I sometimes wonder why physics itself doesn’t deal directly with physical ontology, since ‘ontology’ is philosophy. Nonetheless, in the realm of the philosophy of physics, I’d like to bring up for our reasoning the possibility of a fractal universe guided, obviously, by the same fundamental laws across scales. Take the atom as the the initial example: it has a ‘solid’ core which accounts for more than 99% of its mass and an electron shell; the solar system has a star which accounts for the majority of the mass; galaxies orbits massive black holes. Therefore, perhaps the “wave versus particle” might not be the right approach. The photon itself could have a “particle” AND (not OR) a “wavy”. The "wavy body (W)" would be arranged from the quantum vacuum in the lag period in between the atom’s excitation and the emission of its delta particle (Δ). Its "wavy body (W)" moves towards the possible absorption sites and the “particle (Δ)” makes its discreet transition (as the electron leaps through atomic orbitals). Take this thought to the double slit experiment: the "wavy body" passes through both slits but the discrete transition of the particle core does not divide itself (since it’s theoretically indivisible, as Einstein’s Noble Prize suggests) — and each photon indeed leaves only one mark and not two half-marks on the screen. With the “observer” (a physical forced interaction), what was once a single photonic event from emission to absorption becomes another event from the slits forward. Also from 1905 Einstein’s annus mirabilis — Special Relativity — one of the theories best tested and confirmed, yet it does not provide the ontological answer for the photon’s own inertial referential. My argumentation here is not against the theory itself, evidently, but I see the nonexistent referential as an ontological clue rather than a mathematical issue. Taking it to cosmology, applying the same fundamental principles across scales, between the state of excitation to emission, for the massive inertial references from emission to absorption, the wavy body of the photon would be felt by the ~300.000 Km/s, however, from the own perspective of the photon, emission and absorption would be the “same time” because its particle (Δ) does a discrete transition from within its "wavy body". That would preserve both locality and reality, and, especially from the Quantum Mechanics theoretical framework, would, apparently, preserve its experimental validity. Nevertheless, it all is "just philosophy".
I sometimes wonder why physics itself doesn’t deal directly with physical ontology, since ‘ontology’ is philosophy. Nonetheless, in the realm of the philosophy of physics, I’d like to bring up for our reasoning the possibility of a fractal universe guided, obviously, by the same fundamental laws across scales. Take the atom as the the initial example: it has a ‘solid’ core which accounts for more than 99% of its mass and an electron shell; the solar system has a star which accounts for the majority of the mass; galaxies orbits massive black holes. Therefore, perhaps the “wave versus particle” might not be the right approach. The photon itself could have a “particle” AND (not OR) a “wavy”. The "wavy body (W)" would be arranged from the quantum vacuum in the lag period in between the atom’s excitation and the emission of its delta particle (Δ). Its "wavy body (W)" moves towards the possible absorption sites and the “particle (Δ)” makes its discreet transition (as the electron leaps through atomic orbitals). Take this thought to the double slit experiment: the "wavy body" passes through both slits but the discrete transition of the particle core does not divide itself (since it’s theoretically indivisible, as Einstein’s Noble Prize suggests) — and each photon indeed leaves only one mark and not two half-marks on the screen. With the “observer” (a physical forced interaction), what was once a single photonic event from emission to absorption becomes another event from the slits forward. Also from 1905 Einstein’s annus mirabilis — Special Relativity — one of the theories best tested and confirmed, yet it does not provide the ontological answer for the photon’s own inertial referential. My argumentation here is not against the theory itself, evidently, but I see the nonexistent referential as an ontological clue rather than a mathematical issue. Taking it to cosmology, applying the same fundamental principles across scales, between the state of excitation to emission, for the massive inertial references from emission to absorption, the wavy body of the photon would be felt by the ~300.000 Km/s, however, from the own perspective of the photon, emission and absorption would be the “same time” because its particle (Δ) does a discrete transition from within its "wavy body". That would preserve both locality and reality, and, especially from the Quantum Mechanics theoretical framework, would, apparently, preserve its experimental validity. Nevertheless, it all is "just philosophy".
I sometimes wonder why Physics itself doesn’t deal directly with physical ontology, since ‘ontology’ is philosophy.Nonetheless, in the realm of the philosophy of physics, I’d like to bring up for our reasoning the possibility of a fractal universe guided, obviously, by the same fundamental laws across scales. Take the atom as the the initial example: it has a ‘solid’ core which accounts for more than 99% of its mass and an electron shell; the solar system has a star which accounts for the majority of the mass; galaxies orbits massive black holes.Therefore, perhaps the “wave versus particle” might not be the right approach.The photon itself could have a “particle” AND (not OR) a “wavy body”. The "wavy body (W)" would be arranged from the quantum vacuum in the lag period in between the atom’s excitation and the emission of its delta particle (Δ).Its "wavy body (W)" moves towards the possible absorption sites and the “particle (Δ)” makes its discreet transition (as the electron leaps through atomic orbitals). Take this thought to the double slit experiment: the "wavy body" passes through both slits but the discrete transition of the particle core does not divide itself (since it’s theoretically indivisible, as Einstein’s Noble Prize suggests) — and each photon indeed leaves only one mark and not two half-marks on the screen.With the “observer” (a physical forced interaction), what was once a single photonic event from emission to absorption becomes another event from the slits forward. Also from 1905 Einstein’s annus mirabilis — Special Relativity — one of the theories best tested and confirmed, yet it does not provide the ontological answer for the photon’s own inertial referential.My argumentation here is not against the theory itself, evidently, but I see the nonexistent referential as an ontological clue rather than a mathematical issue. Taking it to cosmology, applying the same fundamental principles across scales, between the state of excitation to emission, for the massive inertial references from emission to absorption, the wavy body of the photon would be felt by the ~300.000 Km/s, however, from the own perspective of the photon, emission and absorption would be the “same time” because its particle (Δ) does a discrete transition from within its "wavy body". That would preserve both locality and reality, and, especially from the Quantum Mechanics theoretical framework, would, apparently, preserve its experimental validity.Nevertheless, it all is "just philosophy".
Abstract The double-slit experiment is a classic experiment that presents the clearest manifestation of wave-particle duality, one of the fundamental principles of quantum mechanics. The double-slit experiment still remains the phenomenon that demonstrates wave-particle duality at the most fundamental level. This phenomenon quantitatively and conceptually demonstrates that microscopic objects can behave like both waves and particles at the same time. This article provides an in-depth analysis of the physical nature of dualism, the mechanism of formation of the interference pattern, and the impact of the act of observation on the dynamics of quantum systems. The need for a new perspective on this topic is due to the fact that the current uncertainty in the interpretation of quantum reality has not yet been completely eliminated, and the boundaries between classical and quantum behavior in microscopic objects are still being explored. The results presented here restructure the deep mechanisms of the interference picture, more clearly frame the relationship between observation and wavefunction collapse, and provide a quantum. Since the article attempts to provide a complete answer to the mechanism of the formation of wave-particle duality, extensive space is given to sections such as historical development, theoretical models, modern research, etc. New approaches to this phenomenon have been developed using modern research and string theory. As a result, a new mathematical expression has been proposed that explains the reasons for the initial emergence of wave-particle duality, and is also important for string theory. The article explains the measurement problem with a more effective physical structure and ontological model.
In the double slit experiment - - central to quantum mechanics and thus to all of reality - - when you LOOK at the particle, it always passes through ONLY ONE slit - - EITHER the right slit OR the left slit, acting like a particle. However, when you AREN’T looking at it, it somehow always passes through BOTH slits - - the right slit AND the left slit - - at the same time, acting like a wave. All of nature is now KNOWN to be both wave and particle simultaneously - - actually, one entity (“wavicle”), not two - - at the most fundamental level of reality. However, no one seems to have ever asked the question: How can anything, much less everything, be in TW0 places at the same time AND ALSO SIMULTANEOUSLY be in ONLY ONE place at the same time? The known laws of physics make this absolutely impossible. Therefore, at least one of our laws must be wrong. In some fundamental mathematical and physical sense, 2 MUST ALSO BE (- - EQUAL- -) 1: 2 AS 1. The right and left slits, seemingly opposite, must at the deepest level of reality be “married” to each other - - one slit, not two. Extending this argument to Schrodinger’s cat, life and death, seemingly opposite, must at the deepest level of reality be “married” to each other, 2 AS 1. Just as all apparent opposites, it must be true that ultimately, life and death must be one thing, not two. This, then, is an all-optimistic physics - - probably the first such theory ever. But it is based entirely on firm scientific fact.
Diffraction and interference fringes are stable and reproducible objective phenomena in optical experiments. Mainstream quantum mechanics puts forward the ontological interpretation of wave particle duality. It holds that the material ontology of micro particles such as photons inherently possesses both particle and wave properties, and attributes diffraction and interference phenomena directly to the intrinsic matter wave behavior of particles. This interpretation stays at the level of observational appearance and avoids underlying ontological dynamic mechanisms. It represents a research approach that deduces the intrinsic properties of material ontology merely from external observations. Within the framework of the light ontology theory, a photon is an energy state object. Energy and motion at the speed of light form an inseparable whole and are permanently bound together and cannot be separated. In the real universe, no photon with energy that does not travel at the speed of light has ever been observed. Nor has any object moving at the speed of light without energy been detected. The two cannot exist independently from one another. A photon has no physical volume but possesses inherent fixed transverse trembling property. At the moment a photon is generated, it acquires a definite trembling angle within a 360 degree spatial plane perpendicular to its propagation direction. This transverse trembling orientation remains unchanged without physical collision interaction. When the transverse trembling of a photon can reach the slit wall, absorption and reradiation secondary scattering will occur. Massive secondary photons superpose statistically to form bright and dark diffraction and interference fringes. Slit walls are stacked by large numbers of atoms. Their spatial scale is hundreds of thousands to tens of millions times larger than the scale of photon transverse trembling. For photons, slit walls constitute huge physical barriers and can produce significant interactions with trembling photons. The wave function is only a mathematical tool for fitting experimental data. Good fitting performance of a mathematical model does not mean its corresponding physical interpretation equals objective physical reality. This paper proposes a new set of comparative decisionmaking experiments. The key innovation is to place a linear polarizer in front of the slit. Before photons contact the slit, the transverse trembling orientation of photons is pre screened. The transverse trembling direction of transmitted photons is made parallel to the orientation of vertical slit walls to suppress oscillation components perpendicular to slit walls and make it difficult for photons to hit slit walls. Polarizers with different grating line widths can be replaced to observe the influence of the grating scale of polarizers on experimental results. According to the physical mechanism of slit wall scattering, characteristic diffraction and interference fringes will be greatly attenuated and only the central direct light spot will remain. Non ideal device characteristics will bring a small amount of stray scattering background, but complete bright and dark diffraction and interference structures will not appear. According to the traditional ontological interpretation of wave particle duality, the geometric parameters of slits remain completely unchanged. Only polarization orientation screening is conducted and the intrinsic matter wave of particle ontology is not affected. Therefore diffraction and interference fringes should be fully preserved. The two theories produce mutually exclusive observable predictions. This experiment can test whether the ontological interpretation of wave particle duality holds true. This paper does not deny objective diffraction and interference phenomena, nor does it deny the practical value of wave function as an engineering calculation tool.
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.
This paper presents a foundational thought experiment and proposes a radical ontological framework for interpreting quantum mechanics and the nature of time. It moves beyond conventional interpretations by testing them against a novel scenario: a hypothetical "time machine" (device 𝒲) capable of passively reading the past state of a quantum system without interacting with it. The central testbed is the classic double-slit experiment. In Stage 1, performed at time T_0, the experiment is run without any path detection, yielding the standard interference pattern. In Stage 2, at a later time T_0 + ΔT, the device 𝒲 is used to retroactively "read" the precise state of the system at the moment the electron passed the slit plane. The pivotal question is: What information about the electron's path will 𝒲 find? The analysis demonstrates that established interpretations face significant paradoxes: The Copenhagen Interpretation risks falling into retrocausality, as the mere potential for future path-information readout could retroactively collapse the interference pattern. The Many-Worlds Interpretation leads to internal inconsistency, as the deterministic, single-path history observed within a given branch by 𝒲 contradicts the interference pattern observed in that same branch's past. The de Broglie-Bohm (dBB) Interpretation, while positing a hidden trajectory, struggles with the mechanism of how 𝒲 could read this information without interacting with the guiding pilot wave, which is essential for the interference effect. As a resolution, the paper proposes a new ontological model based on a geometric, discrete conception of reality. The core tenets are: Fundamental Entities: Reality is a dynamic network of "p-gluons," postulated as geometric quanta of spacetime. Discrete Frames: Observable reality is not continuous but consists of a sequential generation of discrete, global "frames" (K_i). Each frame is a complete geometric snapshot of the entire p-gluon network's configuration. The Axiom of Record Economy (AOZ): This is the central formal postulate. At each generative step, at most one frame from the space of locally possible states (ℋ_poss) is physically realized. A frame is generated if and only if it satisfies a condition of global consistency with the entire history, as determined by a fundamental "algorithm of reality" (𝒜). Crucially, states in ℋ_poss that are not selected for generation attain no ontological status whatsoever; they are abstract possibilities, not unrecorded facts. Emergent Time: Observable time is not a fundamental background parameter but an emergent measure of the rate (Ḳ) at which these global frames are generated. Within this Frame-Recording Ontology, the time-machine paradox finds an elegant and decisive solution: In the double-slit experiment without a detector, the only configuration consistent (via algorithm 𝒜) with the future observation of an interference pattern is a global superposed state. This state, describable as an extended pattern of geometric correlations in the p-gluon network encompassing both slits, is the one and only frame generated (K_T0). Deterministic "path" frames (electron at S_1 or S_2) are not generated; they remain unrealized abstractions. Therefore, when device 𝒲 reads the past, it accesses the sole ontological record: frame K_T0. It finds no geometric data corresponding to a classical path because such data was never physically recorded. The answer is not "the information is hidden" (epistemology), but "the corresponding fact was never generated" (ontology). The paper elaborates on the non-anthropomorphic, non-teleological nature of algorithm 𝒜, framing it as a constraining structure akin to a variational principle rather than a conscious selector. It discusses the model's implications for the measurement problem (reinterpreted as the generation of a "classical" frame), nonlocality, and its philosophical shift from epistemic to ontological indeterminacy. Methodology: The work is developed using the author's "Pencil Case Philosophy" or "Sonar Modeling" approach. This methodology begins by constructing minimal axiomatic building blocks (p-gluons, AOZ, 𝒜), activates the system, and rigorously traces its logical consequences without prior commitment to reproducing existing theoretical frameworks.