TYPES OF SUPERPOSITION, MASS CONFUSION AND MISCONCEPTIONS

There are 3 types of superposition that one will often come across and possibly without knowing that there are different types and uses of the word in quantum mechanics. These 3 are not commonly differenciated properly and you often have to figure it out yourself which one fits the context of an article about the term "Superposition"
They are as I see follows.

SUPERPOSITION OF STATES
This is a quite common one that people in the field seem to believe that a single particle can possess exactly opposite spin states "at the same time". One does not have to look hard to see this talked about as if it is actually real. What is more likely is that a particle switches between spin states, creating the illusion that it possess both at the same exact time when in fact the later is 100 percent impossible. If we are talking about a multiple particle system such as the nuclei of an atom, then you need to use your best judgement when it talks about entanglement and superposition of spin states of such because you can deduce that any system more than one single particle could be said to be in a superposition of states at the same time, and for all purposes they could be correct, one particle(s) is spin up and the other particle(s) is spin down. But never Ever can a single anything be spining clockwise and counterclockwise at the same time. Do not throw common sense out the window!

SUPERPOSITION OF WAVES - PRINCIPLE
This one is a biggie and if you do not get it right then you are in for a world of confusion. When two waves* come into contact with each other it is said that at that moment a superposition of waves is present. And by waves think water anything but the notion of a single particle, such as a photon being a wave. It is quite often thought that in quantum mechanics when photons meet they will sum thier wavelengths to create a new waveform, this being called either constructive or destructive interference. And this is modeled by software and outputted to displays as such. However this is incorrect, Photons do not interfere, only in special cases of super high energies, so something is clearly wrong. The truth is that only the density of photons per unit area changes, and they may "pass through" each other and retain thier original properties throughout. This means that a photon of a specific wavelength, stays that wavelength indefinately until it is destroyed.
It is tricky because we do not measure individual photons, we measure the overall charge density of them which in fact gets summed as a result of overlapping spaces. It is the field of the photon particle that is the wave and being such can interfere with other fields. The question is do the fields of photons obey a superposition of wave principle, and the answer is again no if whatever makes the field does not interact, however in the case that it does for example say two different fields are the same charge, then a repulsion force will apply the principle and the answer is yes. When fields overlap it again is a measure of density. Superposition of waves principle as it applies to EMR does not exsist is the best I can say at this time. This is my ongoing research to discover the correct model of the photon and to discover what exactly we measure, the particle or the particle field* (in the case that it has a field).

SUPERPOSITION OF "POSITION" or "PATHS"
This one is fairly complicated (to explain) yet common sense will help. Feyman believed in such a thing as something being able to travel as it were, multiple paths at the same time, and to that effect when you measure it here, its here, instead of over there, repeating the experiment you measure over there and over there is where it is, "magic". This is often used in context of collapse of the wavefunction to the area of measurement.
This is similar to superposition of states as it is known. If superposition of states is possible and common sense is ignored we could say anything and not only do people say anything they want you to believe it. Some would have you believe that something can be in one place and at another place simultaneously. While this may be true when speaking of "particle fields" as a whole or a "particle's field", it cannot be true of a single particle, field ignored. That is unless the "particle" in question is all field, isotropic perhaps, However that is clearly not a single entity, a single particle. If this principle is even remotely true of photons in particular then we know right away that a correct model of photons will include something to the effect of a field that spans the area of the wavelength and not just a single entity particle that perhaps vibrates back and forth really fast across the area of wavelength. BUT then again with the later we run into the problem of confusing that with superposition of states and that is possible that something can ocillate from one thing to another rapidly. Confusing as that may be, know that nothing unbelieveable is occuring in quantum mechanics, we just need the correct model to explain it away once and for all according to yes, common sense.

SUPERPOSITION , DEFINITION OF AND ACCORDING TO CLASSICAL CONCEPTS AND THE ROLE OF PERSPECTIVE

The exact definition of superposition should be something that is say "stacked" on top of another, this can be done repeatedly so many things are stacked next to each other. We should not abandon this fundemental concept when observing and speaking of the quantum realm. Anything can be superimposed, it is only defined by degree of proximity. It is where in the nano and quantum realm where items are so small that when they are close together do they seem as one from our perspective and perhaps wrongly labled as so. It is the nature and efficiency of modern language to define a new object out of two or more still independent objects in which whose only proximity to each other has decreased. Our entire physics standard model is full of examples; something that is made up or three quarks in such a way superimposed to a certain proximity and thus inter-particle interaction occurs is given a new simple to say word. There is no limit to the ways in which we can confuse ourselves, for example taking that new item and just rotate it we call it something else, where our perspective is the same the item in question does not appear so, the need for a new definition arises to differenciate them. This is where mathmatics really comes in handy to be the language of choice in severly complex situations such as found in quantum mechanics. A little bit of my own perspective, I have yet to use math to explain anything in this journal, no wonder I am worn out, and no wonder I have reached my limits.

THE CORRECT MODEL OF A PHOTON - CLEARLY NEEDED

There are at the moment two possible senerios. A Photon is either a particle with a field surrounding it making is similar to an electron a proton ect. Perhaps it is all field too... The point being that it Has a field identifiable with field theory.

OR it is a unique particle that vibrates back and forth, up or down ect.(something that you wont read anywhere else but here) that in effect creates its field, the illusion of a field if you will.

In both senerios wavelength is wavelength, frequency is frequency, nothing Really changes... But the difference is huge and knowing which is correct will help us to define quantum superposition among other things more clearly.

I can and have to the best of my ability explained the two slit experiment using both models. I have spent a great deal of time writing with the idea of a photon being an oscillating particle that in effect creates its field. However, certain things are always occuring to me that I may not always write about and yet for some reason or another I tend to now in retrospect after all is said and done abandone it in favor of the idea that a photon should be a particle with a field around it. And that sub-particle field whatever it may be, I have a good idea, is yet to be identified by mainstream physics. However that same field I believe is what we want to call charge, it is the electric force, and so far as I know the electric force is something of a mystery a mandatory basic starting point of fundemental interaction other than direct contact aka classical mechanics that is just accepted rather than explained. This will be the easiest and most straight forward to explain wave particle duality. Because after all, wave particle duality of light, interference all that good stuff is common to other particles of matter, it should be no surprise that the model for it should be similar. The later model solved many paradoxes, yet brought with it seemingly impossible to explain mechanics, why and how does a single something vibrate back and forth through empty space indefinately and at the same time not experience energy decay? An independent perpetual motion vibrating particle is hard to concieve.