The suggestion would be that the polarizer generates a “virtual neutron” possibly modelled with an empty “vortex-shaped” field missing only a neutron with real mass at its core. As a vortex it may move independently of core spin rate. Since neutron don’t last very long there’s no obvious test of virtual particle dissipation without recombination.

“There is no energy doubling suggested here.”

Where’s that, in Randy’s scholastic black flex lagoon?

“probabilities of being observed”

Chances of you being true to form and reappearing here are practically zero if you get shown up as a BS apologist for standard BS media tripe, so I’ll try to avoid that in the future.

There is no energy doubling suggested here.

It’s okay, shameless eventual hit-and-runner, you just missed the big part in front where the article says: “Can a particle be in two different places at the same time? In quantum physics, it can…” – another reddit language problem thing from Mr. Norther Euro-socks the convenient viking black cat.

Suppose there’s a particle consisting of a positively charged sphere covered by a negatively charged sphere. As long as the particle spins, the front behaves like the opposite of the back. One might suppose the anti-particle to such a particle would have the front and back reversed, with the layering of the charges reversed, also making the moving particle loosely “time-reversed” in that sense, as one particle half waves left to right and the other half waves right-to-left. The polarizer apparently has two self-cancelling internal opposing responses, collectively leaving it largely unaffected soon after the neutron passes, and continual vacuum feedback from two self-cancelling split external half-responses.

“the experiment wavefunctions are not the neutron waves (wavicles, or “particles”) but their state functions (probabilities of being observed)”

Suppose the “real” neutron, in-toto, can be divided into its internal context-free neutron state and its surrounding context-responsive vacuum state which is a wide-spread continually-updated propagating particle-vacuum energy feedback effect of sorts. Divide the particle and the polarizer each into two vacuum-state halves, front and back. Supposing the polarizer re-directing the particle with 0% or 50% probability may produce the same result. On the other hand the front half of a piloted particle-wave combination response of the polarizer may want to stick with the undeflected particle response. Ultimately it’s yet another otherwise-invisible dipole effect and a lot of original-neutron-less polarized vacuum excitation possibilities to consider.

“The particle could move along with one interaction while the other interaction travels alone on the other path.”

It’s a 50% pilot wave concept. The pilot particle is ultimately just there to observe the recombination, which would mean 50% of the time one leg picks up the gravity. The pilot would donate enough energy to track with the front half polarizer effect and the polarizer would donate the rest.

I mean basically I’m just a “realist,” particularly, but not necessarily, a “local realist,” when it comes to evaluating invisible stuff. Information without local realism is incomplete, in other words.

Polarizers are a perfect example a realism problem, to me. If light or energy is polarized by gravitational bending instead of pretending a constant speed, then there could exist the political catastrophe of ceding to Euclid an ultimate relevance in the universe. so, endless Einstein celebration politics would give all the more reason to keep the magic of particles interacting with polarizers spooky (unreal in practically every sense not left unexploited).

“There is no energy doubling suggested here.”

Let’s just suppose for grins that you’re in two places at once and you always bring a fair scale with you instead of a biased selfish over-rewarded scale.

“There is no energy doubling suggested here.”

Incredibly perceptive! Where were you educated? Must know so I can move there and take a class!

Anyway, my preference is to consider regulated particle beams as streams of dipole pairings, alternating spin-up/spin-down pairings are naturally formed in the regulated beam. Nothing wrong with considering that as a possibility with a beam of neutrons.

Another possibility to consider may be that the front and back of the beam particle have opposing interactions with the splitters and the polarizing medium may be naturally set up to respond to each interaction in complementary ways. The particle could move along with one interaction while the other interaction travels alone on the other path.

The Physical Review journals, encompassing both hybrid and open-access journals, features 17 peer-reviewed publications including Physical Review Letters, Physical Review X, and Reviews of Modern Physics. CP violation was published in Physics Review in 1956. All peer-reviewed publications of Physical Review family are responsible for clarifying this.

Like all of the journals in the Physical Review family, PRL is a member of the Physical Review family. Since Physical Review serves the research community, the difference between Physical Review Letters (1958) and Physical Review Journals (1956) cannot be an excuse for them to escape responsibility.

Physical Review Letters (PRL) firmly believe that two high-dimensional spacetime objects (such as two sets of cobalt-60) rotating in opposite directions can be transformed into two objects that mirror each other. Is it scientific?

CP violation opened the dirtiest and ugliest era in the history of physics (https://scitechdaily.com/microscope-spacecrafts-most-precise-test-of-key-component-of-the-theory-of-general-relativity/#comment-854286).

The so-called academic journals (such as Physical Review Letters, Nature, Science, etc.) firmly believe that two high-dimensional spacetime objects (such as two sets of cobalt-60) rotating in opposite directions can be transformed into two objects that mirror each other. Are they scientific?

CP violation opened the dirtiest and ugliest era in the history of physics (https://scitechdaily.com/microscope-spacecrafts-most-precise-test-of-key-component-of-the-theory-of-general-relativity/#comment-854286). Is this your so-called peer published results?

The brainwashing effect of the Physics Review Letters (PRL) on its followers is truly amazing. If you are interested, you can continue to browse the comments of https://scitechdaily.com/quantum-gravity-unveiled-scientists-crack-the-cosmic-code-that-baffled-einstein/.

You are indeed an outstanding pupil and fierce follower of peer published results.
Good luck to you.

There is no energy doubling suggested here. The incoming flux of a (good) beam splitter is halved in each outgoing beam.

The energy of superpositions are not observed until the wavefunction superpositions are collapsed. But the experiment wavefunctions are not the neutron waves (wavicles, or “particles”) but their state functions (probabilities of being observed).

@Bao-hua ZHANG: Just remember that arxiv is pre-publishing, not peer published results. S.A. Orlov has not arxiv published anything else, and there is no established “Theory of Vortex Gravitation”. I wouldn’t use it as a reference.

So your only interest was to promote or spam your non-published personal notions, which had nothing to do with the article results!? Please don’t.

You may enjoy particle physicist Matt Strassler’s take:

“In my role as a teacher and explainer of physics, I have found that the ambiguities and subtleties of language can easily create confusion. This is especially true when well-known English words are reused in scientific contexts, where they may or may not be quite appropriate.

The word “particle”, as used to describe “elementary particles” such as electrons and quarks and photons, is arguably one such word. It risks giving the wrong impression as to what electrons etc. are really like. For this reason, I sometimes replace “particle” with the word “wavicle”, a word from the 1920s that has been getting some traction again in recent years.”

“From the perspective of quantum field theory, as I’ve outlined here, a wavicle does have features of both waves and particles, but it also lacks features of both waves and particles. For this reason, I would personally prefer to say that it is neither one. I don’t think it’s useful to say that it is both wave and particle, or to say that it is sometimes wave and sometimes particle. It’s simply something else.”
[“Particles, Waves, and Wavicles” @ his blog]

I agree with your assessment, the experimental results only looks odd if you don’t expect what the quantum theory predicts. The old saw that real means “if I kick a large stone and it kicks back” works here. If the stone is a bit fuzzy between kicks, who cares!?

““Our experiment shows: Nature really is as strange as quantum theory claims,” says Stephan Sponar.” You have no other evidence, and it is a scientific result – against your personal opinion.

“Physical Review Letters (PRL), established in 1958, is a peer-reviewed, scientific journal that is published 52 times per year by the American Physical Society. As also confirmed by various measurement standards, which include the Journal Citation Reports impact factor and the journal h-index proposed by Google Scholar, many physicists and other scientists consider Physical Review Letters to be one of the most prestigious journals in the field of physics.[1][2][3]” [Wikipedia]

Only between head knocks. (Look out for those, they may hurt!)

“It replaces the classical notion of a single, unique classical trajectory for a system with a sum, or functional integral, over an infinity of quantum-mechanically possible trajectories to compute a quantum amplitude.” [“Path integral formulation”, Wikipedia]

VERY GOOD.
The physical phenomena observed in scientific experiments are always appearances, not the natural essence of things. The natural essence of things needs to be extracted and sublimated via experimental data.
Enjoy your every day.

Thanks for the advice but after browsing some of what you linked me to, I still believe I demonstrated the true nature of gravity with reproducible experiments first uploaded to my YouTube video channel in 2012 and now at: “1Gravity:” https://odysee.com/@charlesgshaver:d/1Gravity:8 Think ‘boat propellers turning in bodies of water’ in place of wheels with invisible blades rotating in the earth’s ambient field of gravity.

If you are really interested in science and physics, you can refer to https://arxiv.org/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0410/0410365.pdf.

If you are really interested in science, you can refer to https://arxiv.org/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0410/0410365.pdf.

I doubt nature is generating an energy-doubling failure of the conservation of energy principle, seems much more likely the splitter plate produces a split pair of energy packets from energy knocked out of it, and the combiner plate recombines that energy.