I tendentially agree. Physics hypotheses, even the basic paaradigms, are not sacred and they rarely survive, unscathed, 1-3 centuries (ever more often it takes much less, actually).

In the specific case what sticks out is the fact that in practice, depending upon context, we use either one or the other aspect of EM waves (i.e, either the particle-like nature, like in scattering, or the wave-like nature, like in stationary situations including diffraction, interference, etc.) We practically never feel forced to use both aspects simultaneously - a fact which reveals that our understanding is still lacking! Not that that is surprising - we know next to nothing of the Reality, anyway.

This said, a warning: when a physicist admits a gap in understanding of Nature, usually a swarm of cranks emerges negating even the little knowledge that was laboriously gained so far, and proposing as "The Truth" wild speculations void of any substance. I hate that and consequently rarely talk about "unsolved basic problems of physics" or, for that matter, of any other serious Science.

Wave particle duality in particular (and the quantum phenomena in general) is not a primitive idea; this phenomena in Nature is simply not understood by conventional epistemology and official natural science. A particle is localized in space. while wave is extended in space. Both of these opposite properties of light are observed and experienced in reality. This contradictory mode of existence of a thing or a process is simply un-intuitive and unacceptable to the world view of causality, formal logic and good old common-sense of every day human experience - a causality based epistemology is used in conventional natural science and society in general. This the very reason why Einstein rejected quantum physics and resorted (like Kant in philosophy) to subjective mathematical idealism to build theories of physics and others are now following him.

But many great thinkers starting from Heraclitus have shown that the contradiction of "the unity of the opposite" like wave-particle duality is the very basis of ALL material existence. In this view the opposites lies together in both unity and in conflict with each other at the same time! In fact this contradiction is the very basis of any existence from the microcosm to the macrocosm. A self-induced resolution of this contradiction mediated by chance and necessity is what five rise to change, motion, development evolution and the phenomenology of this infinite; eternal and ever-changing universe. This view is known as the epistemology of materialist dialectics.The wave-particle duality is therefore a very natural but previously unrecognized phenomena of Nature.

The world view of causality as an epistemology is in fact very crude and limited is scope and is an evolutionary and historical heritage of man. It is only valid for the narrow realm of everyday life and simple mechanics where the cause and its effect can be clearly identified, but beyond this, it leads to the mystery of a "first cause", which is the :"effect" of a "cause" that is unknown and hence a mystery - like God in theology and "Big Bang" in physics.

But the epistemology of materialist dialectics; because it recognizes and deals with contradictions in Nature is a powerful tool for understanding Nature without any mystery, This speaker has used materialist dialectics in a limited way to deal with problems of quantum physics (like wave-particle duality) and astrophysics; available at the following links:

Article Real/Virtual Exchange of Quantum Particles as a Basis for th...

Article The Philosophy of Space-Time: Whence Cometh "Matter" and "Motion"?

Article Ambartsumian, Arp and the Breeding Galaxies*

Dear Abdul Malek, I'dd rather to talk about this subject purely based on physics experiments, however, you talked a bit with the language of philosophy. I am alright with it, so I remind you that we the rule of "inductive reasoning". following that, just one evident is enough to reject any idea or concept including the wave-particle duality. There are many issues and if you have already read the context of this argue, then the glory of the shadow is adequate to leave the wave-particle duality concept behind.

However, if you like to talk just purely experimental, then you need to explain about the photon or any other particles inside the slot, then I will bring more and more experiments to reject the wave-particle duality completely.

Dear Farhad Vedad,

I don't know how you would "reject" wave-particle duality in quantum physics that has been an issue for quantum physics for more than 100 years and for physics since Newton and Young,

All I said above is that the world view of causality (that physics now uses) wave-particle duality is a paradox and mystery for physics because it is out of it's depth to deal with it and uses mathematical tricks like renormalization etc., to explain this phenomena. I have provided links in my comment above that uses the world view of materialist dialectics to deal with the wave-particle duality (a contradiction) without resorting to mathematical tricks or mystery, as is the usual case with causality.

That causality as a poor epistemic tool for an understanding the world is known since David Hume and Immanuel Kant, to the extent that to save causality, Kant rejected objective reality as unknowable thing-in-itself and imposed on reality his subjective logical categories cooked up in his brain. To save causality after the recognition of the quantum phenomena; Einstein did exactly the same like Kant; rejected quantum phenomena in physics and imposed on Nature his subjective mathematical categories, also cooked-up in his brain.

Dialectics does not need these types (Kantian or Einsteinian) of subjective categories and can explain all natural phenomena scientifically and without any mysteries; as I have tried to show (following the lead of Frederick Engels) in some of my publications. I agree that dialectics is un-intuitive for causality based thinking and needs contemplative thought. It is particularly difficult to accept for the theoretical physicist trained in conventional physics. I know this from my experience in RG and elsewhere where I have discussed these things. You have to know dialectics before we can have any meaningful dialogue and I do not have much hope (also from my experience) that this will materialize in this forum. At the least you have to go through the articles that I cited above, before we can have any meaningful discussion. Cheers!

Dear Abdul Malek,

Several years ago, when I was young, I studied philosophy a bit and I am not interested in it any more. I don't mind if some one doesn't believe that God doesn't dice or someone else see the things based on Thesis, antithesis, synthesis. I am an experimental guy and only experiments are important to me. What you call it duality, of course based on the Copenhagen interpretation, means that you cannot talk about an experiment unless it has been done, and by far it means that it is primitive understanding. As you said, this idea date a hundred years ago. For me it's too old and we need to open new horizons.

I appreciate you, if you could please read my works and then we may talk about it if you wish.

Many thanks

Farhad

The Copenhagen Interpretation has been a primitive. But it is yielding to the Bohm Interpretation. Diffraction and interference experiments have rejected the wave interpretation of light:

The many experiments and the photon model

https://www.researchgate.net/project/STOE-photon-diffraction-and-interference

A video showing the some experiments

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qFDB-K_sSjU&t=125s

The proposed model (the STOE) derives why the Fresnel-Huygens assumptions had to be made from more primitive postulates.

Farhad,

Stan makes a good point that the current approach of using wave properties or particle properties shows that we do not yet have a clear idea of fully what is happening because we hardly ever use both properties at the same time.

We know that a photon displays its particle properties when it lands on a spot and is absorbed, or when it is emitted from an atom. In between, when it is not being detected, emitted or absorbed, the wave-like properties are displayed. But why do photons act this way and how are both properties related to each other? This is still up for debate.

Ruth Kastner, a physicist and professor at the University of Maryland, has offered a solution. It is based on research done by Richard Feynman and John Archibald Wheeler called Wheeler-Feynman Absorber Theory. She shows that everything an individual photon does can be explained as a transaction between the emitter and the absorber of the photon.

This is a quantum theory, so, like all quantum theories, it sounds strange and non-intuitive, however, the equations offer a full solution, including a photon passing through a slit. Kastner has written three books on the subject and also has published a number of articles.

Kastner shows that the missing piece from the way the behavior of a photon is traditionally handled in physics is that it doesn't account for the influence of the absorber. We traditionally use equations based only on the emitter, as if once the photon is emitted it is on its own until it accidentally runs into something.

Wheeler-Feynman absorber theory says that the wave properties of a photon reach everywhere, and all of the possible absorbers also have wave properties that reach everywhere. The waves of the absorbers influence the photon by the interaction of their waves. However, the photon can only land on one spot. In other words, it can only be absorbed by one of the many possible absorbers. This is when the particle-like property is displayed.

We see interference patterns with two slit experiments because all of the absorber waves overlap with each other. This happens because each of the absorbers has an influence over where the photon will land. One way to look at this, according to Kastner, is to picture each absorber wave as acting like an invitation to the photon, and the photon also offers an invitation to the absorbers. However, only one absorber-photon relationship will produce an exact match between the two waves. This is what determines where the photon will end.

In a single slit, according to Kastner, the uncertainty principle makes it impossible to determine where exactly the photon is and where it is going. This is why, when the slit is narrow, it causes a beam of photons to spread out. This doesn't happen because of the entry or the exit of the slit, but because of what is happening inside the slit. If the slit is narrow, meaning that its location is well defined. This means that its momentum must be less defined. This is why we see defraction. Feynman also talked about this in his book, QED.

Quantum mechanics is hard to understand, but when it comes to the actions of individual particles, it really does work.

I hope this helps.

Dear Doug,

I am afraid to say that it doesn't help. because, those issues missed a very important thing which the refractive index of the barriers and the medium that may cause the bright zero-order fringe for longer wave length and with same condition, it causes a dark zero-order fringe in the far field that may not explained by any interpretation of the quantum mechanic. By the way, quantum mechanic do no predict speeding down of the photon inside a single slit that in reality it happens.

DM> "She shows that everything an individual photon does can be explained as a transaction between the emitter and the absorber of the photon."

The photon is not a sentient being in the American capitalist economy to do transaction between the emitter and the absorber. It is just a quantum particle like any other quantum particle following specific natural laws! It also does not need Feynman's silly and mystical infinite trajectories to do its "transactions" and the tricks of renormalisation where one set of infinities is cancelled by invoking another set of infinities to get the result that was pre-selected and known in the first place! Paul Dirac likened this practice to "sweeping the dirt under the rug"!

The photon IS a particle, nothing is more clear about it like the photo-electric effect. It's apparent wave behaviour can be very easily demonstrated in terms of the virtual particles of the quantum vacuum:

Article Real/Virtual Exchange of Quantum Particles as a Basis for th...

Dear Abdul Malek,

I believe that we should talk about other ideas respectfully even if we believe that they wrong even if it is coming from Feynman or you or any other one.

By the way, The argue that I started doesn't match the philosophical thinking at all.

I would like people to share their experimental results or mathematical methods to find out a new window to future thoughts.

Dear Farhad Vedad,

I am speaking in terms of science and natural philosophy and I believe so did Paul Dirac (one of the main originators of QED) about Feynman’s “infinite trajectories” and “renormalization”, because these are mysticism and mathematical tricks. In science you call a spade a spade, if some sensitive norms of civility is affected, nothing can be done about it; objective truth is more important!

The idea of wave-particle duality as a dialectical contradiction in the behaviour of light, is few centuries old and is still observed in practice as a fact of life. You on the contrary seem to be inspired by the same mysticism and theology of Feynman and Einstein and do not want your God to play with dice; probably the reason you call this experimentally observed idea as primitive and wish to resolve the contradiction of duality one way or the other

You want purely “experimental results or mathematical methods” to resolve this duality and “to find out a new window to future thoughts” But Sir, the idea of duality does have its origin in “experimental results” and if by your “mathematical methods” you eliminate this duality (as Feynman did) you eliminate “the experimental results” and take resort to mysticism and theology, exactly what Feynman did! As for your “window to future thoughts” using “mathematical methods” alone; I doubt you would do any better than Feynman and the thousands of other who still rely on his “mathematical methods”.

And if you forbid or excommunicate philosophy from your discourse there would be no “future thoughts” of any significance, because Heisenberg and Dirac used philosophy to formulate the original version of QED. My article (linked above) was inspired by the philosophy of Heisenberg and is meant to open a “new window to future thought”, leaving behind the “primitive” mysticism and theology of Einstein, Feynman et al. Sorry, my apologies, I mistook this forum to be a scientific one! Bye- Bye!

Dear Abdul Malek,

First of all, I would say that I am more than happy to hearing from you. So please stay in touch.

Somehow you are right, and my God doesn't like dice, however I do not call it God.

Unfortunately, we may see that most of the physicists are so in love with the quantum mechanics that talking against it may cause them to ignore you forever.

Dogmatism has been and is the most horrible monster in the life of the human, and it gets much worse if even scientists are involved with that.

For sure such a dogmatism may cause us not to see the reality as it is.

People such as Einstein, Feynman, and so on did a great job, however it is not the end of the world. We need to bring more experiments to demonstrate that wave-particle duality cannot explain everything and we need to improve our understanding of the nature more and more everlasting.

Farhad,

You are right that quantum mechanics doesn't explain the speed of light or how it changes through a medium, because it can't yet explain anything about the field of space, which is the medium that light travels through. However, it does explain refractive index. Richard Feynman has described this in one of his books. I believe it was his book, QED. He talks about reflections off a surface or a mirror and refraction through glass or water, etc.

As I explained in one of my articles, if we do the experiment of the glass single slit diffraction inside a medium that its refractive index is nearly the same as the refractive index of the glass, then I would say that we may achieve two different appearances, one with constructive interference along the optical axis for the 650nm and another with destructive interference along the optical axis for the 450nm and both at 4m distance away from the slot, in the far-field. This effect cannot be explained by quantum mechanics. That experiment demonstrate that the wave-particle is not the case to produce diffraction and there is another quality which takes the role.

Farhad,

I don't see any reason why quantum mechanics cannot explain the results of constructive and destructive interference based on two different wavelengths of light. The quantum wave function is fully able to describe these differences due to wavelengths.

Quantum Electro-Dynamics is fully able to explain everything known to classical electromagnetism except for the speed of light. This is one of quantum mechanics great successes.

Quantum mechanics has a lot more holes and missing pieces when it comes to the strong nuclear force or the weak nuclear force, and it cannot explain gravity at all. However, when it comes to electromagnetism, quantum mechanics offers a very good match, from everything that I have seen.

Abdul,

I think that Feynman would agree with you that his process of "renormalization" looks like a mathematical trick. However, he would completely disagree that it was mysticism. Feynman, himself, didn't like the fact that renormalization was not founded on quantum theory. So, he agreed that it looks like a trick. However, the problem is that it works. It offers a more accurate solution. The question remains unanswered why it works.

Here is a direct quote from Feynman on renormalization:

"The shell game that we play...is technically called 'renormalization.' But no matter how clever the word, it is what I would call a dippy process! Having to resort to such hocus-pocus has prevented us from proving that the theory of quantum electrodynamics is mathematically self-consistent. It's surprising that the theory still hasn't been proved self-consistent one way or the other by now; I suspect that renormalization is not mathematically legitimate."

This is a quote from Feynman's book, QED.

You should also know that the work Ruth Kastner has presented is even more closely aligned to Heisenberg's work than Feynman's. In fact, she recently published a paper, along with two others, that is called "Taking Heisenberg's Potentia Seriously." You might find it interesting.

As Kastner shows in her paper, by taking Heisenberg's theory of potentia seriously, she was able to explain why Feynman's approach, of taking all of the possible trajectories, works. The photon clearly doesn't take all of the trajectories, but as Heisenberg says, the wave function acts as if it is half-way between between an actuality and a possibility, which means it is more like a tendency to act. This is what he called potentia.

Doug Marman

Dear Doug,

As I wrote before, I had abandoned this forum few days ago, never wishing to come back. It is only by accident that I came across you comment addressed to me. Sorry, could not respond before.

Please see my alternative idea to Feynman's "path integral" and renormalization for an explanation of wave-particle duality based on the virtual particles of the quantum vacuum at the following link: Article Real/Virtual Exchange of Quantum Particles as a Basis for th...

There are now convincing evidence that the quantum vacuum is teeming with virtual particles that eternally flip in and out of existence; as accurately measured as Lamb Shift in the electronic energy level of atoms and also less accurately as Casimir force and other related factors. The constant velocity of photons through the quantum vacuum may probably be related to presence of the virtual particle as an upper limit of c passing through this media.. Also , since photons have their electromagnetic properties, their magnetic and electric effect may contribute to permeability and the permitivity of the physical vacuum.

Please see the question about the virtual particles that I had asked long time ago, but no one showed much interest: https://www.researchgate.net/post/Are_You_Certain_Mr_Heisenberg

And also my comments on this subject in other forums particularly, the very early-on comments in the following forum: https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_physics_necessarily_empiricist

The wave-particle duality is not just a primitive idea. As it has existed in the commonly accepted interpretation following aggressive N. Bohr’s brainwash attack, it is dangerously wrong. It may be considered as a tragedy in physics. By the way, unsuccessful efforts in creating quantum computers is the result of that. Wave and particle (actually, anything the wave acts on) are separated entities in physical sense. In terms of the underlying mathematical formalism the wave, which is strangely enough named “state”, acts on another physical identity, called “observable”. To unambiguously describe “states”, a generalization of complex numbers is necessary. Complex numbers must be replaced with sums of (real) scalars (complex scalars make no sense anymore) and bivectors: oriented areas in three dimensions, identified by a plane and area value inside a contour belonging to the plane. States act on observables differently, compared to action of physical fields in classical mechanics. It easily follows that “states” evolution is governed by the Schrodinger equation, thus the term “wave equation” makes sense. Read my works.

Abdul,

Thanks for the reply. I looked at your "Are You Certain Mr. Heisenberg?" page. I think the point you are making is that "uncertainty" isn't just the result of our ability to measure, it is an aspect of the underlying nature of reality. If that is the point you were making, I agree.

I opened up the page to your paper on the exchange of real and virtual particles. It looks interesting. I will read it through. However, I'm going to be unavailable for the next week or so. I won't a chance to read it until then.

However, you should know that Ruth Kastner has written quite a lot about this relationship between real and virtual particles and how virtual particles cross over to become real. I've take this even further in my research, and I also refer to the Lamb Shift. And yes, this is closely related to Kastner's explanation for why Feynman's "path intergral" approach works. And the same for renormalization. So, I am curious to see how much we might have in common.

I just wanted to right back quickly to let you know that I saw your note. If we want to carry this conversation further, where would you suggest I send my comments, since we are now diverging from the scope of this post.

Yes. Usually, the double slit experiment is viewed as two cases, with the quantum case as a proposed mixture of two classical cases. For another view, compatible with experiments with only one photon, that shows the same interference pattern, as 3 cases, see:

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

A particle makes waves in the space it travels through, a type of frame dragging in GR. There is no way to separate the particle from the wave and no need to do so because the fundamental particle always has spin even when it is not translating in a coordinate system.

Wave and particle have other significance. In the two slit experiment the wave always goes through both slits, no matter where the particle goes. Quantum effects apply both to the particle and the wave.

Wave energy and particle energy can be equated, or compared.

Jerry Decker The diffraction pattern of the single slit, two slits or whatever else cause the thinking of wave behavior of particles while traveling. And this is what I called it primitive because apart from the duality consideration of things that always we have observe the experiment and then we make decision if we should take them as wave or particle, there many other experiments that cannot be answered with that concept of quantum physics. In the concept of wave particle duality we may not see explain how the wave or particle slows down while passing through a huge gap for a tiny photon (0.1mm slot is almost 200 times larger than the size of 500nm photon). By the way, that concept is not able to explain why the zero order fringe of the glass single slit is always dark in both Fresnel and Fraunhofer zones. These are just a few things that wave particle duality cannot explain them, however, there are more. In that concept, the space has been considered just as a holder, just as a empty box that things can stay or travel free which is absolutely a primitive thinking. So, what is the effect of the space quality in considering the single or two slits diffraction with wave particle duality? If the refractive index of the medium is a bit higher than the refractive index of the barriers, then you may get the bright zero order fringe for longer wavelengths (red) and dark zero order fringe for shorter wavelengths (blue) in the far field. This by far means that the refractive index of the barriers and the medium may define the appearance of the diffraction pattern that cannot be explained at all by the wave particle duality. So, I call the wave particle duality a primitive concept.

Farhad Vedad

Is the "glass single slit" my experiment in the video?

If not, What is it?

I suggest not wave or particle but Newton's concept of wave (in space, ether, plenum,etc.) AND particle directed by the wave - as in an interpretation of General relativity - particle movement causes waves in plenum (spacetime)and wave direct matter as in the Bohm Interpretation.

BTW I dislike using the term "space" for the reason you suggest. The term has too many interpretations.

John Hodge I have no idea about your researches. Please send me a link. Meanwhile you may please have look to my works that they are available here at Researchgate.

I did. I was impressed by the equipment you were using. Do you have access to a photon counter?

I didn't see a paper using a "glass slit" Link?

Mine about diffraction

https://www.researchgate.net/project/STOE-photon-diffraction-and-interference

all videos https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCc0mfCssV32dDhDgwqLJjpw/videos

About diffraction:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qFDB-K_sSjU&t=125s Glass slit

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OMAjKk6k6-k&t=18s

John Hodge It's more than 26 years that I am working on diffraction issues. Preprint The Diffraction of a Single Slit with Transparent Barriers i...

Experiment Findings Diffraction and the speed of light A new concept by Farhad Vedad

I will study your works and I will talk to you more for sure.

John Hodge https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCarAg827W7RqLr5akM80kqA?view_as=subscriber

Farhad Vedad

I'll read your 2 new papers. I would like to continue a discussion of our papers.

John Hodge Thanks

Doug Marman

DM> "If we want to carry this conversation further, where would you suggest I send my comments, since we are now diverging from the scope of this post."

Dear Doug, I hope by now you are ready to carry this conversation further. We can carry on this conversation publicly through the comments section of my relevant article at the following link: Article Real/Virtual Exchange of Quantum Particles as a Basis for th...

Farhad Vedad and John Hodge

You two experimentalists are doing great jobs. John from the particle end and Farhad apparently from the wave end. It would be of interest to see where you two end up. I suspect that both of you would be proven to be right and confirm the wave/particle nature of photons; as was done by many others over the centuries.

Farhad, I am sorry to advise you that your God does play with dice! The contradiction of wave/particle duality is the ontological fact of quantum and dialectical reality at the microcosm, represented by the virtual particle pairs eternally popping in and out of existence. The transient existence of the virtual particles affects surrounding “real” matter/antimatter particles and in turn is affected by them; at least at human scale.

The virtual particles have strong experimental foundation. I have attempted to provide a (dialectical) philosophical and QED basis for this contradiction of wave/particle duality and have ventured to show that this contradiction in fact lies at the root of the evolution of this infinite, eternal and ever-changing universe that we inhabit! Article The Philosophy of Space-Time: Whence Cometh "Matter" and "Motion"?

Article Real/Virtual Exchange of Quantum Particles as a Basis for th...

Article Ambartsumian, Arp and the Breeding Galaxies*

https://www.amazon.com/Dialectical-Universe-Some-Reflections-Cosmology/dp/9840414445

Abdul Malek What we understand from the universe is based on our imagination and the equipment that we have, however, it is not guaranteed to be true.

Assume a photo of a guy on the well that he has a brain in his own way and coordinate. In front of him in the middle of the room, there is one electricity cable and further back there is another one with the opposite charge. Since the guy is two dimensional and consequently he has a two-dimensional mind, that evidence is a paradox how those two cables do not discharge. Now thinks about many solutions to make that paradox understandable, including a duality concept. You may laugh at this example and the primitive understanding of the 2D guy, however, that is a serious thing for him. We are 3D guys with 3D imagination. So, my advice to you is don't be so sure about how do you see and think. For a 4D guy, our understanding is so primitive as well. That's why I respect the experiments rather than philosophical thinking. The idea of quantum mechanics is not based on experiments as it pretends. It is solely based on philosophical thinking. That's why quantum lovers don't dare to do the experiments that they may bring contradictories.

That's why I mentioned before about dogmatism which is a monster in the history and life of the human.

In the experimental works, we won't experience dogmatism and we keep carry on doing more to get knowledge more and more.

Dogmatism has it's own science.

Aden Handasyde and killed so many people who believed that the Earth is rotating around the Sun. Right?

Yes, and many other attrocities to which you seem to have studied. Is this to say don't kill the chinese just because their chinese? Particularly without the force of preventing it, or is it to leave out that relative to the earth the sun is rotating? They were right to challenge those against the way of the other's being. Or at least it would have to seem if it was so on God's call.

Farhad Vedad

Good luck with your Newtonian approach to physics - "Hypotheses non fingo" and "Physics beware of metaphysics"! It is just the exact polar opposite of the Einsteinian stance that "the consistency of mathematics alone" is enough to know the world. Both are just the two opposite sides of the same crap-science!

A frog in the well could not be more happy remaining busy either with Newtonian "physical experiments" or with Einsteinian "thought experiments" for centuries; to know it's world! Cheers!

Aden Handasyde Sorry Aden, I didn't get what you want to say, anyhow I think everyone around the world who believe in human rights may not accept those kinds of activities, however, I didn't get what is the connection to the topic that I started? Please share solely you experiences about physics. Thanks.

Abdul Malek Dear Abdul Malek,

It seems that you just want to antagonize with others even if you haven't understood them.

Please read my first topics first. I am looking forward to seeing a new horizon due to more definition of the "space", then you accuse me that I follow Newtonian idea?

Sir, in the Newtonian concept, "Space" is just nothing. At least, we have achieved some better understanding based on the idea of Einstein.

By the way, as I mentioned to you before, I am not interested in philosophy, religions, and whatever else that touches this kind of issues. As I mentioned before, I would like solely to share and hear the results of the experimental works.

Thank you.

Dear readers,

Here it seems that I should clarify my idea about diffraction.

Along with my research, I am trying to take one step more for the definition of the "Space" and its quality. My concern about diffraction is that it is not because of the wave, particle or wave-particle duality of light at all. In my opinion, the diffracted space with in-homogeneous refractive index causes a series of trajectories that we call it diffraction.

Dogmatism is an idea of heritability of information. Concretism, solidity, foundations, fundamentals, axioms, decrees. Commandments, orders. Job descriptions.

Dogmatism is an essential component of meta-law, laws about laws, the laws that describe the discoveries of the laws of maths and physics. For a law to be discovered, it must depend on prior truth about laws, and that discovery has a law, just as this discovery does also. At one layer, it is dogmatic, in the sense that a law that in being discovered creates a law, the law is created by the language of discovery, and so is like a commandment, of order, or concrete on top of a foundation. If you know how a prior law is discovered, there is a law to describe it.

Verbal evidence depends on a degree of dogmatism.

Aden Handasyde Thanks Aden! Very useful information. Sorry for my English since it is my 2nd language.

Farhad Vedad,

I wanted to quit this forum, but your highlighting of my name makes RG to send notices to me.

I could not care less if you dislike or have nothing to do with philosophy. All I am saying is that there is a dialectical relation between empirical/experimental facts and theory (philosophical thought); both are essential. Physics cannot work without theory (metaphysics, philosophy); because without theory (metaphysics, philosophy) you soon get buried under mountain of increasing empirical/experimental facts and grope in the darkness. Generalization with some simplifying concepts or theory helps to get a handle on the mountain of empirical facts and deal with them easily to find a way out!

What is more, in some area of investigation, empirical facts and experiments often gives conflicting, confusing and hazy picture of the landscape; the brilliant insight of a theory illuminates not only the whole landscape to clear vision, but also the surrounding area for further research and experiment. Where would physics now be if it heeded to the warning of Newton, “physics beware of metaphysics”? But now, with Einsteinian mathematical idealism physics has gone to the exact opposite pole – no empirical/experimental facts are necessary – mathematical consistency alone can lead the way! This is the miserable fate of physics under the either/ or (either experiment or theory, but not both together) world view of causality (God not playing with dice!).

You now claim to try to understand “diffracted space” with your experiments. But for doing that you have no choice but to take resort to philosophy, my friend! With “spacetime” Einstein did exactly the same thing that you wish to shun! But Einstein used the faulty philosophy of mathematical/geometrical idealism. The so-called “spacetime”, the fundamental basis of GRT is an abstract, artificial and esoteric geometrical/mathematical construct; supposedly with impossible physical, mechanical, metric etc. properties. This is a theory of mathematics but not a theory of physics; because "matter" and "motion" - the heart and soul physics has no role in GRT.

For a more scientific and philosophical view of space and time please (if interested) see the following: Article The Philosophy of Space-Time: Whence Cometh "Matter" and "Motion"?

Note: This would be my last comment in this forum.

Farhad Vedad and all

In my opinion the wave particle problem is no less than a paradox. I think the start was when Potier introduced the effect in the transverse arm in the MMX tests. His motivation was a mixture of wave and particle behavior and that mistake started the wave or particle dilemma; he also started the dilation of time, and spoiled the time concept.

Therefore, these two paradoxes should be treated together. If you are interested i have written about this problem to RG. You can see it in How time dilation was corrupted and also in The most fundamental paradox.

From ____________ John-Erik

Abdul Malek I don't deny philosophy such Stephen Hawking and how he talks about Husserl. But in the of the day, philosophy is not my job. I have already studied about your resume and in which universities you have taught physics. If and only if I am successful, then I leave the relevant philosophy to people such as you. In my own case, the experiments talk to me.

About 6 years ago, and after about 20 years of working on diffraction, I got an idea that diffraction might be connected to refraction due to its trajectories when I used a 0.35 mm slot.

If my understanding was correct then the light should slow down while passing through a single slit. But I had a big problem. My assumption estimated that the time delay of passing light through a 0.1 mm slot could be about 0.04 ps. measuring such a tiny time duration is almost impossible and even if it is possible it is still confusing since the size of nose and jitters are nearly fifty time more. So, that tiny time duration can be easily ignored among the noises.

Solving this problem took me another five years. Until I lined up 200 single slits that caused the time delay about 8 ps that could be recognized from the noises.

Then I used the nano second pulsed lasers (450, 520, and 640 nm) to see if the time delay of those three wavelengths matches the Cauchy equation respected with the refractive index.

When I got the result, then I came to this point that the space is not just a holder, however, it has more quality than what we have achieved.

How this system may work, it's your job, not mine.

Thank again Dr. Malek.

John-Erik Persson Hej John-Erik!

Tusen tack för dem två Pdf filer. Jag gärna läsa dem så snabt som möjligt och snart kommer jag tillbaks till dig.

I have already downloaded both the Pdf files. I really appreciate that.

Farhad Vedad

Jag ser fram emot det.

John-Erik

John-Erik Persson Sorry that I am writing in English to be readable by everyone.

About your two Pdf file, I would say that my knowledge about Ether is almost zero. however, in the end of the day it doesn't help me, since your idea may touches "transformations for kinematics" and also p++ a+ e− → n, where "a" is etherino.

If you assume that the ether conceived as a universal medium with very high energy density via an entity, it is still unable to explain why the light speed down near the surface of objects or the appearance of diffraction for the long wavelength and short wavelength is different if the refractive index of the barriers and the medium are nearly the same according to my own experiments, as quantum concept may not explain it either. This may apply for a very basic and meanwhile obvious phenomena such as the glory around the shadows.

If some you or someone else achieve to complete the Mendeleev table with ether, we still assume the "space" as a holder only in parallel with quantum concept.

Dear Farhad Vedad

How come you speak Swedish?

I do not know much about light behavior. However, the most important thing in my paper is the conclusion that there is no effect in the transverse arm in MMX. Therefore, MMX indicates Galilean transform and matter contraction twice the Lorentz contraction. This conclusion follows from the notion that aligning an optical system means making wave fronts parallel to mirrors or orthogonal to optical axis. So, light is not forced to move transverse to mirror or along an optical axis. Therefore we can conclude that there is no time dilation.

Regards from John-Erik

John-Erik Persson You are probably right. In my opinion, MMX is just a different way of demonstrating diffraction and it doesn't provide any further information. Even the idea of setting the experiment table on a very heavy stone was so primitive either. We are spinning around the axis of Earth and meanwhile spinning around the sun and so on till our movement comparing the Big Bang. In a moment we are in another direction and position, so what is the meaning of 90 degree rotation at MMX?

Du frågade mig hur talar jag svenska. Det är för att jag är svensk heller. Jag bor i Göteborg men jag arbetar justnu i Storbritannien.

Ha en härlig dag!

All: Take five, as the famous jazz song says, and see the paragraphs below. First, you may hear "Take five" at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uEMzWuvUX44

Einstein SR has been effectively refuted, and Einstein GR will be also -- it is not a matter of if but of when.

This may be news here, and adds to this question, and complements my earlier entry here. How, and what that implies to science?

A mistake can be persistent and yet honest, for example, a non-Minkowski approach to relativistic particle dynamics has mistakenly been used even by physicists in particle tracking calculations, for about 70 (seventy) years (as found still in 2017).

It is a common misconception to likewise confuse the Einstein formulation of SR with the Minkowski formulation of SR, perhaps just "because" they are SR -- but they are of different types of SR, night and day.

For example, Minkowski's SR applies to ARBITRARY motion, including accelerated motion, and Einsteins' SR only to inertial motion, with constant speed.

Minkowski SR has been confirmed experimentally, not Einstein SR. It is also a common misconception that mass increases with speed, so-called "relativistic mass" -- but only in the beginning of Einstein SR -- it never did in Minkowski SR, nor Einstein GR.

RG has helpful people on that, who commonly blog, who could help, even with relevant already posted material. For example, Christian Baumgarten, and people can study also "Spacetime and Geometry : An Introduction to General Relativity" by Sean Carroll at Caltech, at RG in:

Article Spacetime and Geometry : An Introduction to General Relativi...

besides my own work also at RG, all of which fully support that Minkowski SR includes less contradictions than Einstein SR, including Einstein

>

himself who had to alter his SR to be compatible with Minkowski SR (albeit without attribution) in order to propose GR (yet, GR does NOT obey QM and must stand refuted).

We are all cooperating, where cooperation is then best defined as different people, doing different things, at different times, for the same objective. Understanding that, even contrarians are cooperating. And misinformation destroys itself, sooner or later. This can be understood using Shannon's 10th Theorem, where the "noise" itself is used to clean the "signal".

For example, there are certainly errors when your hard-disk reads the bytes off the disk, and yet you see a perfect file with error-correction automatically -- using Shannon.

Actually, this what I tried to say and thanks to Stan Sykora who immediately replied to my post and said, "Physics hypothesis, even the basic paradigms, are not sacred and they rarely survive, unscathed, 1-3 centuries (ever more often it takes much less, actually)."

This will be the same for QM and therefore we should be always open-minded and ready to take the next step toward a better understanding of the universe.

The reason that QM doesn't match the macroscopic issues is that it is based on approximations. Therefore QM cannot even explain the glory around the shadow of an airplane because the system and the object are too big to be considered by approximations.

Subsequently, I like what Heisenberg said about Columbus; "If I were asked what was Christopher Columbus' greatest achievement in discovering America, my answer would not be that he took advantage of the spherical shape of the earth to get to India by the western route—this idea had occurred to others before him—or that he prepared his expedition meticulously and rigged his ships most expertly—that, too, others could have done equally well. His most remarkable feat was the decision to leave the known regions of the world and to sail westward, far beyond the point from which his provisions could have got him back home again. In science, too, it is impossible to open up new territory unless one is prepared to leave the safe anchorage of established doctrine and run the risk of a hazardous leap forward. ... [W]hen it comes to entering new territory, the very structure of scientific thought may have to be changed, and that is far more than most men are prepared to do."

Javad Fardaei Dear Javad,

Thank you for your message and again thanks for following my experiment. Here I bring the answer to you question about light and I hope this is to your requirement.

My understanding about the experiments that I did, is that it is not similar to what Einstein said, however, I believe that the diffraction starts before the gap of the single slit and the photons move some how zig-zag inside the the gap and after a tiny distance out of the gap, it goes on different trajectories that we call them diffraction trajectories. In my opinion they fallow the Snell's law.

Dear Farhad

Is this experiment of slit in atmosphere or in vacuumed environment?

in the air, water, oil n1.4, oil n1.47, oil n1.52, oil n1.6

1- I did the single slit diffraction under water. Then I noticed that as much as the slot is smaller, the estimation of the refractive index of water is larger since the fringes squeezes more for the shorter wavelength.

This effect can be related to two issues. First, it can be because of the greater attraction of liquid molecules to each other the same as the surface tension and producing a local lens near the slit. However, it can be an unknown effect that it results in increasing the refractive index inside the slit indeed.

2- I lined up 200 single slits (width 0.1mm) along 450mm. Then I aligned a distance meter and a mirror along the axis of the slits either side. The beam of the distance meter would pass through 200 slits and later would be reflected by the mirror to another mirror and in the end back to the sensor of the distance meter. The distance meter showed a tiny longer distance that meant light slowed down.

3 - I did this experiment by using three nano second pulsed laser (450nm, 520nm, and 640nm) at 20 MHz signal generator. The 150 MHz photo detector was connected to oscilloscope and the results as I mentioned before appeared. The air cannot make lens effect as water. So, the only things that was left is that the refractive index inside the slots and subsequently near the surface of an object is getting higher that causes the light slows down.

4- This results get more thinkable when I increase the refractive index of the medium a bit higher than the refractive index of the barriers. I got a tiny bright zero-order fringe only for the red light in the far field but dark fringe in both near field and far field for the green and blue ray.

Javad Fardaei John-Erik Persson The Fraunhofer diffraction equation predicts that the maximum intensity of light appears at the zero-order fringe on the optical axis in the far field

But in my experiments, I saw that if the refractive index of the barriers are less than the medium then the Fraunhofer diffraction equation is not valid and the zero-order fringe can appear in different way based on the ratio of the refractive indices of the barriers and the medium.

This is the result for a glass single slit diffraction in the medium n1.6 and slot width 50 μm.

As you may see at this image,

- The zero-order fringe is Max for 650nm

- The first-order fringes in either side are Max for 520nm

- The zero-order is destructive for the 450nm

The Diffraction of a Single Slit with Transparent Barriers in Mediums with different Refractive Indices

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.23269.55527

LicenseCC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Thanks Farhad, very helpful.

Javad Fardaei Thank you Javad to spending time on my works.

Hi all,

I have updated my research for the diffraction of the transparent barriers. Please take a time and have look at the preprint file at:

Preprint The diffraction of the transparent barriers respect to refra...

Dear Farhad Vedad

What do you think about my article The Most Fundamental Paradox? I regard Bohr's complementarity as wishful thinking, or a symmetry that is not real.

It is very remarkable that in this discussion you have not said anything about the ether. If you introduce the ether you will find that:

• Electron is a particle, that can produce a wave behavior in the ether by periodic motions.
• Light is a wave motion that can produce a force on a bound electron by interference effects.

Why do you deny the concept that Maxwell described in 4 equations?

Regards from ___________ John-Erik