The wavelet envisioned by Huygen's in diffraction phenomenon is re-interpreted as being polarized after passing through slit/hole which removed the electric field component from the Electromagnetic Radiation (EM-R), the remained wave consist of the Circular Magnetic Field (CMF), this CMF lost the speed of light and the electric field, hence it's a short distance travel field, originated from the CMF produced by accelerated electrons, integrated with the Electric Field (EF) during the Flip-Flop (F-F) mechanism producing EM-R; hence the passing of light through a single hole/slit resulted in a CMF which reproduced as rings on the monitor screen in single wave diffraction, while the interference of two such CMF in double slits experiment, produced constructive or destructive interference forming patches on the monitor screen; and the perceived electron diffraction is an enter of two CMF from a single electron into a slit then emerged to produce constructive or destructive interference, in addition to the electron which entered and emerged from the slit with the stronger CMF, the paper finally derived the origin of Planck 'constant (h) for the second time; the logical interpretation of double slits diffraction will restore the common sense in the physical world, distorted by the pilot wave.
The wavelet envisioned by Huygen's in diffraction phenomenon is re-interpreted as being polarized after passing through slit/hole which removed the electric field component from the Electromagnetic Radiation (EM-R), the remained wave consist of the Circular Magnetic Field (CMF), this CMF lost the speed of light and the electric field, hence it's a short distance travel field, originated from the CMF produced by accelerated electrons, integrated with the Electric Field (EF) during the Flip-Flop (F-F) mechanism producing EM-R; hence the passing of light through a single hole/slit resulted in a CMF which reproduced as rings on the monitor screen in single wave diffraction, while the interference of two such CMF in double slits experiment, produced constructive or destructive interference forming patches on the monitor screen; and the perceived electron diffraction is an enter of two CMF from a single electron into a slit then emerged to produce constructive or destructive interference, in addition to the electron which entered and emerged from the slit with the stronger CMF, the paper finally derived the origin of Planck 'constant (h) for the second time; the logical interpretation of double slits diffraction will restore the common sense in the physical world, distorted by the pilot wave.
The wavelet envisioned by Huygen's in diffraction phenomenon is re-interpreted as a Polarized Wave (PW) after passing through slit/hole/or biaxial crystals which removed the electric field component from the Electromagnetic Radiation (EM-R), the resulted wave is what is known as the Conical Diffraction (CD) beam, the PW is originated from the Circular Magnetic Field (CMF) produced by accelerated electrons, integrated with the Electric Field (EF) during the Flip-Flop (F-F) mechanism producing EM-R; hence the passing of light through a single hole/slit/biaxial crystals, resulted in a PW which reproduced as rings on the monitor screen in single wave diffraction, while the interference of two such PW in double slits experiment, produced constructive or destructive interference forming patches on the monitor screen; and the perceived electron diffraction is an enter of two CMF from an accelerated electron into two slits then emerged to interfere constructively or destructively, and appears as patches, in addition to the electron which entered and emerged from the slit with the intense CMF, the paper finally derived the origin of Planck' constant (h) for the second time; the logical interpretation of double slits diffraction will restore the common sense in the physical world, distorted by the pilot wave.
## AbstractA deterministic interpretation of the double-slit experiment is proposed, in which the electron is treated as a localized particle at all times. The observed interference pattern is attributed to a real physical energy wave in the electromagnetic field, generated by the electron's accelerated motion through the field. This energy wave reaches the slit barrier, where the slit geometry creates coherent waves that merge to form a constructive interference wave. This wave redistributes energy in the field, creating an Electron-EMF coupled pathway that guides the particle to the detector. The apparent randomness of individual impacts arises from incomplete knowledge of the initial conditions, not from intrinsic indeterminism. The measurement effect is modelled as a disturbance of the coherent energy waves, either preventing the formation of the coupled pathway or destroying it after formation. The model is extended to the quantum eraser experiment, where the restoration of coherence via a polarizer naturally explains the reappearance of interference. A further extension to the delayed-choice quantum eraser is proposed, introducing the Entangled Constructive Interference Wave (ECIW) as a physical mechanism for entanglement within the model. The mechanism is shown to apply across geometries beyond the double slit. Predictions include a correlation between landing position and flight time, offering a testable distinction from standard quantum mechanical interpretations. A preliminary, illustrative mathematical framework is provided, situating the model within the pilot-wave tradition. **Keywords: ** Double-slit experiment, pilot wave, electromagnetic field, quantum interpretation, determinism, hidden variables, measurement problem, energy wave, coupled pathway, quantum eraser, delayed-choice quantum eraser, entanglement.
The mainstream quantum mechanics uses “probability wave superposition and single-electron self-interference” to explain electron single-slit and double-slit diffraction. This theory deviates from the essential nature of real particle interactions and has fundamental logical flaws. The electron is a negatively charged real particle with a definite physical size and high-frequency transverse oscillation; a single real particle has no physical basis for self-interference. Abandoning the abstract probability wave hypothesis, this paper establishes a complete real-interaction model including electrostatic repulsion deflection, surface electron exchange, collision scattering, microscopic refraction, and barrier diffraction, based on the three-dimensional random transverse oscillation and charge repulsion of electrons. The model uniformly explains the real formation mechanism of electron single-slit diffraction and double-slit interference fringes. This paper proves that in single-electron sequential emission, each electron passes through only one slit; all bright and dark fringes are the statistical result of multiple microscopic interactions between electrons and slit walls or the central barrier. The disappearance of fringes under observation is caused by external disturbance to the inherent oscillation and wall-interaction equilibrium, not by wave function collapse. This paper further clarifies that whether an electron can pass through a slit is determined by its transverse oscillation amplitude, not by wavelength. Amplitude directly corresponds to slit width and is the core controlling variable of diffraction. Meanwhile, if no slit is placed, electrons flying directly to the screen produce no diffraction or interference fringes, proving that electrons themselves have no self-interference ability. Fringes are generated by slit structures, not by intrinsic wave interference of electrons. This study corrects the century-long misunderstanding of electron diffraction and establishes a new microscopic diffraction mechanism consistent with classical real-particle physics.
The puzzles of quantum mechanics are: 1. What is the medium for the photon and for the electron wave? i.e. what is waving? 2. How can a particle have an interference pattern 3. Observer effect. 4. Entanglement. In Quantum Erasure and Double-Slit experiments, how does the emitter know to direct the photon two both slits or only to one slit? And how does the detector know where to detect the photons to form an interference pattern and not a bell-shaped (Gaussian) pattern or vice versa? This paper proposes that the hint in the mystery of light waves without a medium (ether) is contained in the Planck’s relation itself: E = hf. It is shown that Planck’s relation itself hints on the mystery of light waves without medium, and is a consequence or manifestation of non-existence of a medium for light propagation. The subtle law of nature that has eluded physicists so far is that the photon energy density ( amplitude of electric and magnetic fields) at a given point in the spatial dimensions of the photon is directly related to the rate of change of the electric and magnetic fields at that point. The higher the frequency of the photon, the higher the rate of change of the fields at every point for that photon, compared to a photon of lower frequency. The higher the rate of change of the fields at a given point, the higher the amplitude of oscillation of the electric and magnetic fields at that point. It follows that the higher the frequency of the photon and the higher the amplitude of the electric and magnetic fields, which results in high intensity of vibration of the photon, the more localized it will be. A high frequency photon will spread less in space than a lower frequency photon of equal envelope amplitude because, if the high frequency photon spreads out, there would be high rates of change over a wider region of space, and the total energy would be greater than the finite photon energy. The photon energy will always be concentrated at regions of high rate of change of electric and magnetic fields. This theory explains how electric and magnetic fields can be their own ‘medium’ , 'dragging' of the electromagnetic energy by the wave, hence eliminating the need for any medium. Since the electromagnetic wave (the photon) is a traveling disturbance of electric and magnetic fields, the rate of change of the fields at a point in space will create the intensity (amplitude) of the fields at that point. Likewise, the electron wave is a travelling disturbance of the electron mass density wave on the electron ‘sea’. The higher the frequency of mass density variation of the electron at a given point of space, the higher the mass density of the electron at that point. This will make the electron ( the electron ‘sea’) its own medium of propagation. i.e. the electron ‘sea’ is the medium of propagation for the electron wave. This means that the electron wave 'drags' the electron with itself. The other theory proposed in this paper is the predetermination of interference fringes in double-slit experiments and predetermination of which slit the photon takes in which-way or quantum erasure experiments. We propose a fundamental law of nature that an electron, an atom or any source of electromagnetic waves will always emit a weak, continuous electromagnetic energy even when not excited, which implies that electrons and atoms are always in continuous, fundamental, weak vibrations (accelerations). Therefore, in double-slit experiments and in quantum erasure or which-way experiments, the atom (electron) of the light source is always emitting weak, continuous electromagnetic waves, even before the atom is excited. Therefore, even before the atom/the electron of the light source starts emitting a photon, a weak electromagnetic (light) wave exists as an entity, extending all the way from the light source (the atom) to the slits and to the detecting screen. This ‘precursor’ wave serves as the 'highway' for the propagation of the main photon energy packet, both of which are coherent and exist as an entity. When the atom is excited, it will just emit a photon that is coherent with the weak wave it had already been emitting continuously. Therefore, even before the atom is excited, a weak wave interference pattern already exists on the screen. The photon emitted after excitation simply follows the path already created by the weak ‘precursor’ wave and will land on the screen according to the predetermined interference pattern, collapsing to the point of detection at the instant of detection. The path to be taken by the photon is predetermined in which-way or quantum erasure experiments. The same theory explains quantum entanglement: the polarization of two entangled photons is predetermined even before the excitation of the atoms emitting the photons.
Abstract Since it was born before its physical achievements, light waves, which have almost no physical properties, are an abstract mathematical concept rather than an objective description. Confused by a set of dark and light streaks and a sketchy schematic that had little to do with the actual result, the double-slit test was misjudged as being caused by interfering light waves, so this plausible principle implied disastrous flaws. For example, (1) Just after passing through the double-slit device, the pattern is generated by light early or before interference. By changing the distance between the device and the screen, the pattern is only scaled synchronously without being reconstructed by interference, and imagined light-wave interference does not occur. (2) Interfering light waves can be subdivided into multiple parts and proliferate greatly. (3) A headless wave of light left outside the screen after the head disappears can still induce much interference. (4) There is no interference effect caused by reflected light waves. (5) The effect of polarization direction on interference is neglected, and the interference condition is incomplete. (6) In the mathematical model, not only are the spots with the highest brightness in the position where dark stripes should appear most, but the principle of generating multiple regular dark stripes cannot be found. (7) Since the quantum property must be carried out in the process of interference, if all conditions are not met at the same time, interference will not be triggered, and therefore, the principle of interference will be rejected. (8) Since light comes only from the radiation of the electron transition, it is impossible to generate a light source in a slit that may be a vacuum. (9) In the causality test, to verify the effect of collapse, the photon that has collapsed into a particle should be tested again with a double slit test. (10) Whether the phenomenon of "observed tampering results" obtained by observation has been tampered with. (11) When the phase is shifted π or the signal is reversed, waves become negative waves capable of annihilating themselves, which is typical of antimatter. In this case, matter and antimatter are conjoined. (12) If the general law of waves is followed, not only the targeted light wave passes through the slit. (13) The original version of the double-slit test cannot be reproduced, and the test results are different from those presented by contemporary technology. (14) Waves must obey Fourier's principle, but light waves, quantum waves and matter waves do not. (15) The modulation effect that waves must produce is not present in optical fiber communication. (16) If the light from different slits must interfere with each other, a mask full of slits will cause the lithographer to fail. (17) Since the size is much smaller than the wavelength, the photon is only a sampling of the light wave, but the corresponding physical properties are not presented. (18) The fact that the two stars orbiting each other do not change color only proves that the phenomenon of redshift is impossible but does not support the inference that the speed of light is constant. (19) The Michelson-Morley test process is not open and transparent enough, and pinhole diffraction and mechanical processing using broken lines instead of curves cannot be ruled out. (20) Kepler's law can block Hubble's law and its derivatives, dark matter and dark energy. In conclusion, Newton's particle model was wrong, but neither was the light wave theory.
Abstract If light wave interference is the cause of the double-slit test fringe, several conclusions deduced from this principle, which are far from the objective facts, are as follows: (1) The farther the propagation distance is, the larger the light wave, and therefore the larger the spot. (2) Interference only occurs on the way from the double-slit device to the light target. The longer the optical path is, the more interference points make the pattern brighter. (3) The stripes along the way are continuously modified by interference, and the interference in the whole interval creates the stripes. The pattern of the stripes of the moving light target should change with the distance. (4) Because the principle is exactly the same, interference should be able to cause dispersion. (5) The products of light wave interference should be the new light waves that diffuse around the interference point as the center of the ball. They will not only trigger more interference but also make the increment mode of the light wave form an exponential infinite iterative cycle. This would create a singularity similar to the Big Bang. (6) Dark stripes are generated not by sustainable interference but by one-off annihilation. (7) If the light source is replaced by another wave source, the corresponding results cannot be obtained by double-slit, Michelson–Morley and refraction tests. (8) Let alone a photon passing through two slits at once, since the fringe is much fainter than the source, it proves that unaimed light cannot pass through either slit. (9) It is impossible to generate anything from the interference point of size 0. (10) It is a good method to verify the collapse principle and achievement by a double-slit test with light that has collapsed into particles. (11) The fundamental properties of quantum will challenge the principle of interference. (12) For the phenomenon of "observation can tamper with results", because this phenomenon is also known through observation, it means that it has been tampered with. (13) Only light has the characteristic of polarization, and the absence of this unique characteristic in the interference condition is a fatal flaw. (14) Similar to driving a car, light is refracted by turning the beam toward the side that slows down first. (15) The principles of geometric optics, represented by reflection and focus, are observed only by photons and not by light waves. The principle of generating a wavelet source at the point of contact is a general law that waves obey but not that light waves obey. (16) The wavelet source principle applies only to water waves but not to light waves. (17) Because the direction of vibration and propagation is orthogonal, the s-wave cannot produce the Doppler effect. It is an objective astronomical phenomenon that the double star system orbiting each other does not produce a Doppler effect. This phenomenon cannot be regarded as evidence that the speed of light is constant but only as evidence that all celestial bodies cannot produce the Doppler effect; that is, redshift is a distortion of another astronomical phenomenon. The absorption spectrum of hydrogen is not radiation, and the redshift data are disputed. The redshift cannot turn light into circular magnetic lines. Dark matter provides gravity that could destroy the solar system. Hubble's law without the Doppler effect has no basis. (18) The principle that allows light to travel properly through transparent objects is opposed to opaque ones.