The interference of laser photons (λ=532 nm) when they pass through two slits of the same width has been studied. The interference is observed up to the value S≈11 mm between the slits. Based on this, the assumption has been made that all elementary particles are soliton formations of the electromagnetic field. Solitons of classical physics exhibit the properties of a wave and a corpuscle, thus, we have an explanation of the corpuscular-wave nature of elementary particles as a phenomenon of classical physics. For the formation of solitons, the presence of a medium with the properties of dispersion and nonlinearity is necessary, and this contradicts the foundations of SRT. In this regard, a number of problems related to the foundations of SRT have been analyzed. It has been established that SRT does not pass the verification by the correspondence principle, since at low speeds the Lorentz transformation of time does not pass into the Galilean transformation. This means that SRT cannot be a physical theory. The reader’s attention is drawn to the fact that the relationship between the mass of a body and its internal energy, as well as the dependence of the mass of a body on the speed of its motion, do not belong to the problems of the theory of relativity, and therefore, their experimental confirmation cannot be an argument in favor of SRT. It is shown that the idea of the independence of the speed of quanta on the speed of the frame has a direct experimental refutation – the results of measuring the rotation periods of Io (a satellite of Jupiter) taking into account the addition and subtraction of velocities make it possible to obtain results for the speed of light with an accuracy of 1% of the reference value. This is a direct experimental refutation of the SRT.
The interference of laser photons (λ=532 nm) when they pass through two slits of the same width has been studied. The interference is observed up to the value S≈11 mm between the slits. Based on this, the assumption has been made that all elementary particles are soliton formations of the electromagnetic field. Solitons of classical physics exhibit the properties of a wave and a corpuscle, thus, we have an explanation of the corpuscular-wave nature of elementary particles as a phenomenon of classical physics. For the formation of solitons, the presence of a medium with the properties of dispersion and nonlinearity is necessary, and this contradicts the foundations of SRT. In this regard, a number of problems related to the foundations of SRT have been analyzed. It has been established that SRT does not pass the verification by the correspondence principle, since at low speeds the Lorentz transformation of time does not pass into the Galilean transformation. This means that SRT cannot be a physical theory. The reader’s attention is drawn to the fact that the relationship between the mass of a body and its internal energy, as well as the dependence of the mass of a body on the speed of its motion, do not belong to the problems of the theory of relativity, and therefore, their experimental confirmation cannot be an argument in favor of SRT. It is shown that the idea of the independence of the speed of quanta on the speed of the frame has a direct experimental refutation – the results of measuring the rotation periods of Io (a satellite of Jupiter) taking into account the addition and subtraction of velocities make it possible to obtain results for the speed of light with an accuracy of 1% of the reference value. This is a direct experimental refutation of the SRT.
Within the framework of the ‘Pairwise Interference Model’ of light–matter interaction, it is postulated that light particles follow definite trajectories, and thus, for example, in the double-slit experiment, a particle can pass through only one of the two slits. On this premise, the interference of two photons is examined in greater detail. It is hypothesized that the interference of a photon pair requires the involvement of matter and, initially, that both molecular excitations and photons oscillate at the same frequency and that the continuity of the oscillation is not disrupted by absorption and emission. The molecular excitations in the light source are supposed to oscillate synchronously. Both photons arrive at the same point on the detector but may travel along different paths and therefore arrive at different times. Under these conditions, their phase difference, φ(2) – φ(1), is always zero. Consequently, no interference pattern can form on the detector screen and therefore the assumptions made are incorrect. Alternatively, one may assume that only the photon oscillates, whereas the excitation stores the phase, φ, possessed by the photon at the instant of absorption. In this case, φ(2) – φ(1) corresponds to the difference in travel times modulo the oscillation period, and an interference pattern can form. However, this assumption is problematic for some reasons: the nature of the matter-based memory remains unclear; according to the special theory of relativity, no time elapses for a particle travelling at the speed of light, meaning that it cannot oscillate; and the assumption contradicts Bohr’s correspondence principle. In a classical wave, the phase information propagates away from the source at the wave velocity without changing. This leads to the alternative possibility that the excitations oscillate, whereas the photons do not. Instead, the photons transport information about the phase of the excitation at the instant of emission. As can be shown, in this case, φ(2) – φ(1) likewise corresponds to the difference in travel times modulo the oscillation period. However, this hypothesis contradicts the de Broglie postulate, according to which all particles exhibit wave properties, and the relation ε = hν must therefore be interpreted differently. It also raises the question of how the dimensions of a laser, specifically the mirror separation, can influence the wavelength of the amplified light if a photon has no wavelength. Using replicator dynamics and the ‘Pairwise Interference Model’ of light–matter interaction, a simulation demonstrates that, in a simplified laser model, assuming that photons do not oscillate whereas excitations do, self-organisation gives rise to a phase pattern in the sequence of photons within the emitted light beam that corresponds to the pattern obtained by discretising a classical wave. Thus, coherent light can exhibit wave properties even if photons themselves do not. Finally, the possibility of how incoherent light acquires wave properties is briefly discussed.
The double-slit experiment is usually taken as evidence that a particle is also a wave. We show by simulation that a definite particle, moving through a physical medium and guided by its own wave, produces the same interference pattern, with no constant fitted to the pattern. Space is modeled as a compressible particle medium with a short-range stiffness. A particle set in motion disturbs it once. The disturbance disperses, and the particle carries with it the part of the wave whose group velocity matches its own speed, so the wavelength at the particle is fixed by its speed alone, λ ∝ 1/v, with no oscillator and no continued pushing. That wave passes through two slits and interferes as any wave does. The particle passes through one slit, keeps its speed, and takes its direction from the flow of the wave around it. It lands where the wave is bright. Hundreds of particles, sent one at a time, reproduce the wave's own pattern: at three speeds and two slit spacings, up to nine bright lanes with empty dark bands between them, lane spacing that scales with the wavelength of the wave it carries, the same pattern for a stream of particles as for one, and no lanes when one slit is closed. The rule that steers the particle has no strength, no frequency, and no free constant, and it is the same rule at every scale because each particle's wave is sized to itself. The result depends on one condition: that the particle's launch point lie well beyond the near-field distance of the slit pair, which laboratory sources satisfy. We record the rules that were tried and failed and the numerical pitfalls, and we state what remains open: the silent coast is a postulate, the mass dependence of the wavelength is untested, and the work is two-dimensional.
Abstract The theory of light waves contains a number of errors that violate a fundamental principle of physics: photons can be subdivided indefinitely. Photons can multiply indefinitely. If the phase is shifted π, the electromagnetic, light, or matter waves become negative electromagnetic, negative light, or antimatter waves, respectively, which cancel themselves out. The wavelet sources of light waves are of unknown origin. Photons can be regenerated and reused. The conditions for light waves to interfere do not take into account the effect of polarization direction. The effect of the reflected wave is not represented in the interference fringe. The weak transmittance of the double-slit device will not stand up to close scientific scrutiny. Masks similar to double slit devices do not allow the lithography machine to function properly if the light waves interfere. The pattern of fringe deduced by mathematical model is different from that of double slit interference test. Light waves without bandwidth cannot be accommodated by the theory of electromagnetic waves. The physics of light waves contradicts the principle of the Fourier transform. The spectrum of electromagnetic waves modulated by the transmitted information must produce modulation effect, but this effect does not occur in optical fiber communication. Because the size is much smaller than the wavelength, the photon is sampled equivalent to the light wave, but the corresponding physical properties are not represented by the photon. The wave-particle duality is incompatible with the Doppler principle. To sum up, the conclusion that light waves interfere with each other to produce fringes in the results of double-slit interference test is reached under the condition that most of the physical properties of waves are stripped away, and this conclusion is divorced from objectivity. The theory of light waves is not correct. In any case, light is not a wave. Light waves are misunderstood.
Abstract The theory of light waves contains a number of errors that violate a fundamental principle of physics: photons can be subdivided indefinitely. Photons can multiply indefinitely. If the phase is shifted π, the electromagnetic, light, or matter waves become negative electromagnetic, negative light, or antimatter waves, respectively, which cancel themselves out. The wavelet sources of light waves are of unknown origin. Photons can be regenerated and reused. The conditions for light waves to interfere do not take into account the effect of polarization direction. The effect of the reflected wave is not represented in the interference fringe. The weak transmittance of the double-slit device will not stand up to close scientific scrutiny. Masks similar to double slit devices do not allow the lithography machine to function properly if the light waves interfere. The pattern of the fringe deduced by the mathematical model is different from that of the double slit interference test. Light waves without bandwidth cannot be accommodated by the theory of electromagnetic waves. The physics of light waves contradicts the principle of the Fourier transform. The spectrum of electromagnetic waves modulated by the transmitted information must produce a modulation effect, but this effect does not occur in optical fiber communication. Because the size is much smaller than the wavelength, the photon is sampled equivalent to the light wave, but the corresponding physical properties are not represented by the photon. The wave-particle duality is incompatible with the Doppler principle. In summary, the conclusion that light waves interfere with each other to produce fringes in the results of the double-slit interference test is reached under the condition that most of the physical properties of waves are stripped away, and this conclusion is divorced from objectivity. The theory of light waves is not correct. In any case, light is not a wave. Light waves are misunderstood.
Preface Foreword Instead of introduction: in classical physics there is no analogy of particles interference. When a quantum-particle passes only one of the two opened slits, the interference disappears Photon and soliton: the expressions for the energy of the photon and the energy of classical electromagnetic waves are completely different and cannot be derived from one another Uncertainties: when a monochromatic wave is passed through a shutter with a very short opening time, the light after the shutter is no more monochromatic Initial conditions and probabilities: spontaneous decays are chance events. They do not depend on prehistory or any other factors Stimulated gamma quanta emission: the relations between the coefficients of Einstein for stimulated emission and absorption are valid for all transitions Gamma lasers and very narrow Mossbauer gamma line: it is impossible to build a gamma laser using a transition between a very long living and a very short living excited state Electromagnetic energy density at low and high temperature: forbidden transitions in gaseous nebulae emit photons only because of inverse population The science is screened behind the observable: only observable quantities are real and have a meaning The common wave function is screened behind the mathematical possibilities:the wave function is not real but statistical Quantum physics and classical thermodynamics: quantum physics is a complete science Index.
Abstract. It is shown that a solitary quantum system (photon, electron) when passing through two open slits could interfere because of the real de Broglie’s wave which “guide ” the particle to well-defined directions. A comparison between classical waves and particle waves can show the essential differences in the interpretations of interference phenomenon of the particles known up to now. New experiments are proposed which could distinguish between the classical electromagnetic waves and the photon-solitons. These experiments are simple, effective and decisive because they can change our understanding of nature. PACS number: 03.65.Ta 1