How photon will decide when to behave like a wave or particle?

It never does.

Every photon (= electromagnetic individual wave) has an absorber.

A photon is a successful transaction between three partners: an emitter, an absorber, and space or optical devices between them. This transaction transfers by electromagnetic means, a quantum of looping h, and an energy-momentum whose value depends on the respective frames of the emitter and the absorber.

Corollary. As soon as you admit that the absorbers exist, pffuitt! These “Collapses of the wave-function-spreading-everywhere” lose any interest, and are good for the garbage can of the History.

You might be interested in de Broglie's hypothesis about the localized photon:

For the double-slit traditional experiment, it must be taken into account that continuous flows of countless photons are involved, not a single photon.

https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/on-de-broglies-doubleparticle-photon-hypothesis-2090-0902-1000153.pdf

Sabah E. Karam

Jayaram, here is a my way to understand the answer to your question. From the arguments of André Michaud in his paper “De Broglie’s Double-particle Photon Hypothesis” that the photon is an electron-positron pair which, in combination, appears as a wave. When the pair is separated as a result of the double-slit experiment we observe a particle. The mechanics of the separation is also explained in the papers of Richard Gauthier.

Jayaram as.

Sabah E. Karam , every photon is not electron- positron combination.This is because when they annihilate, only two gamma rays are produced. I think, no one have yet understood what exactly is photon. That is why we are having confusion.

Esa Säkkinen

Matter is composite of aging and interaction. When aging it behaves as a particle. When interacting it behaves as a wave.

Usually interactions propagate at speed c. When de Broglie wavelength considered there are (pilot) waves gauging the physical environment via backreactions.

That's my view to structure separation in wave-particle dualism. I.e. a photon is a particle in emissions and absoptions but in between is it a wave.

Dwight Hoxie

The photon does not decide how to behave - whether to act as a wave or as a particle. How the photon appears depends on the circumstances of the phenomenon under observation. The double-slit experiment demands representation by a passing wave and this applies to nominal particles like electrons as well; they too behave as waves when circumstances demand it. Whether a wave or a particle is in the eye of the beholder.

@Dwight Hoxie : " the eye of the beholder " does not belong to the physical laws of the microphysics. It only belongs to the mythology of the Göttingen-København sect, now hegemonic. This sect denied the absorbers of the individual waves. I wonder why they did not deny also the emitters. Why not ?

Abdul Malek

Dear Jayaram,

Please see an explanation of the wave/particle duality of quantum particles (photon, electrons etc.) based on the virtual particles of the quantum vacuum. Article Real/Virtual Exchange of Quantum Particles as a Basis for th...

This theory is based on Hegel's dialectical philosophy of space-time and on the Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Electrodynamics (QED):

https://www.amazon.ca/Philosophy-Space-Time-Whence-Cometh-Matter/dp/984041884X

This theory is in contrast to "The Path Integral Formulation” of QED by Richard Feynman, where the integration over an infinity of possible trajectories is used to compute a “quantum amplitude” [Feynman R.P., Hibbs A.R., and Styer D.F. Quantum Mechanics and Path Integrals. Dover Publications] and where one arbitrary set of “infinities” are used to cancel another arbitrary set of “infinities” to get a a “precise” finite result - a practice; which Paul Dirac called “sweeping the infinities under the rug”

Please also see my RG profile for additional publications on this issue that includes a dialectical perspective of the universe and particularly the following RG forum for additional comments on this issue by me:

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_physics_necessarily_empiricist

I remember that we had an interesting conversation way back.

Just to clarify further, from the de Broglie hypothesis, the double particle photon is not exactly an electron-positron pair as such, but only a double-particle-electric vs a single-component-magnetic structure whose electric charges cyclically vary from zero charge to some maximum opposite charges related to the amount of energy of the photon while the magnetic components spherically varies inversely in size.

Such a photon can potentially decouple into an electron-positron pair, but two conditions must be met. first the total energy of the photon must exceed 1.022 MeV, and there must be an external destabilizing factor that will induce the decoupling.

The decoupling mechanics of this de Broglie double-particle photon is described in this paper:

http://ijerd.com/paper/vol6-issue10/F06103649.pdf

If I remember correctly, the same decoupling conditions must be met for Richard's model. I noted recently that he has clarified further his model and presented it at some conference.

Best Regards

André

Dear Jayaram as,

When a pair of electron-positron converts to electromagnetic energy, it has been observed that they do not always produce only 2 gamma photons.

One factor is whether they are in mutual parallel or antiparallel spin alignment just prior to separating when in typical metastable positronium configuration.

When the spins of both particles are parallel, the term ortho-positronium is used to name the configuration, and it decays in approximately 1.5E-7 seconds, and generally brings about the production of three 0.34 MeV photons, but sometimes more.

When their spins are aligned anti-parallel, the system is called para-positronium, and the decay period is much shorter, approximately 3E-10 second. Dematerialization of para-positronium brings about the production of two 0.511 MeV photons as you mention.

Reference Particle Data Group. The European Physical Journal - Review of Particle Physics, Volume 15 – Number 10-4.2000.

There are also cases on record when not in positronium configuration that direct head on scattering resulted in a single gamma photon being produced, that further away reconverted to an electron-positron pair.

For this latter case, see attached Bubble chamber record of experiment E632 from Fermilab. Point A is where an electron is collided head on by a positron, and point B is where the single 1.022+ MeV gamma photon decouples again into an electron-positron pair.

Note that much more is known about photons that you seem to have found information about, starting with Einstein's photoelectric proof, that confirms that photons have longitudinal inertia. We also know that they can be polarized, and that they are electromagnetic in nature.

Best Regards

André

Sabah E. Karam

André Michaud thank you for the link to your paper which not only gives us an insight into CHARGE but also gives me a way to understand wave-particle phenomenon which Jayaram as. and Feynman characterize as ‘confusing.‘ I read many of your papers after our conversation and Hope that there are more to come. Below is a Screenshot of page 40 of your 2013 paper. Fig. 1 on page 37 is also relevant to this discussion.

Dear Sabah E. Karam,

Thank you for your appreciation of my analysis.

Actually, the whole string of my currently published papers is available from this unpublished index:

http://www.gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers-Unification%20Theories/Download/2460

Now beefing up as time allows on related maths in view of trying to tackle the last remaining issue on my physics agenda, which also was de Broglie's and Schrödinger's project, that was left hanging shortly after the wave function was introduced in the 1920's, when the community adopted Heisenberg's statistical representation as being more interesting that Schrödinger's wave function, which was to eventually analyze the resonance states into which electrons are captive into when stabilized in atomic orbitals, in view of establishing a progressive mechanical explanation to the transitions between the stationary states, that would explain the generation of the bremmsstrahlung photons responsible for the fine spectral lines detected in relation with these transitions.

Best Regards

André

Dear Jayaram as.

No. But numerous researchers like to have their preprints posted on the GSJournal for easy reference and discussion purpose pending possible formal submission to peer-reviewed journals.

In such cases, the preprints are taken down, to possibly be replaced by what I call a "stub" that gives the abstract of the formally published version and gives an active link to the formal publication, if the author so wishes. In such cases, the DOI can be accessed directly from the formally published version after clicking on the active link.

This allows more visibility for published papers by having them advertised on the GSJournal (which is heavily visited) on top of also being available from the formal journal site.

This is what I did for my own papers, but many do not bother trying to have their work formally published.

Best Regards

André

Raul Nunes

I think photons behave like waves when moving freely and like particles when participating in mechanical interactions.

Are waves, individual waves, all the time.

Simply, most emitters, and most absorbers, and at least all that come from a stationary state to another stationary state, are held by quantic rules, as explained by Erwin Schrödinger. So the transaction between an absorber, an emitter, and the intermediate space, always transfers a quantum h.

In short, as long as the environment of elementary particles, e.g. the electron and the electron, will remain overlooked, the irrationality of their double nature will lamentably stay in force.

I am quoting a paragraph from the paper untitled “Space, this great unknown” available at: https://www.researchgate.net/pub...

16. The wave-particle duality or the oneness particle-photon-space

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Do...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wa...

Let me insist putting readers on guard over the seeming but fake double nature of particles.

It is deeply irrational to think that a particle can be at once a corpuscle, which implies a finite size, and at the same time a wave, which implies to be extended. However, when space is seen as a physical entity (quantum vacuum) it provides a medium through which a wave can propagate. This allows to separate the corpuscular facet from the wave one, the corpuscle being the source of the wave but not the wave itself, and hence the duality corpuscle-wave vanishes.

Many physicists come up with mathematical explanations for the corpuscle-wave duality. However, maths do not care about duality, mathematical frameworks can be developed whatever duality would be physically real or not, and different mathematical approaches can work out as well. So, maths cannot decide upon particles being at once corpuscles and waves corresponds to a factual physical reality or being just a schizophrenic misconception.

Furthermore, different mathematics often give different views of reality, and since they vary over time they provide us versatile conceptions of physical reality, whose essence however appears from experiments unique and unchanging. When mathematics conflicts with logic, it must always be given priority to logic. If we allow introducing irrational interpretations extrapolated from mathematics, even being functional as e.g. quantum mechanics, we are damned lost!

Unfortunately, it will take time for many physicists to get rid of the atavism of the duality corpuscle-wave of particles. I hope it will not take as much time as to evolve from the ancient belief of Earth being flat, to the modern knowledge of being spherical. In short, as long as the environment of particles, such as the photon and the electron, etc., will remain overlooked, the irrationality of their double nature will lamentably stay in force.

Most in the community seem to not be aware or to have neglected the fact that photons are electromagnetic in nature, and even if treated as waves, cannot completely be described with the classical transverse wave concept that can propagate only in rigid materials by very definition.

@ Georges Sardin. There are thousands of proofs that the crowds of waves are composed of individual waves. But never the slightest proof that an individual wave transmutes into something corpuscular.

Biswajoy Brahmachari

No, I don't think one can localize a photon (in a classical sense) in quantum mechanics at all. We can never think of it as a classical point particle. One can, however, calculate the expectation values of the position operator, which makes some classical intuitive sense. Expectation values of position and momentum operators satisfy classical equations of motion such as the Newton's second law. You should carefully go through Ehrenfest's theorem.

Biswajoy Brahmachari

Just as a clarification of what I have written above, same argument also holds for other particles in the atomic/subatomic scales, such as the electron, proton, neutron and so on.

@ Jacques Lavau. You said: "But never the slightest proof that an individual wave transmutes into something corpuscular".

Who ever said that a wave would transmute into a corpuscle?

The standard and hegemonic mythology postulates corpuscles, and "corpuscular aspects", and "duality".

What you have not noticed, is that I have written "individual waves". Each individual wave has only one emitter, and transfers only one Planck's quantum h to only one absorber.

Dear Biswajoy,

What you say about electrons is directly contradicted by the fact that they have long ago been proven in high energy accelerators to behave point-like in all non-destructive mutual head-on scattering experiments. Their deflected trajectories, some directly back-scattered are on record. Mainly bubble chamber photographs.

At the moment of collision, they are very precisely localized and remain localized all along their very precise recorded trajectories.

Don't believe me. Do your own research and just access and study on your own the peer-reviewed papers that relate these experiments carried out in many high energy accelerators.

Best Regards

André

Xavier Oudet

Dear all: let me show you that the photon behaves always as a particle in the interferences but also in Sagnac effect.

In double-slit experiment, two beams of light give interferences observed on a screen and its explanation based on the wave properties of light, does not seem to give any difficulty. However it is known for more than a century that it is possible to significantly reduce the intensity of the two beams while continuing to observe interference by increasing the duration of the light received. Proponents of the wave model then admitted that each photon passes through the two holes of Young. This assumption remains still very shocking from an experimental point of view, if we consider the separation of the slits which can be several centimeters and the possible size of the photon of the order of that an atom.

The wave explanation of interferences, in fact forgets to consider the possibility for light, i.e. photons, to be absorbed on the screen where they are observed. With this assumption, absorption allows photons to wait to be in sufficient numbers before to be subsequently remitted differently, depending on their position M on the screen, giving the interferences. See Interferences and periodicity, on my ResearchGate site.

Now this approach allows an explanation of the Sagnac effect: the photons in the two opposite ways are stoked and reemitted by obstacles, then it is easy to understand that the time took to travel in the both opposite senses must be different. Indeed the time took by the photons to pass the obstacles going toward them and those moving in the same direction must be different.

Xavier Oudet. Your " the possible size of the photon " does not exist. It is pure mythology.

In a given frame, the distance from emitter to absorber exists. In a given frame, the frequency, and the wavelength in a given medium exist, so in this frame, the width of the Fermat spindle of propagation exists too. But we have no individual mean to know the length of coherence of one photon, only on a homogenous population of photons.

Sabah E. Karam

Dear Colleagues, I would like to call your attention to a March 2018 paper called ”On the carrier of inertia” which appeals to ideas formulated by André Michaud and Richard Gauthier and Mike Mcculloch and Peter Rowlands ——General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, I don’t think, have seen this sort of entanglement before! Here is the link to the paper by Grahn, Annila, and Kolehmainen https://aip.scitation.org/doi/pdf/10.1063/1.5020240

Article On the carrier of inertia

To all those who think that a particle is a wave and that “we can never think of it as a classical point particle”:

What about the trajectory traced by individual particles? Please, have a look at the following link:

https://www.google.es/search?q=bubble+chamber+pictures&rlz=1C1EKKP_enES809ES811&tbm=isch&source=iu&ictx=1&fir=VUX3YigaPvq1xM%253A%252C35_hkyHoSGlWjM%252C

Can it really be thought that these trajectories are traced by waves?

Answers in the handbook :

1. confusion between individual waves, crowds of individual waves, and elastic or gravity or spin waves in a collectivity of matter.

2. No experimental discipline, to evaluate the widths of the tracks.

Quote:

Open-Eyes:

- Remember the answer from Pierre Simon LaplaceLaplace to Napoleon: “Majesty, I did not need that hypothesis!”. At the scale of our familiar macroscopic world, sure, some things appear so small. For instance, a grain of sand passing through the sieve of 200 µm but refused on the 160 µm looks like a good corpuscle by our human scale: excepted if it is of glass and cutting, or metallic and cutting or even toxic, it will pass through our bowels without harming much. Another example of “corpuscle”: the spore of some mold. You cannot see it in the air with your naked eyes, but it may do noticeable damages if it falls into something it can eat (and oxidize). But the extrapolation to microphysics, beyond the atomic limit, was never validated; it is no more than a religious dogma, droned in the lectures rooms.

Professor Marmot:

- Ah no! All the trajectories observed in bubbles chambers prove that the particles are real particles, and not your vague and muddy waves! A particle is a small place in the field where all the energy is concentrated. We have taught that all the time.

Open-Eyes:

- I cannot encourage you too much in reading again the optics handbook, especially the chapter on the ultra-microscope; then further, to open a textbook on colloids and dispersoids, especially their optical properties. Please tell us what is the minimum diameter of the fog droplets in fog chambers, or bubbles in bubbles chambers, that is necessary to have them recorded on the photosensitive film.

Professor Marmot:

- You cheat! Photographic optics is not Quantum Mechanics! And colloids are not QM either!

Open-Eyes:

- Thanks for your confession of ignorance. These tracks are at least 0.5 µm wide, a wavelength of visible light. But you pretend that they are the proof of corpuscles that would be about hundreds of millions to milliards times smaller… Though they are historic, these tracks only prove the law of conservation of the momentum. Worse, you confuse “wave” of the quantic scale, with collective of divergent waves, and with waves in a collectivity of matter.

For many years, the multitude of the dim-witted insist on confusing three classes of waves:

1 – Waves in a collectivity (of atoms or molecules). So are the gravity waves between two fluids, and acoustic waves, seismic too. And in microphysics, the spin waves in a ferromagneticferromagnetic material, the phononphonons, the plasmons, and polaritons.

2 – The collectives of waves, such as light, or a beam of electrons, ions or neutrons. These collectives comprise many individual emitters and many more potential absorbers.

3 – The individual waves, for each quantic “particle”, photon or neutrino for instance. Each one of these individual waves converges onto one individual absorber.

For many years they deny the classes 2 and 3 and demand that all should be of class 1. Put differently, they deny the atomic limit in undulatory physics, so they could synthesize the absurdities they want to disparage – their real tactical goal.

End of quote.

J.L: I repeat the question using your terms. Can it be really thought that each trajectory is traced by one individual wave? I am afraid that the confusion is your!

When a charged particle runs in a bubble chamber, you do not observe the track of one individual wave, but the track of a chain of individual waves, each from one ionization reaction to the following ionization reaction.

They are remarkably aligned because of the law of the conservation of the momentum.

Raul Nunes

Or, when the observer decide to look at a photon behavior, is it as a particle or as a wave? If at an interaction, it result is as a particle. If along a propagation, it results is as a wave.

Otherwise, how is it possible to measure particle's properties along a wave or wave's properties at an interaction?

Thanks in advance for your opinion about, whatever it is.

In 1900 Max Planck, and in 1905 Albert Einstein proved that any individual transaction involves ONE Planck's quantum of action-per-cycle, h.

In 1924 Louis de Broglie, and in 1926 Erwin Schrödinger proved that any stationary state of an atom (or molecule) is bound by the Planck's quantum h.

Please explain how you will subvert this fundamental law.

Please do!

Please explain how you will insert your macroscopic "observer" in the middle of the microphysic picture and the laws of microphysics. Please do!

Dear Raul,

Very simple. "Behaving as a wave" only means that electromagnetic energy oscillates according to a measurable frequency.

This is not in contradiction with the possibility that this could be a localized property of a permanently localized electromagnetic quantum, if it also self-propels. Such a quantum can locally oscillate in a localized manner as explained by de Broglie.

If interested, here is how de Broglie's hypothesis can be mathematized in full agreement with Maxwell's electromagnetism. This simply involves understanding more clearly the meaning of the proven E and B cross product:

https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/on-de-broglies-doubleparticle-photon-hypothesis-2090-0902-1000153.pdf

Best Regards

André

André Michaud. In television or radio broadcasting, you can insert a field-meter in air without excessive difficulties. But in microphysics, nowhere you can insert a field-meter to measure the undulatory properties of an individual wave. The Planck's law is an irreducible opponent.

Dear Jacques,

In a CRT television set, you can guide very precisely an electron on a very precise and predictable trajectory by means of very precisely calibrated magnetic fields to a very precise point on the back side of the screen.

This is not theory. This has been known and successfully used for more than 1 century.

Any engineer involved in designing CRT tubes will be able to explain how localized electrons can be so precisely guided. More than 1 century ago, Walter Kaufman already used this well known and understood technique to measure the velocity related transverse relativistic mass increase of very precisely localized electrons as they moved at low relativistic velocities.

Just check the literature, or discuss with an engineer in this field.

Best Regards

André

Just check that I wrote " the undulatory properties of an individual wave ". You attack on the group properties.

I begin to know that the transactional quantum microphysics is not in the standard minds. But check the Dirac's Nobel lecture, in 1933. It mentions a discovery on the Zitterbewegung by Erwin Schrödinger, that is not mentionned anywhere. So I had to rediscover it in 2011:

The Zitterbewegung : key of the electron-photon scattering under the laws of Bragg and Compton .

Dear Jacques,

Wrong perception, I'm afraid.

I am not "attacking". This is a public forum. I am "offering" in context the information I have to whoever it may make sense for. As I mentioned recently in another thread, it would not even cross my mind to try convincing anybody.

As for Zitterbewegung discovered by Schrödinger, it is mentioned in numerous undergrad textbooks, such as this currently used standard undergrad textbooks on Quantum physics:

Eisberg, R. & Resnick, R. (1985) Quantum Physics of Atoms, Molecules, Solids, Nuclei, and Particles. 2nd Edition, John Wiley & Sons, New York.

It can also be described in complete conformity with Maxwell's electromagnetism and Quantum Mechanics, starting in Section 18. Zitterbewegung, on page 1089 of this recent paper:

http://file.scirp.org/pdf/JMP_2018042716061246.pdf

Best Regards

André

Wrong understanding again. Schrödinger never published this essential correction to his 1927 paper "Über den Comptoneffekt". Only Dirac mentions this result, and only in his Nobel lecture, not in his Principles.

http://www.apocalyptism.ru/Compton-Schrodinger.htm

Dear Jacques,

I don't understand what your grief is with the Zitterbewegung.

To my knowledge, Schrödinger discussed it in his paper titled " Über die kräftefreie Bewegung in der relativistischen Quantenmechanik, Sitzungsberichte Akad. Berlin 1930, 418-428."

I don't know about any "correction". From what I know it has been common knowledge ever since that he discovered this. Is it not?

Why do you think that there is a problem with his discovery?

And what is the problem?

Best Regards

André

But Schrödinger did not use his discovery of the Zitterbewegung in 1930, to correct his 1927 paper, Über den Comptoneffekt. In 1927 he had not yet the right frequency nor the right equidistance; but in 1930 he had.

In 2011, I thought I was the first to perform this correction. In fact the Dirac's Nobel lecture disabused me: Schrödinger and Dirac then knew the correction (in 1933), but did not published it. So it is ignored everywhere. Schrödinger had been intensively demoralized by Bohr and by Heisenberg. Vae victis!

http://citoyens.deontolog.org/index.php/topic,1141.0.html

http://citoyens.deontolog.org/index.php/topic,1520.0.html

It remains that only the Dirac-Schrödinger frequency 2mc²/h has been directly measured.

http://aflb.ensmp.fr/AFLB-331/aflb331m625.pdf

In french:

Coluche nous avait expliqué pourquoi l’expérience de Gouanère & al. ne sera jamais refaite.

https://www.agoravox.fr/culture-loisirs/culture/article/coluche-nous-avait-explique-154321

Cher Jacques,

Je crois que je commence à comprendre de quoi vous parlez avec la relation 2m.c²/h de l'électron au lieu de m.c²/h.

Ça concerne le fait qu'une énergie deux fois plus grande que précédemment reconnu est impliquée pour tout mouvement de l'électron. C'est ce que je comprends aussi selon la perspective de l'électromagnétisme.

Je suis bien au fait de la déception de Schrödinger et de Broblie que la méthode statistique de Heisenberg ait été acceptée si vite comme étant supposément plus précise que la fonction d'onde de Schrödinger.

Avez-vous lu, ou avez-vous accès à cet ouvrage majeur publié en 1953 en France et jamais traduit en anglais?:

Einstein, A., Schrödinger, E., Pauli, W., Rosenfeld, L., Born, M., Joliot-Curie, I. & F., Heisenberg, W., Yukawa, H., et al. (1953) Louis de Broglie, physicien et penseur. Éditions Albin Michel, Paris.

Sinon, je vous le recommande vivement, car Schrödinger y met personnellement en perspective sa déception et celle de de Broglie devant l'abandon de toute recherche en mécanique ondulatoire.

C'est précisément pour aider à redémarrer cette recherche de de Broglie et Schrödinger en la remettant à l'avant-plan que j'ai écrit mon dernier article, déjà mentionné, intitulé "The Hydrogen Atom Fundamental Resonance States":

http://file.scirp.org/pdf/JMP_2018042716061246.pdf

Aussi disponible en français sur RG sous le titre "Les états de résonance fondamentaux de l'atome d'hydrogène":

Article Les états de résonance fondamentaux de l'atome d'hydrogène

En ce qui concerne l'énergie double dont vous parlez, je vous invite à lire très attentivement les Sections 2 et 3 de la version anglaise (pages 1057 à 1060), ou dans la version française dans laquelle les sections non numérotées s'intitulent "Les champs E et B de l'électron en mouvement" et "L'énergie porteuse de l'électron" (pages 6 à 8).

Il s'agit en l'occurrence de la mise en perspective du fait que selon la première équation de Maxwell (l'équation de Gauss pour le champ électrique), deux fois l'énergie du momentum est obligatoirement induite adiabatiquement dans l'électron en mouvement peu importe sa vélocité, ce qui fut confirmé expérimentalement par Walter Kaufman il y a plus de 100 ans, mais n'avait jamais été expliqué théoriquement, ce qui devient possible maintenant grâce à une découverte importante de Paul Marmet publiée en 2003.

Je vous invite à vérifier si vous pouvez faire un lien avec vos propres conclusions.

Amicalement

André

First in french, next the translation into english.

En 1894, Pierre Curie avait prouvé qu'enseigner les quantités gyratorielles telles qu'un champ magnétique B, comme "vectorielles" et perpendiculaires au plan de gyration, est un abus de confiance envers nos étudiants. Exemple des dégâts, ce sujet de Bac donné à Pondichéry :

http://citoyens.deontolog.org/index.php/topic,1991.0.html

Quand vous parlez d'énergie cinétique sur une orbite, vous impliquez un électron-corpuscule, et une symétrie de spire. Mmmh...

En 1905, Einstein n'avait pas laissé le choix de l'énergie d'un électron à basses vitesses, c'est mc², sauf corrections d'énergie de liaison ; sauf corrections relativistes à vitesses relativistes.

Ce que Dirac et Schrödinger avaient prouvé, c'est qu'en plus de la fréquence broglienne, l'électron a une seconde fréquence, électromagnétique, double de la broglienne. La première intervient dans toute interférence de l'électron avec lui-même, la seconde pour toute interactions électromagnétiques avec le reste du monde. Par exemple la dispersion Compton.

In 1894, Pierre Curie had proved that teaching gyratorial quantities, such as the magnetic field B, is abusing the confidence of the students. Sample of the disaster : http://citoyens.deontolog.org/index.php/topic,1991.0.html

When you speak of kinetic energy on an orbit, you imply a corpuscle, and the symmetry of a loop. Hmm...

The energy of an electron remains about mc², less the bonding energy.

The Dirac-Schrödinger frequency 2mc²/h is electromagnetic, and intervenes in external interactions, such as in the Compton scattering.

Dear Jacques,

Actually, I speak of the kinetic energy induced by the Coulomb force in the "electrically charged" electron at a distance from the "electrically charged" proton corresponding to the mean radius of the Bohr orbit, that coincides with the mean distance of the Heisenberg statistical spread of energy in the hydrogen atom ground state orbital, not of the kinetic energy on an orbit.

Simple application of the Gauss equation for the electric field when a second unit charge is present in the Gauss electric field at this distance from the test unit charge.

Not the same thing at all.

Best Regards

André

In the S states, an electron has no orbital moment, no loop symmetry.

Louis de Broglie would have the next genius idea of his life, if only he abandonned the idea of corpuscles and the coordinates we had learned in the classroom.

Only Erwin Schrödinger had this idea, and both were defeated at the Solvay coup, in 1927 in Brussels.

In France, for 1969 we know "chou vert et vert chou" (green cabbage and green cabbage) and "bonnet blanc et blanc bonnet" (white hat), so is electron and electron wave : green cabbage and green cabbage.

J.L. Brady

Georges Sardin,

I am fully in agreement with your comment from a week ago. I also wish to utilize the two references you provided within a UFT paper I have been writing for 5 years now, detailing the deterministic dynamic structure of the three states of the universe which follow the logic of your comment. This structure has been verified by successfully placing all 17 SM particles (and anti particles) onto it in its matter state, while demonstrating all spin, charge, polarity, orbit and symmetries currently observed. Your reference links for some reason on this website fails to allow me to link to those references (they were both pointing to wiki.com). Can you please reply listing those AS TEXT (no http). Thanks!

References:

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Do... ? [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wa... ?

Dear Brady,

These are the links you asked for.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_particle_duality

The other link that didn't come up completly is: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/301585930_Space_this_great_unknown

I hope the links will not be cut this time! If they are cut again I will look for another way to send them to you.

I will be interested in reading your paper when ready.

Stam Nicolis

It doesn't-the statement doesn't make sense. It's wrong to state that in the double slit experiment the photon behaves like a wave, since the interference pattern observed, when using a source that emits electromagnetic radiation, whose description is in terms of photons, doesn't have anything to do with the properties of electromagnetic waves, that are classical objects, but with the probability of observing the photon in any particular position on the screen.

So when electromagnetic radiation needs to be described in terms of photons, it is always in terms of quantum particles, not classical waves.

Stam Nicolis

A state of the electromagnetic field that contains a ``large'' number of photons will display properties that are more similar to those of an electromagnetic wave, solution of Maxwell's equations; a state that contains a ``small'' number of photons, will display properties that deviate-in ways that are, now, well understood-from those expected from a specific solution of Maxwell's equations.

The (average) number of photons in any mode is the fraction of the energy divided by the product of Planck's constant and the frequency of the mode.

@Stam Nicolis. The yield of teaching this collection of fairy tales remains remarkably low, after already three generations.

No problems, indeed?

Xavier Oudet

Dear all:

The Louis de Broglie assumption of a wave associates to the electron led to extend the continuum notion at the scale of the atomic interactions. So the continuum looks to us strongly linked to discreteness. However, we must keep in mind that a point is a mathematical object without a volume, so it cannot have a physical reality see “About the limit of validity of the point group theory”. The continuum is a very comfortable utility but one has to keep in mind that material reality is discreteness. It has been by underlying that light comes from atoms, i.e. from a finite ensemble of atoms, that Einstein proposed the photon hypothesis. Let us then come back to the symmetry between the motion of a mobile and the propagation of a wave which led de Broglie to associate a wave to the electron “his thesis”, it comes then possible to associate a flow of material particles to the wave, per example to light, in this way rejoining the Einstein photon hypothesis. However, when the number of photons becomes small, the continuum (i.e. the wave) is of no help any more to explain interferences: then one has to consider the concepts of the storage «in situ » of the photons to explain them see “Interferences and periodicity”.

Dear Xavier,

You wrote: "However, we must keep in mind that a point is a mathematical object without a volume, so it cannot have a physical reality".

Very good point.

This is why I always speak of "point-like behavior" of elementary particles and not that they are actual mathematical points as they are so often erroneously flaunted to be by mathematically minded individuals in the community as an argument against observed localization, who have not studied the scattering experiments that demonstrate this behavior.

Even all bodies in the solar system behave "point like" in the equations that describe their orbits about the Sun.

Quite surprising to me that so many in the community still do not distinguish between mathematical representation and actual behavior of the physically existing bodies and elementary particles.

Best Regards

André

In the Orbital Model framework all elementary particles have a body shaped by a structural orbital whose size has an order of magnitude of the Fermi for all of them, and is fixed by their structural quantum state, similarly to atoms. So, they cannot be safely assimilated to a dimensionless point, at least in a physical context. In mathematical contexts their assimilation to a point is a source of trouble and can propitiate fake conclusions.

To believe that a photon "behaves like a wave" in diffraction experiments is basically the consequence that even today the very nature of a photon and the very nature of the interaction mechanism of a photon with an atom is not completely well understood.

Another physical phenomenon, which is usually explained in terms of a wave model for the photon or by some arguments involved with a complex-valued "probability amplitude", is the Mach-Zehnder phenomenon. However, in contrast to the widely held opinion that the Mach-Zehnder phenomenon is one of the quantum physical phenomenons which cannot be explained in the context of classical physical theories, a purely classical qualitative explanation of the Mach-Zehnder phenomenon can be given, which requires some assumptions about the particular nature of the photon.

Research SECRETS BEHIND THE MACH-ZEHNDER PHENOMENON (1A)

The deep divergence of all these points of view demonstrates again that the yield of teaching the Göttingen-København mythology is near zero.

All these ones had been selected on their tolereance to absurdity, and so their teachers were selected, too. It lasts so for three generations.

A physical wave can interfere. A "wave of probability" cannot.

J.L. Brady

The rabbit trail recently taken here about the "point" is an interesting one, which can help us attempt to ascertain the reality of the photon.

If one believes in the minimum length that can exist in the universe (the Planck Length), then obviously a point can only exist at each end of this Planck length (or a structural set of these Lp). Therefore the next logical question must be... is a photon a point (0D), length (1D), Area (2D) or Volume (3D) or a dynamic hybrid of of these? This question begs a more general question about the structure of the universe, which not only contains the photon, but also the spacetime in which the photon travels. For both the photon AND spacetime must be of the same "kind" and speak the same language if they are to communicate their parameters between and within each other.

From here we must now enter into a mind experiment to reveal a truth:

Imagine we are in a spacecraft between Sun and Earth. We look at the Sun and photons enter into our eye, then as we rotate our head 90 degrees we only see the darkness of Space, and as we continue to rotate another 90 degrees we again see the photons from the Sun reflected off of the Earth entering into our eye. The question at hand here is... why didn't we see the photons passing by our spacecraft during our first 90 degree head turn? Shouldn't they also be visible if they were 3D, 2D or even 1D? Where did the photon go? We know that it is traveling by at the speed of light to reach Earth, yet is not observed. Only 2 conclusions can be made, 1) the photon is a point or set of points, or 2) the photon is in some way masked as it travels through a massless spacetime.

The first conclusion fits closer to a hypothesis which would also answer the double slit experiment, giving credence to the so called photon duality issue. Yet conclusion 2 might also in some way also contribute, in that each point defining a photon has a completion symmetric equal-and-opposite point, rendering the duo somehow invisible.

Therefore the only conclusion which can be made here then is that energy (and therefore mass) itself must too be described as a set of points structurally arranged in a particular group of points. This is further verified due to the fact that heat is also "invisible". Furthermore this energy group must also have a dynamic behavior due to the inherent time units which define energy.

We are, and live in a digitized universe made up of structural sets of dynamic points all interacting and communicating within themselves.

Dear J.L.

Interesting analysis. Another issue deserves attention, I think.

Most in the community seem to not be aware or to have neglected the fact that photons are electromagnetic in nature, and even if treated as waves, cannot completely be described with the classical wave concept that can propagate only in rigid materials by very definition. See how transverse s-waves in the Earth mass are defined.

The same propagation mechanics is assumed for electromagnetic energy in vacuum even though this would imply that it be made of a "rigid substance" (allowing a recall constant) that can move transversely, but cannot move longitudinally as the "wave" propagates. Such a "rigid substance" filling vacuum can obviously be shown not to exist.

However, in the absence of such a non-existent rigid medium, that was named "ether", propagation of localized electromagnetic quanta remains possible if they behave "longitudinally point-like" while still transversely electromagnetically oscillating in accordance with Maxwell and if they could self-propel, which is precisely what the de Broglie double-photon hypothesis allows.

This in turn redefines the meaning of longitudinal electromagnetic wavelength from being a longitudinal oscillation of the medium causing a transverse motion of the "substance" of the medium, to simply being the distance that a longitudinally point-like behaving electromagnetic quantum must travel in space for the transversely oscillating electromagnetic part of the "physically existing energy substance" of its quantum to complete one of its cycles.

Best Regards

André

The de Broglie double-photon hypothesis and variants thereof should also be considered in the context with the question of a more reasonable concept of "space" and "time" and "space-time" at the lowest scale of physical objects. The notion of "event", which is represented by a "point" in the traditional space-time "continuum", is highly questionable if one thinks about dynamical mechanisms which might govern the behaviour of a photon when it interacts with one or several electrons or one or several atoms, for example when the photon is "reflected" by the atoms of the surface of a mirror or when the photon is "diffracted" by the atoms of the surface of an edge or of a slid.

If the photon is considered as a physical object which shows up an "intrinsic" dynamical behaviour AND if the believe in "empty space" is abandoned, then new ideas concerning the understanding of diffraction phenomena can emerge.

The fact that "space" is filled with some e.m. background radiation is the first hint, that notion of "empty space" is misleading. In addition to e.m. background radiation there might exist quite other e.m. objects which "fill" the space in a regular or irregular (quasi-stochastic) manner, which have almost zero energy and therefore cannot be discovered easily. Whenever a photon interacts with some non-massless objects (electrons, protons, atoms, etc.), there is also an interaction with these additional e.m. objects, i.e. an interaction with the "constituents of space", so to speak.

The semantic opposition "classic vs. quantic" is not worth a scrap.

The extrapolation of the Newtonian macro-time into the microphysics is not worth a scrap.

Especially when we know the results of the Lorentz transform applied to the photons. Any photon tears the Newtonian macro-time.

Especially when we know the solution of the Dirac equation, for 1928. For any electron, half of its components are retrochronous.

Maintaining the erroneous half-sentence of 1905, "light travels in grains" is not worth a scrap.

Deporting the randomness of the ground noise by Broglie-Dirac waves, into the propagation of a transferred photon, or a transferred electron, or another particle, is not worth a scrap.

Though it is the fairy tale taught by the Göttingen-København tribe for 91 years.

Confusing the waves in a collective of matter (such as gravity waves on water), the crowds of individual waves (such as a light beam), with individual waves, is not worth a scrap.

Though it is the scrap taught by the Göttingen-København tribe for 91 years.

While the Göttingen-København tribe and their heirs continue to deny the absorbers at one end of any individual wave, I wonder why they do not also deny the emitters. Why not?

The fascination exercised by these old fairy tales over the naive students is amazing. But the yield of teaching such a bag of scraps remains a disaster.

The formalism of QM remains 100 % undulatory and 100 % deterministic, which contradicts the semantics they teach, which is corpuscularist.

Obviously, the questionable meaning of the various interpretations of QM relies basically on Born's dogma of complex-valued "probability amplitude", which has been stated about 90 years ago by Born without any reflections concerning the various problems of the meaning of "probability" in the context of physical experiments.

If, according to Einstein, "probability" is merely the excuse for not being able to make predictions based on the dogma of determinism, the question arises whether there is a chance for setting up physical theories in a reasonable and convincing manner without the dogma of determinism, in particular without any pseudo-semantic statements leading to the belief that the notion of an exact "initial value" of something at an "instant of time" makes sense for physical objects at all scales and can be known with absolute certainty at all.

You will never monitor the "initial values".

You only monitor the blackboard. That's all.

And the "initial values" will never dwell in the Newtonian macro-time.

The Newtonian way of describing the dynamical behavior of physical systems is inseparable involved with the math. idea of a continuum of space and of time, and the math. calculus dealing with continuous functions and the math. processes of differentiation and integration, in order to describe the phys. phenomenon of "motion" due to "interaction" in math. terms, resulting in differential equations which can be solved if some "initial values" at some "instant of time" are known.

This is the basic dogma of Newtonian mechanics. Unfortunately, Newtonian mechanics does not make a statement whether it is possible to find (by experiment or by guess) the exact "initial values" with certainty for any physical system under consideration. This situation is similar to QM, where Born just stated his "probability interpretation", without reflecting the problems involved with the notion of "probability" in the context of physics.

Both, classical mechanics (CM) as well as QM are dogmatic theories. The absurdity of QM seems to be much more obvious than the absurdity of CM. What CM (as well as Maxwell's electrodynamics and classical field theory) and QM have in common is the use of the math. idea of a continuum of space and of time and the idea that the description of physical phenomena should be performed by attaching uniquely some rational or real or complex numbers to a physical system, which are expected to be the base for making predictions by means of some algebraic equations or differential equations, which again produce rational or real or complex numbers which are assumed to represent all the characteristic features of a physical system in a math. numerical manner.

The requirement of uniqueness of attaching some rational or real or complex numbers to a physical system seems to be unsuspicious in the case, where, for example, some apples lying in a bowl have to be counted. However, if a huge number of tiny flies moving irregularly in a huge room have to be counted and, say, the average distance between the flies has to be determined, an "exact" unique result is not expected, due to the "chaotic" type of motion of the flies. Nevertheless, one operates usually with rational or real or complex numbers and expresses the uncertainty of the results by the additional math. constructs, such as "probability".

Attempts to set up new types of numbers, which allow to express "non-uniqueness" and "uncertainties" in a manner which is more appropriate for physical or technical systems, similar to the system of the moving flies, exist. This is all the stuff with "fuzzy set theory" and "fuzzy numbers". If one wants to set up a theory of non-empty space and time which allows to consider space in principle as being "filled" with a fluctuating substance, similar to the chaotic motion of tiny flies, then "fuzzy numbers" might be the appropriate math. tool for such a theory of "space" and "time".

For an attempt to set up a theory of particular "fuzzy numbers", which include the real numbers as a subset and which is intended for setting up physical theories concerning the dynamics of "tiny objects" at the lowest scale, see the ongoing project

https://www.researchgate.net/project/MATHEMATICAL-CONCEPT-OF-B-NUMBERS-AND-THEIR-REPRESENTATION-IN-A-RIGGED-HILBERT-SPACE

Dear Karl,

You expressed here a quite interesting idea: "The Newtonian way of describing the dynamical behavior of physical systems is inseparable involved with the math. idea of a continuum of space and of time, and the math. calculus dealing with continuous functions and the math. processes of differentiation and integration, in order to describe the phys. phenomenon of "motion" due to "interaction" in math. terms, resulting in differential equations which can be solved if some "initial values" at some "instant of time" are known."

Thinking about it, I think that there is such a set of invariant "initial values". They are those of the electron invariant rest mass energy.

The invariant rest mass of the electron happens to be the lowest stable and invariant resonance level into which electromagnetic energy can stabilize into from the variable energy levels of free moving electromagnetic quanta (electromagnetic photons). This is why its values can be considered as being "initial" with respect to all of the energy stabilized as what we think of as "massive matter".

I think that the phenomenon of motion can be anchored to these initial values in the following manner, if its "momentum electromagnetic carrying energy" is dealt with separately from the electromagnetic energy that makes up its invariant rest mass (which is a stable invariant electromagnetic resonance state).

With theoretical zero "momentum electromagnetic energy" added, the electron velocity would be zero, with the electron still possessing these invariant initial values.

According to the non-linear increase with velocity of this "momentum electromagnetic energy" mandated by Maxwell's first equation, increasing this separate amount of electromagnetic energy towards infinity leads the electron to reach velocities asymptotically close to c while still possessing these same separate "initial values", which is conform to observation.

This is what comes out of upgrading Newton's kinetic energy equation to full and corrected electromagnetic status in this paper:

http://www.gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers-Relativity%20Theory/Download/3197

See Figure 1 on page 6, and Section X on page 10.

Best Regards

André

J.L. Brady

Dear Andre Karl,

Both of you have touched upon the existence of the aether, be it a rigid structure, background radiation, or other media. From the "point" rabbit trail mentioned earlier, I believe the electron/photon kind of so called "particle" simply moves about and within this structure, not as a marble moving in space, but as a unit set of numbers (i.e. points) tied together as a defining quantum unit, exchanging their point values with an already existing set of numeric values which populate and also exist as dynamic spinning localized spacetime quantum units (aether).

The photon set of numerics will always wish to remain together as they journey through spacetime simply due to their unique form of symmetry. Spacetime, when void of any matter or electromagnetics, is perfectly symmetric, and therefore appears to us as an undetectable vacuum. When a lower symmetric set of points (photon) shows up within the higher spacetime symmetry, spacetime's desire is to simply push it through (unrestricted) so its localized perfect symmetry remains unscathed. It is this function which enables the photon wave through the aether we observe. The wave is not the photon point set per se, but is simply the effect of the photon point set creating a localized symmetry disturbance as it translates through and exchanges points with spacetime's point set. This is why energy is required to create a photon. For the photon to appear, localized spacetime must be "spun-up" if you will, in preparation as the photon's initial entry condition, and this localized supn-up aether volume is a function of the inverse square law.

In other words, just after the time of a photon's creation, spacetime already knows that the photon is on its way (explaining entanglement), enabled by an energy input which changed the localized kinetic spin energy of the spacetime units at the time of its entry. This localized spin wave translating through spacetime is the photon wave function we observe.

To truly understand this, it might be easier to compare this in the macro world all around us with this thought experiment:

Your driving straight down the highway in your car at constant velocity and decide to turn right taking a cloverleaf exit ramp which travels along a CW 270 degrees rotation before you enter onto your new straight direction. As you begin to turn, you feel your body being pushed outboard towards the drivers door.

What is pushing you?

...and don't say a change in inertia, that's too easy.

...and don't answer with any equation.

The question on the table is... "WHAT is pushing you"...

Hint: The "what" has to be the equal-and-opposite Newtonian thingie.

Think about it before proceeding...

The answer here in the macro world is the same as our above photon discussion in the quantum. Spacetime already knew you were traveling along at constant momentum prior to taking the exit, but any change in momentum requires an energy input to redirect the quantum spacetime unit spins previously established (which your body was being pushed through by spacetime, since matter is also a lower form of point set symmetry). Once your turn is complete, a new spacetime wave once again is established using the energy input required to spin-up that new spacetime wave.

Answer:

It was Spacetime (aether) which was pushing you, since it already knew you were coming (as long as you didn't change your momentum along the straight road). It is only when you forced your change in momentum that spacetime became upset and disagreed with your decision, and required a force by your mass to change its spinning momentum mind.

I currently have established these photon, matter and spacetime numerics, as well as the spin dynamics of all 3 states of the universe in the UFT I am currently writing. An elegant interacting geometric structure defined by a set of integers 1 through 9 (and nothing more) describe these 3 states of the universe, uniting the quantum with the macro, including successfully placing all 17 SM particles onto it, showing correct spin correlation, polarities, flavors and charges of these and their anti-particles. Stay tuned, it's been 6 years in the making. Basically the deterministic universe can be fully and elegantly described using integers 1 through 9 and algebra.

Comments are welcome.

Follow me if you wish to be notified when this UFT becomes available for review (2019 timeframe). I would appreciate your peer review once submitted.

- J.L. Brady

Have we overlooked that the max intensity of the interference (vs one slit open) depends to the number of slits and has the relation: (1for1slit,) 4 for 2 slits, 9 for 3 slits, .., n2 for n slits? How this could be conceived without assuming that photon (or any other particle/wave) has dual forms of existence, each of witch are moving independently through spacetime?

For example, for the case of the three-slits experiment there are 32 different routes that the two forms (I and R) of photon could follow, in order to reach the screen of projection (11, 12, 13, 21, 22, 23, 31, 32, 33: where e.g. 32 means I pass through slit3 and R pass through slit 2). If all slits are open the intensity would be 9 compared to only one slit open with intensity equal 1 (e.g. 11). If two slits are open (e.g. slit2 and slit3) the intensity would be 22 (22, 23, 32, 33) compared to the one slit open (e.g.slit3 with only the 33 route available).

It is noticeable that any particle/wave could pass through ONLY ONE or TWO slits each time and NOT through all available/open slits at once, as it is generally believed.

Xavier Oudet

In a previous comment we have recalled that the storage «in situ » of the photons can explain the interferences see “Interferences and periodicity”. It is not easy for many people to abandon the wave hypothesis, in this view let me recall that with the storage «in situ » of the electrons it is also possible to explain the diffraction see “Bragg’s law, continuity and discreteness”. Now we now that the Sagnac effect is another difficulty not yet understood.

The difficulty is the result of our most classical description of the ionic structure of the transparency medium, making obstacle to this approach. In this approach the valence electrons of the metal are supposed to be captured by the metalloid atoms to have a full shell. But since the discovery of the rare gas compounds call inert, this hypothesis cannot be justified, since a full shell can gives compounds. As a result the atoms of a pure metal or those of a transparency medium are able to absorb the photons of the light. These ones are absorbed by electrons during a short time depending of the energy of the electron after absorption. That one determines the stability of these electrons and yet it is not the same according to the direction of propagation of the photons in respect of the transparency matter, thus the temporal shift to the reception of the luminous signals. The difficulties to understand the Sagnac effect disappear as those to understand the interferences with the photons.

Dear J.L. Brady

Concerning the very nature and structure of "elementary" particles and particle families, apart the standard model there exist various other attempts of setting up theoretical physics fantasies, for example https://www.researchgate.net/project/HYPOTRON-THEORY

The issue of this ongoing project is to set up a particle theory which describes hadrons as well as leptons and photons and other ’force mediating’ objects as compound systems of 6 components, called ’hypotrons’ which carry fractional electric charge ±1/3 and ±2/3 and a hypothetical fractional "supercharge” ±1/6. Supercharge is by definition related to electric charge in a non-linear manner and vanishes in the case of some specific clusters of hypotrons. By identifyingp these specific hypotron clusters with stable elementary particles, supercharge can be interpreted as ’magnetic charge’, which is a ’hidden’ non-additive quantity, because it is zero for all kinds of stable matter, but non-zero for hypotrons and unstable clusters of hypotrons. Supercharge can be considered as this particular quantity which is responsible for the stability of matter. For example, by means of the notion of supercharge it can be explained why positron/electron and proton/anti-proton are the only stable particles with charge +1/-1. Furthermore, the location of stable nuclei in the ’valley of stable nuclei’ can be predicted within a good approximation simply by requiring a minimum principle for the square of supercharge of the nuclei, provided that (A) the neutron is considered as a hypotron cluster of 3×6 = 18 hypotrons, which reflects the neutron’s decay into proton and electron and anti-neutrino, and that (B) the nuclei contain basically anti-neutrons instead of neutrons, and that (C) the ejection of a neutron from a nucleus is caused by the particle transformation anti-neutron + neutrino → neutron + anti-neutrino inside the nucleus. With regard to the conserved number of hypotrons being the constituents of these particles, such a transformation process is an allowed process.

Flyer including links to working paper see https://kreuzer-dsr.de/kdsr/bulletin/KDSR_HypotronTheory_Flyer.pdf

Karl

Dear Igael,

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/phyopt/gratint.html
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/311227/intensity-of-subsidary-maxima-in-a-diffraction-grating-pattern
https://sites.ualberta.ca/~pogosyan/teaching/PHYS_130/FALL_2010/lectures/lect36/lecture36.html

The comprehensible physical explanation, without mathematics (that in a sense contradict the invariance of c), is a straight conclusion from my project (NCS).

Ioannis

@ Ioan. Hadjidakis. You were taught in the tribal delusion of "corpuscular aspects", which never occur. Never any individual wave transmutes into something corpuscular. Never a crowd of individual waves transmutes into a swarm of Newtonian corpuscles.

Just a tribal delusion.

@ Jacques Lavau . Restoring ghosts of the past and arbitrary associate them with new opinions is not a proper use of argumentation. Good luck.

Jerry Decker

When the photon is captured by an electron it is the fields of both that make it likely to happen. Without the fields the capture would not be more likely than a neutrino collision.

Quite likely the electron and photon are particles, but only within the context of familiar space and time. They cannot exist or function without the medium and polarization waves in it.

Measurement methods cause a bias in the results. We find the state we look for. One school of thought says potentials exist, but particles and waves are created by the measurement. I prefer something a bit more concrete, but find no reason to postulate particles separate from the space they are found in.

@ Ioan. Hadjidakis. Please do not hesitate to be clear.

I do not discern what you are talking about.

Up to now, I have not seen you distinguishing one individual wave from a crowd of waves (a crowd like the ordinary light is).

Dear Igael,

Making the long story (30 years) short (few lines of a post), I would say that:

The present problem of Physics is not to add another theory on the existent theories. So, we decided to start from the very beginning that is how we can conceive our environment with the minimum pre-assumptions, taking in account only the available experimental data. The first thing is to establish the axiomatic propositions and the framework on witch a sound and consistent theory could be developed. From the very beginning, we realized that negative numbers is a conviction that misleads our conception. Negative numbers is a requirement for the orthogonal coordinate systems, so we have to depart from the classical, in use, systems and invent a new coordinate system (Natural Coordinate System). With our chemical background it was a piece of cake to accept the framework that Nature uses (CO2 for 1D, BH3 for 2D, and CH4 for 3D). From all these, we derived the four “axiomatic” propositions (there is no negative numbers in Nature, symmetry, dualism, completeness and consistency are not simultaneously possible). From the proposition of duality and symmetry, we deduced Two Discrete Interchangeable (TDI) coordinate subsystems that accommodate the TDI forms of any entity (e.g. particle/wave, mass/energy, photon/wave-packet, …). Any observer can detect/observe one form at a time and in order for an entity to be an observable, its TDI forms should coincide at the same quantum of spacetime.

Such a new view of reality is unavoidable to rise a great opposition and misunderstanding, so we are open to any rational argumentation. Referring to your query “how this assertion is derived” it is obvious that the TDI forms (are only two) of photon could make use of max two slits in order to reach the screen. Use of more than two slits should imply that at least one form should be dividable and this is prohibited.

PS: I talk about discrete entities (photon/wave-packet, electron, molecule of fullerene, …), that the slit experiment is dealing with, and not collective entities like ... “light”, electric current or kgr of fullerene.

Ilgaitis Prusis

The problem arises from the fact that the space we imagine as the infinite container where everything is located and all events occur. The opposite opinion: the space itself does not exist. There is only gravitation field of Universe, which one perceive as space. More precisely: gravitation eigenspace. In the gravitation eigenspace the photon is wave with speed c. The photon also have own electromagnetic eigenspace. In the own space photon is particle with speed 0.

" The opposite opinion: the space itself does not exist. There is only gravitation field of Universe, which one perceive as space. "

Field (physics)-Wikipedia: " In physics, a field is a physical quantity, represented by a number or tensor, that has a value for each point in space and time. " , " In the modern framework of the quantum theory of fields, even without referring to a test particle, a field occupies space, contains energy, and its presence precludes a classical "true vacuum". " , ... .

There is no field outside/independent of space.

Ilgaitis Prusis

This definition based on Newton's beliefs, that Space is endless container where all is located. Einstein said that it is free imagination of human mind. I agree with him, because there is no evidence that exist empty space and the space is endless. More in article: "New Conception of Space".