic Matters

On The Fallacy of Tiny Observations (Updated)

T = P-n/2+n