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.
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.
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.
## 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.
Diffraction patterns of electrons are believed to resemble those of electromagnetic waves (EMW). I performed a series of experiments invoked to show that the periodicity of peaks in the diffraction diagram of electrons is concerned with the periodicity of the arrangement of scattering centers in the diffraction grating in combination with the supposed character of the spatial structure of the electron as a system of regularly spaced concentric shells of elasticity. I started from the experiment on the diffraction of electrons and EMWs at the sharp edge of the opaque half-plane. This simple scattering configuration enabled me to discriminate between the re-radiation mechanism of the wave diffraction and ricochet scattering of electrons on the edge of the half-plane. Then I made experiments with scattering on composite objects proceeding step by step from a single straight edge to a couple of edges (one slit) and then to four edges (two slits). Thus I succeeded in interpretation of the double-slit diffraction (four straight edges) in terms of the scattering on a single edge. I managed also to observe the electron's trajectory. Equipping the slit's edge with a semiconductor sensors I registered the passing of the electron through the slit detecting simultaneously a weaker signal at another slit. This technique appeared not to destroy or disturb the "interference" pattern. Closing one slit by inserting therein a transparent for EMWs piece of dielectric I have found that the scattering pattern beneath this slit vanishes while the scattering pattern under the open slit remains as before when both slits were open. This experiment indicates that the electron "interferes" with its electromagnetic component passed via the slit plugged by the transparent for it dielectric.
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.
Huygens' principle successfully describes the propagation of spherical transverse waves, but its image of secondary wavelet superposition has never explained the physical mechanism of directed rays. This paper argues that this historical omission is the root cause of why quantum mechanical interpretation has long been trapped in the dilemmas of "wave-particle duality" and "measurement collapse." We complete the missing half of Huygens' principle by proposing that the matter wave excited by a point particle source is, in its intrinsic form, not a diffuse spherical transverse wave, but a directed longitudinal ray vibrating along the particle's direction of motion. In this model, a single particle always moves along a definite trajectory, passes through one slit of a double-slit apparatus, and does not interfere with itself. The interference pattern on the screen is the statistical result of rays converging on the screen after collision-deflection events at the slit walls. Double-slit interference, single-slit diffraction, and delayed-choice experiments are all brought into a unified collision-deflection statistical description.
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.