*),vector)/squareRoot(n))/e, for i from 1 to n)*

I've thought of a way to partially quantum-observe (get some info but not all) a superpositioned particle/wave without collapsing the wavefunction.

Put a ring of particles nearly at rest around a double-slit experiment. Call those particles p[1] to p[n]. There are n particles in the ring. They are all far enough away from the experiment not to disturb it enough to collapse the wavefunction. Because of that, no 1 particle p can be used to determine which slit the particle/wave went through. Each of n particles is subject to heisenberg uncertainty, so they can only be used statistically.

Choose 2 points, 1 near each slit, to do calculations for. Also do calculations for both, and for neither. 4 total possibilities, and a bell curve of variations of each, but it doesn't have to be exact, so answering 1 of 4, and still getting the wave interference pattern on the back wall, will be enough progress.

Forces move at the speed of light in a geodesic (as straight a path as possible in spacetime). That means such forces outrun any particle-to-particle interactions except relatively rare interactions like entanglement. My theory depends on the electric force between the ring of particles and the particle going through the double slit, so lets say they are all electrons this time.

For each point in spacetime to be measured (around the slits), calculate the approximate distance to each of the n particles in the ring. Calculate this in advance, and prepare to measure it normalized by that so information arrives at each particle in the ring approximately the time its being measured. If the area to be measured is closer to particle z, then measure z earlier than the other particles in the ring, for example, but keep them all approximately the same distance from the double-slit experiment.

Remember that, by definition, I am keeping the ring of particles far enough away from the double slit experiment that it does not disturb the wave pattern on the back wall. The main question is does my equation, which I will describe below, allow me to calculate which slit(s) the electron probably went through? Based on my theory explained here http://spacecollective.org/BenRayfield/6889/Multiverse-Branch-Is-Particle-Antiparticle-Split I expect the following calculation will work, partially observe without collapsing the wavefunction.

electricFlux = sum_weighted_by_fourier_transform_over_short_time(multiplyAll(1 + dotProduct(momentum(particle

I've thought of a way to partially quantum-observe (get some info but not all) a superpositioned particle/wave without collapsing the wavefunction.

Put a ring of particles nearly at rest around a double-slit experiment. Call those particles p[1] to p[n]. There are n particles in the ring. They are all far enough away from the experiment not to disturb it enough to collapse the wavefunction. Because of that, no 1 particle p can be used to determine which slit the particle/wave went through. Each of n particles is subject to heisenberg uncertainty, so they can only be used statistically.

Choose 2 points, 1 near each slit, to do calculations for. Also do calculations for both, and for neither. 4 total possibilities, and a bell curve of variations of each, but it doesn't have to be exact, so answering 1 of 4, and still getting the wave interference pattern on the back wall, will be enough progress.

Forces move at the speed of light in a geodesic (as straight a path as possible in spacetime). That means such forces outrun any particle-to-particle interactions except relatively rare interactions like entanglement. My theory depends on the electric force between the ring of particles and the particle going through the double slit, so lets say they are all electrons this time.

For each point in spacetime to be measured (around the slits), calculate the approximate distance to each of the n particles in the ring. Calculate this in advance, and prepare to measure it normalized by that so information arrives at each particle in the ring approximately the time its being measured. If the area to be measured is closer to particle z, then measure z earlier than the other particles in the ring, for example, but keep them all approximately the same distance from the double-slit experiment.

Remember that, by definition, I am keeping the ring of particles far enough away from the double slit experiment that it does not disturb the wave pattern on the back wall. The main question is does my equation, which I will describe below, allow me to calculate which slit(s) the electron probably went through? Based on my theory explained here http://spacecollective.org/BenRayfield/6889/Multiverse-Branch-Is-Particle-Antiparticle-Split I expect the following calculation will work, partially observe without collapsing the wavefunction.

electricFlux = sum_weighted_by_fourier_transform_over_short_time(multiplyAll(1 + dotProduct(momentum(particle

*),vector)/squareRoot(n))/e, for i from 1 to n)*

The "vector" is from particleThe "vector" is from particle

*to the area to be measured, near the slits, and is normalized to 1, so dotProduct(momentum(particle**),vector) is a bell curve of average 0 and standard deviation 1. The squareRoot(n) is because if you sum n random numbers which are each -1 or 1 then you will get a standard deviation of squareRoot(n). These calculations are my best estimation of what I'm thinking in terms of many dimensional geometry, but I know its close to the right answer.*

Because each next particle multiplies the previous calculation (without that particle), a consistent force on the ring of particles will score exponentially higher than a random force. That's why I call this an Exponential Telescope.

This can also be done with grids of radio telescopes, given recordings of all the signals they receive over time at very small granularity. Instead of using only the signals they are pointing straight at, holographically (along some angle between space and ring-measurement-time holographically) this would use many variations of those directions and different distances, for a 3d view instead of 0 dimensional point view as its normally done.

Similarly, if this was reversed, using omnidirectional radio transmitters instead of particles, and fluorescent light gasses close to such transmissions, this would tend to form, statistically a small amount, into a 3d holographic volume of whatever the Exponential Telescope (the opposite direction of information flow) measured.

Because it could be used as a holographic projector, it would be useful as a replacement for EEG and MRI machines, seeing into brains without sending any radiation in, just by the holographic use of electric fields. It could also put info into your brain through the opposite machine, or both machines in one. This could be how telepathy works, since neurons operate in a chaos theory way too, but I tend to think "law of attraction" and Chris Langan's "telic feedback" are better explanations for telepathy. Either way, this is how to build a machine that can do telepathy the same way a 2-way EEG machine could, but more advanced.

My question is not if it would work. My question is how well would it work.

My other question is how well it scales up to bigger distances and more particles in the ring. If we want to use this as a holographic 3d electricity camera to record approximate 3d videos of electricity movement in the center of the sun, what statistical range would you expect my electricFlux variable to have relative to complete randomness?

I think electricFlux oscillates with a standard deviation of 1 and average of 0 when the target is random, and should change a little from that (along some angle between space and ring-measurement-time holographically) when the target has an electricFlux. Each distance from particle to target is known so the time in lightseconds can be calculated and used as seconds of delay to measure.

I maybe could have patented this, or some future work I would do on it in secret, but I think patents are a dumb system that holds science and progress back. I'd rather get ideas out there where mad-scientists can work on them.Because each next particle multiplies the previous calculation (without that particle), a consistent force on the ring of particles will score exponentially higher than a random force. That's why I call this an Exponential Telescope.

This can also be done with grids of radio telescopes, given recordings of all the signals they receive over time at very small granularity. Instead of using only the signals they are pointing straight at, holographically (along some angle between space and ring-measurement-time holographically) this would use many variations of those directions and different distances, for a 3d view instead of 0 dimensional point view as its normally done.

Similarly, if this was reversed, using omnidirectional radio transmitters instead of particles, and fluorescent light gasses close to such transmissions, this would tend to form, statistically a small amount, into a 3d holographic volume of whatever the Exponential Telescope (the opposite direction of information flow) measured.

Because it could be used as a holographic projector, it would be useful as a replacement for EEG and MRI machines, seeing into brains without sending any radiation in, just by the holographic use of electric fields. It could also put info into your brain through the opposite machine, or both machines in one. This could be how telepathy works, since neurons operate in a chaos theory way too, but I tend to think "law of attraction" and Chris Langan's "telic feedback" are better explanations for telepathy. Either way, this is how to build a machine that can do telepathy the same way a 2-way EEG machine could, but more advanced.

My question is not if it would work. My question is how well would it work.

My other question is how well it scales up to bigger distances and more particles in the ring. If we want to use this as a holographic 3d electricity camera to record approximate 3d videos of electricity movement in the center of the sun, what statistical range would you expect my electricFlux variable to have relative to complete randomness?

I think electricFlux oscillates with a standard deviation of 1 and average of 0 when the target is random, and should change a little from that (along some angle between space and ring-measurement-time holographically) when the target has an electricFlux. Each distance from particle to target is known so the time in lightseconds can be calculated and used as seconds of delay to measure.

I maybe could have patented this, or some future work I would do on it in secret, but I think patents are a dumb system that holds science and progress back. I'd rather get ideas out there where mad-scientists can work on them.