http://galileoandeinstein.physics.virginia.edu/lectures/michelson.html

About the aether wind as it is stated in the above, with the idea that we are trying to see if light is like sound waves... I do not see what this aether wind is suppose to be in reference to. It is certainly not the light wave itself because they are trying to see what effect an aether wind would have on light traveling through IT. So to me there seems to be this introduction of an SECOND independent aether disturbance (aether wind/wave) that is supposedly moving in some direction and is again completely indepedent of the aether disturbance that is a light wave. So this aether wind concept comes out of nowhere with no given explaination, but my question is also why it is supposedly moving in some forward direction? That is not how we describe a sound wave anyway, a sound wave is basically the vibration of air, say up and down, the air itself does not flow forward. Ok so again, if light is like sound and is a vibration of an aether medium, this aether does not move forward with the wave, but that is all besides the point because were no confusing the issue and talking about this second independent disturbance wave. The above M&M experiment description sounds more appropiate in the context of a theory of gravity where they are trying to see what effect a moving aether, caused by gravity, has on light passing through it.

In any case, if that is not confusing enough, they somehow arrive at the conclusion that Maxwell's equations that explain light as consisting of an E and B field and Special Relatively solves the problem. No in fact it does not, it does not answer the question "If its not a wave like sound..then, what IS light?" SR only deals with the speed of light and reference frames and that there is no rest frame for anything including light, contrary to the rest frame of air by which we measure the speed of sound... meaning if there is no rest frame for light, there is no aether for light. If we accept this fact, we still do not know any more of what is light we only know perhaps more of what it is not. I strongly believe in SR and what it says, but it just does Not address the issue as has been suggested. SR is more a theory of time that anything else, one which has particular emphasis on the peculiar nature of light accordingly.

Now I want to turn your attention to this which I previously linked

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson-Morley_experiment

Here we see where the concept of an aether wind comes about and it is described as being the result of

"It was reasoned that the Earth would at all times be moving through the aether and producing a detectable 'aether wind'. The effect of the aether wind on light waves would be like the effect of wind on sound waves."

But the experiment was done in an environment (a room) that would have shielded any such thing, which seems rather foolish. Because the aether in the room would move with the room which moves with the Earth and so forth, basically after simple thought you know that any lumineous aether is relatively stationary.

"Miller would have argued that, in most if not all experiments other than his own, there was little possibility of detecting an aether wind since it was almost completely blocked out by the laboratory walls or by the apparatus itself."

Whatever this Morley guy was thinking needs explaination, if the experiment is to have any logical basis it needs to be at the very least done outside. However, there is an additional argument that the Earth acts as a shield itself, such that again the aether would be stationary relative to the experiment such that the Earth is now analageous to a room.

Here is what Newton thought, bearing in mind that Newton knew very well what a classical wave was and how sound worked. The fact that he did not explain light as such tells you he knew the problems with it. Instead he recognized the particle nature of light.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emitter_theory

"Emission theory (a.k.a. "emitter theory") was a competing theory for the special theory of relativity, explaining the results of the Michelson-Morley experiment. Emission theories obey the principle of relativity by having no preferred frame for light transmission, but say that light is emitted at speed "c" relative to its source instead of applying the invariance postulate. Thus, emitter theory combines electrodynamics and mechanics with a simple Newtonian theory, without paradoxes."

Which in my opinion has not been sufficiantly disproved. Yet such a theory does not address what is light either, it only has context in comparison to SR and time dialation. Im sure that there is considerably more to say on emmision theory than wikipedia has to say about it.

Nothing brings to attention the seemingly particle nature of light like

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiber_optics

Where it is highly suggestive in relating an actual particle that will bounces or collide off surfaces and undergo

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_internal_reflection

at certain angles. What this seems to suggest is that light need not be absorbed and re-emmited, it can be reflected outright. However if you are clever enough to think around the diagram you can still reason that even though it looks like the photon is a particle that is reflected, it still could be a classical vibrational wave of some luminiferous aether, only now we would have to say that it is not a particle which is reflected but is the vibrational disturbance that is redirected. There is no immediate problem to this concept because we know that sound waves can and do bounce off walls, the question is can this occur repeatedly without loss of strength?

In the case of

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wavelength-division_multiplexed

not just one particle or disturbance is present but several or more in the same glass tube differenciated by wavelength/frequency.

"In telecommunications wavelength-division multiplexing (WDM) is a technology which multiplexes several optical carrier signals on a single optical fibre by using different wavelengths (colours) of laser light to carry different signals. This allows for a n-fold increase in capacity, in addition to making it possible to perform bidirectional communications over one strand of fibre."

One questions whether a classical wave model of an luminiferous aether would work in such an instance. Because with such a model we are now demanding the superposition of waves principle apply whereas with the particle model only we do not have such a problem as photon particles do not readily interfere.

Related

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evanescent_wave
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waveguide

"An evanescent wave is an electromagnetic wave that decays exponentially with distance. Evanescent waves are observed in total internal reflection."

Now we get to a rather new concept all together with

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transverse_mode

"A transverse mode of a beam of electromagnetic radiation is a particular intensity pattern of radiation measured in a plane perpendicular (i.e. transverse) to the propagation direction of the beam. Transverse modes occur in radio waves and microwaves confined to a waveguide, and also in light waves in an optical fibre and in a laser's optical resonator."

"Transverse modes occur because of boundary conditions imposed on the wave by the waveguide. For example, a radio wave in a hollow metal waveguide must have zero electric field amplitude parallel to the walls of the waveguide, and so the transverse pattern of the electric field of waves is restricted to those which fit between the walls. For this reason, the modes supported by a waveguide are quantized. The allowed modes can be found by solving Maxwell's equations for the boundary conditions of a given waveguide.

Transverse modes are classified into different types:

*TE modes (Transverse Electric) have no electric field in the direction of propagation.
*TM modes (Transverse Magnetic) have no magnetic field in the direction of propagation.
*TEM modes (Transverse ElectroMagnetic) have no electric or magnetic field in the direction of propagation.
*Hybrid modes are those which have both electric and magnetic field components in the direction of propagation."

If this comes as a surprise that light can be manipulated to have or not have an E or B field associated with it, your not alone. (FYI recall that I do not consider light itself to have such regardless)

"For example, light travelling in an optical fiber or other dielectric waveguide forms hybrid-type modes."

"A plane light wave propagating through free space is of the transverse electromagnetic (TEM) type and these are also the type of modes generated in a laser's optical resonator."

"The overall intensity profile of a laser's output may be made up from the superposition of any of the allowed transverse modes of the laser's cavity, though often it is desirable to operate only on the fundamental mode."

Addmitedly this subject is a very technical one so it is hard for me to say what is being suggested. Recall that angle of perception matters, so when they say a TEM mode has no E or B Field componet, you do not know what that really means.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantization_%28physics%29

Which mentions

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_amplitude

again, I do hope that the solution for photon amplitude according to the EM spectrum is somewhere in the math here.

Misc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_tunneling

I was at some point going to write about the quantum or molecular mechanics of smell. Strange as it may seem there is a recent theory called vibration theory that is in competition with shape theory to explain smell. See here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olfaction
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vibration_theory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shape_theory

Those entries do not give alot of information on the subject, I will see if I can find more. I just find it facinating to some degree that such things as temperature, sound and smell do not really exsist, they are fabricated by the mind.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature

"Temperature is the physical property of a system which underlies the common notions of "hot" and "cold"; the material with the higher temperature is said to be hotter. Temperature is a measure of the average kinetic energy of the particles in a sample of matter."

"The formal properties of temperature are studied in thermodynamics. On the microscopic scale this "heat" corresponds to the random motion of atoms and molecules in the system. Thus, an increase in temperature corresponds in an increase in the rate of movement of the atoms in the system. When two systems are at the same temperature, they are in thermal equilibrium and no heat transfer will occur. When a temperature difference does exist, heat will tend to move from the higher-temperature system to the lower-temperature system, until thermal equilibrium is established."

Or in other words, kinetic energy or motion is the measure of temperature. Solids, gases, and liquids can all be made up of the same atoms yet the kinetic motion of them dictates the temperature, thus state of said compound. When you touch a hot object what is occuring is that the atoms or molecules in your fingers are increasing their kinetic motion, this difference in motion is translated into a pain sensation by your mind, temperature.

Aug 26 2005

I have what I think to be a new/alternate theory regarding the nature and perception of light ie. chromatics, the science of color

We know most human senses are fabricated by the mind, one thing that was not so clear to me is to what degree is color fabricated by the mind? If we take the interference of light or superposition of light principle as it is stated then what you see is what exsists, light combines in space independent of observer. This is the generally accepted viewpoint so far as I can tell, it is afterall very simple and the most obvious and straight forward one.

If on the other hand you do not believe that photons can interfere with other photons, then one needs to explain why when Red and Green photons are mixed you see a Yellow color. Know that it is most likely that your eye sees a Yellow ray of light whether the actual ray of light is Yellow photons or instead a mixture of Red and Green photons. I believe this can be attributed to the fact that it is your eye which applies the interference of light principle, because your eye will simultaneously absorb red and green photons. Only in such a case of absorbtion can light ever interfere*. One might think that the light is interfering with itself in space, but I will suggest that the Yellow ray of light does not exsist until it is processed by your eyes and mind, it is instead a Red and Green mixture which by my corrected definition of the word we say it is superimposed ie. stacked. But we will never know by looking at it the difference between a mixture of R and G photons, and a true monochromatic Y light source. Again a Y light source that is made of R and G photons does not exsist as a Y light source after all, it is only after our eyes apply the interference of light principle do we combine R and G to make Y.

Take a flashlight that shines Green light and take a second flashlight that shines Red light, criss-cross them and what do you see in the middle but a Yellow area of course. However instead of saying that a Yellow spectrum of light exsists in that space, instead we will say that an roughly equal number of G and R photons are scattered in the direction of your eye and it is your eye that combines the two photon energies to create Yellow. The wavelength and frequency of Red is greater than Green and when interfered* with each other the sum* is equal to the mean value which turns out to be the wavelength and frequency of Yellow light. Note the asterisk on the word "sum", Do not make the mistake that you sum them directly to create a wavelength greater than Red, what we want is the Mean Value. The application of the mean value principle can be verified rather easily by looking at the color wheel and EM spectrum. Take any 2 different spectrums of light and find the mean value, this mean value is the spectrum of light that lies directly in the middle of the 2 according to the chart. We can apply this principle across the spectrum aside from visible light, for example, taking the mean value of EHF and UHF we should get SHF. We can do this mathmatically without further thought, however the only physical thing that can apply the mean value of 2 difference photons is your mind. Your eye and brain has receptors for 3 primary spectrums of light so that when 2 colors of light are simultaneously incident on 2 different receptors, the signal traveling by way of neurons is combined (interference) by the mind. Note that we only have 3 receptors for vision, however I suspect that each receptor in turn is made up of mini receptors, whether we want to go ahead and just call these mini receptors individual electrons is a question. It would not make sense to say that we only process a few photons at a time.

This is my theory and only 1 possibility, there is in truth really only 2 ways to handle this. Either light interferes/combines independent of observer or it is the observer who combines light.

Actually I may have to omit the fact that this is a new theory after reading the following.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color

"Most light sources are not pure spectral sources; rather they are created from mixtures of various wavelengths and intensities of light. To the human eye, however, there is a wide class of mixed-spectrum light that is perceived the same as a pure spectral color. In the table above, for instance, when your computer screen is displaying the "orange" patch, it is not emitting pure light at a fixed wavelength of around 600 nm (which is in fact not a thing most computer screens are even able to do). Rather, it is emitting a mixture of about two parts red to one part green light. Were you to print this page on a color printer, the orange patch on the paper, when lit with white light, would reflect yet another, more continuous spectrum. We cannot see those differences (although many animals can), and the reason has to do with the pigments that make up our color vision cells (see below)."

So there it is.

"The retina of the human eye contains three different types of color receptor cells, or cones."

Types, is the keyword, suggesting that there is not 3 receptors total but possibly thousands or millions, which again all reduce to at some point the photon being absorbed by a electron. So basically a specific atomic element or molecular compound is what defines receptors that handles say Green light, likewise a different element or celluar compound is what handles say Red light. This makes sense since light is absorbed by electrons whose frequency allows such ie. Its absorbing frequency. I wouldnt care to guess how the receptors are particularly arranged but I have a pretty good idea how it works otherwise. Perhaps your eye has a means to separate and direct the light to a specfic area where then those receptors lie, ie. if red receptors are on the left, your lens will direct the red light to that area, rather than say receptors are all just mixed in with each other (which would work as well).

Quite related to what I just said, read this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffraction_grating

There is no conflict despite the use of the word interference. There are two definitions and uses of the word, one needs to be careful what is what. Interference between photons never occurs. When light goes through a diffraction grating, it is being spatially separated ie. "unsuperimposed" The truth is that the term should only be used in the context of say a physical obstruction in the path of light; considered an interference with its normal propgation or path. (This is also where we apply fourier transforms and the like in the context of interference as I just stated.)

"Photons are reflected or transmitted in discrete directions, called "orders," or "spectral orders." Because the angle of deviation of the diffracted beam is wavelength-dependent, a diffraction grating separates the incident beam spatially into its constituent wavelength components, i.e., it is dispersive. Each component of the electromagnetic spectrum is sent into a different direction, producing a rainbow of colors. This is visually similar to that produced by a prism, though the mechanism is very different."

Additional reading

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye

And now we come to the part where I tell you that colored light does not exsist. This should come as no surprise, and I necessarily saved this for the end. The fact of the matter is that color is yet another ingenious invention by our mind to handle different light energies.

Aug 30

Further examining the concepts of photons interfering with each other or a photon interfering with itself.

http://student.science.nus.edu.sg/~g0203645/Atomic%20Molecular%20and%20Optical%20Physics/Quantum%20effects%20in%20one-photon%20and%20two-photon%20interference.pdf

http://www.bu.edu/qil/pdf/PRL-09-02-96.pdf

Never in any of these experiments can it be said that a single photon interferes with itself. Ok. What we have is a single photon being split into 2 photons. This is a very important point I make. Half transparent mirrors and PMDC are the smoking gun to let you know in an instant you are not dealing with a single photon experiment >>> single photon interference literally. One photon interference is called second-order interference, because they like me hopefully recognize a second photon (a signal and idler photon), furthermore a 2-photons experiment is fourth-order interference following PMDC. I dont how one would like to say it but the point is whenever you split the signal it ceases at that point to be a single photon experiment >>> single photon interference as I would define such. Or at the very least aside from these papers, if we continue to use the statement of "single photon interference" without any additional information, now we know what it involves. This includes a photon going through or incident on "anything" at all. Let me put it this way, a photon zipping along through space does not all of a sudden trip over its own shoelaces and go woops 'I just interfered with myself'. Light has to number 1 BE ABSORBED, exchange exchange exchange by electrons that make up the material (mirror or crystal or "anything"), then re-emmitted for any subsequent discussion or observation of interference, that being with "itself" if that how you want to put it. Know that because it was absorbed, its not the same photon that comes out either. OR

To be clear there are various concepts and uses associated with any discussion involving the term "interference". In diffraction or grating experiments the word should most always be used in context of a photon incident on the obstruction, it interferes if you will with the obstruction or vice versa however you want to say it. Subsequent interference Patterns are associated with such classical particle-material interferece; via deriving the fourier transforms (but thats not necessarily saying anything sofar as what light is - wave or particle, both - or is not, explicitly) and we could* use either or model of light to explain such Patterns. (Now let me make a fine point here, I have already explained previously how a one photon fired subsequent more and more photons could produce a interference pattern, which happens to be a completely new model all together independent of the model of classical waves) However, this is entirely different than the concept of light interfering with light in otherwise empty space ie. quantum optical interference. If you want my opinion on the later and you had in mind something along the lines of what the superposition of waves principle states appling to optics, then NO I do not believe it is possible, the superposition of waves principle is not applicable to light as it is a classical principle describing classical vibrational waves such as sound. Now going back, it is possible to say that a single photon can interfere with an obstruction, but we will never say that it is with "itself" in such a concept of interference. Although I have just said that light cannot interfere with other light within the context of appling the superposition of waves principle, it is equally true in that light cannot scatter with light in the context of explicitly impling a particle like exsistance of the photon only. It has not been established that a photon is a physical particle only and that given certain conditions be incident can reflect off of other photons. Therein lies a subtle paradox and very hard point to make, the difference between the various usages and concepts of interference, we have named 3 already - inteference of an obstruction (aka diffraction, dispersion), interference of itself (remember what this means!), and interference between each others, or lack thereof (scattering). With respect to the later, I do not wish at this point to say that photons could ever pass through each other like ghosts which goes along with I do not believe in optical interference/scattering between photons; originality and order to a large degree MUST be maintained. However while we say that photons cannot interfere with photons, If for instance light did not ever scatter, then we have a big problem, the only thing you would ever see is what is directly in front of you and that is not saying much because we probably wouldnt see much. And by the same token, if light scattered or interfered to a large degree then the world would be a big blur. So there is a little truth to admit, scattering/interference does occur naturally but it occurs between photons and other types of particles. Interference has many meanings and usages, in the case of scattering it is a physical obstruction, yes another particle in the path of a photon is a physical obstruction, However it appears that the exception to the rule is another photon, which if we recall is a gauge boson.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boson

"Bosons are the only particles which can occupy the same state as another."

"While fermions obey the Pauli exclusion principle: "no more than one fermion can occupy a single quantum state", there is no exclusion property for bosons, which are free to (and indeed, other things being equal, tend to) crowd into the same quantum state. This explains the spectrum of black-body radiation and the operation of lasers, the properties of superfluid helium-4 and the possibility of bosons to form Bose-Einstein condensates, a particular state of matter."

This principle is equivilent to superposition. However we should really find something to define superposition as it relates to absolute proximity, similar to degrees of entanglement that I previously mentioned.

For example, photons that are exactly in phase and happen to occupy the same exact space could be said to be first degree superimposed. Considering how many degrees of superposition are possible according to proximity that is not quite efficient enough, but for our purposes we get the idea. The real thing should be mathmatical only and perhaps we define several key distances where we want to declare the border between first and second and so forth.

It should be clear at this point, we have established the basic logic by which to disprove the idea of photon - photon interference. Instead we opt to say that photons (bosons alike) are superimposible to the first degree without interference.

An interesting fact

"When a light beam passes through a vacuum or through very clear air it is
not possible to see the beam with human eyes unless you are inside of the
beam looking toward the source of the light."

To elaborate on various type of scattering as it relates to the photon, let us consider the following subjects

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scattering
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rayleigh_scattering
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mie_scattering
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compton_scattering
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brillouin_scattering
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raman_scattering
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S_matrix
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bragg's_law
The Kapitza-Dirac Effect (essentially an aspect of Compton Scattering in reverse, dealing with already free electrons that play the role of incoming particles to an area of "standing light waves"*

A brief note on the topic of Standing light waves

I can and will treat "standing light waves" as classical particle reflection, that is more like "trapped/confined light", the photons are literally moving forward and bouncing off a surface back and forth - remembering that we have established a new model for "light waves", trying to eliminate the wave in wave particle duality, or at least the conventional concept of wave that was built on classical waves.

To add to the topic of photon scattering, this may in turn be considered in context of just one way how light can spread "out".

And some more common terms relateable to previous writtings.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_distribution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispersion_%28optics%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birefringence
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caustics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phosphorescence
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell-Boltzmann_Statistics

http://www.tpub.com/neets/tm/105.htm

One final note with regards to a photon incident on material, PMDC, half-silvered mirror what have you. Not only is the original photon non exsistent after such "exchange" but the 2 'child' photons (PMDC example) have different properties aside from the obvious less energy and different wavefunction. What I am talking about is spin, orientation, polarization (although polarization typically refers to a classical wave phenomenon) are inherently different to not only the original, but each other in turn ie. the signal and idlers photons. It is concieveably imaginable that if you then thereafter try to combine the signal and idler photons back together via an additional PMDC (rember we cant add or split photons directly) that it will not necessarily be exactly equal to the original or that you get some wierd side effects as well as problematic interpretations. We can further complicate the matter and introduce time delays and different lengths traveled, so that we know almost certainly that the signal will not match each other even if they are combined at the same time overall. This is not particularly in reference to any experiment but Ill say it anyway.

"Although interference is intrinsically a classical wave phenomenon, the superposition principle which underlies all interference is also at the heart of quantum mechanics. Feyman has referred to interference as really "the only mystery" of quantum mechanics. Furthermore, in some interference experiments we encounter the idea of quantum entanglement, which also has been described as really the only mystery. Clearly interference confronts us with some quite basic questions of interpretation. Despite its long history, going back to Thomas Young at the beginning of the 19th century, optical interference still challenges our understanding, and the last word on the subject probably has not yet been written"

If you have been following along, you already know my argument and what I would say to the above. I do not feel like comenting on the rest of the paper, however know that it is yet another one describing "which way" information, such that if you even have the capability to be knowledgeable about the path taken, "interference" is lost. And I have a very strong feeling that their usage and definition of the word interference coinsides with something very similar to an Interference Pattern or fringe, which recall is according to a specific definition of Interference and happens to require a new model or understanding rather that I have described way back with regards to explaining random path as observed in the 2-slit experiment ect. We will leave it at that.

Sept 02 2005

I think it is time and I think I am ready to come to some sort of conclusion. Keeping in mind that whatever I link to or write about in this journal is only a fraction of what I have actually read and researched, though about and think I know.

With all the evidence considered, I find that there is no phenomenon, no experiment that cant be explained by a particle exsistance of the photon only. This all may seem a little rediculous that one has to go to such lengths to discover something so simple whether a photon is a particle or a wave, but that just goes to show how well hidden some truths are. Physics is full of these little hidden truths, these relateable similarities that lead us to think the obvious, while not knowing that it can be explained equally obvious otherwise. The solution was always for me it was either a particle or a wave, I was not comfortable with it being both, it didnt make any sense, they were two different things; two different models of what light is, how it works, how it propagates. It turns out that a photon may be a particle that travels in a wavelike motion, with the magnitude of such its amplitude being according to mass/energy. With that statement we re-define "wave particle duality", or get rid of it all together to avoid confusion quite frankly. That is what I am comforatable with, and that is my conclusion.

Sept 12 2005

IN SEARCH OF THE WAVEGUIDE

I keep going back to the 2-slit experiment in my head, every day. I need to explain the apparent wave phenomenon more clearly if in fact the photon is a particle and a particle only. I only have dealt with the random path, the random impact coordinates and "which way" dynamics and god knows whatever I tried to explain.

It just occured to me the idea that acoustic pressure waves may be present in such experiments, oh imagine that!. Blunt explaination, It is then That which is the wave and it is That which is what the photons are affected by. There is your "waveguide". In plain and simple English, it is sound waves that are going through the 2-slit obstruction, it is then sound waves that create an "invisible" interference pattern. This pattern only comes visible and recognizeable when we pass light over the pressure wave area because we cant see sound waves or the subsequent interference pattern it would make. You could say that we are illuminating sound waves because light now becomes the optical counterpart of the physical pressure wave, that is, light is physically scattered / refracted into the sound wave wells perhaps. In other words, people thought it was light that was the wave or some part of light going through both slits and interfering, but it is minute sound waves that have gone unrecognized. So if we do a 2-slit experiment with a varible background* acoustic source, we will according to my theory observe a different optical* interference pattern. Sound waves can and do bend or rather scatter light! Its that simple. I have never even HEARD of such a thing, it is so important though that if sound waves / phonons can affect light TO ANY degree, that it needs to be documented in such optical experiments.

This is not just about the 2-slit, this has wide ranging implications in our understanding of the general diffraction /scattering of light accross the board, gravity included. Obviously this being a new idea I have, I dont know all the details but I know that it is without a doubt the best idea I have come up with, and there is alot of theories and explainations out there to pick and choose from, but if this one pans out I have no doubt that it is The one theory of explaining supposed wave particle duality. The key to solving wave-particle duality somehow encompasses the presence of sound waves and phonon vibrations in space. Even so if it happens to be that an interference pattern occurs in a vaccum free of acoustic waves, there is still potential for some other kind of vibrational wave Other than light itself, such that light scatters accordinly as explained above. There is such a necessity for a waveguide if we are to rule out the wave nature of light itself. I mean the theory is really a theory of a waveguide, what the waveguide Has to be, and I reason that it has to be a physical classical vibrational wave that is present desite of the fact that this is really suppose to be a purely optical experiment/effect. I mean it really could be anything if we have to go deeper, but I figure though why not go with the obvious first and try to rule out sound waves as the waveguide...

To be clear, it is not light waves that go through and interfere to cause the pattern, it is waves of another phenomenon all together. It is then light particles, photons, that are guided by these waves ...
Whatever pattern the waves would make had they been optical, when we pass light over it we illuminate such pattern.

I reason that there are waves of some nature present and going through the slit prior to the photon going through. I am so positive that this is the case its only a question of what is waving and after that to describe how and why particles are guided by such waves.

Perhaps at the instance of photon emmision, a "shock wave" of some type, a pressure wave, whatever it may be... As long as it is a classical wave propagating forward through the "fabric of space" much like sound is... THAT must travel faster or rather Ahead of the photon particle.

More likely and common sense is that a photon particle has a charge field about it despite the common belief, such that it is a particle surrounded by a spherical field. The field will impact upon the obstruction before the particle does. The field will split and go through both slits. The particle will somehow be guided one of two ways accoring to how the field is distorted. It is the field that is the wave and interferes and somehow guides the photon particle. So a photon is a particle with a surrounding field. An electron is a particle with a field surrounding it. Whatever the wave is, needs to be the same type of wave for all particles because all particles exhibit the same interference.

Know that just because a particle may be measured chargeless, does not mean that is necessarily has no charge field...
an electric / magnetic field. The field may be two distinct parts of opposite sign that neutralize each other when measured overall. It may be that a photon only has a measureable charge accoring to a specific orientation, polarization and spin. Who knows at this point, but IF a photon particle has an extended field around it, then I can begin to explain interference pattern phenomenon and solve wave particle duality once and for all.

"The question is what is the wave and what is the particle"

"The use of the word photon is insufficient to describe something which has two distinct qualities about it"

"The definition of a photon should be a charged particle whether it has a net charge overall or not, one that which includes the particle and the field about it"

"A photon can exhibit wavelike behavior because of the field about it which can deform and interfere like a classical wave, however there exsists within such the actual particle that is guided by such and that which we see impact the screen"

"The solution to wave particle duality is as simple as saying the photon is a charged particle, or has a field about it like every other fundamental particle"

- T.Duncan

Ironically all this without regard to a particle that travels in a wavelike motion. In fact, that no longer is required as we have found our "what is waving". Actually the photon as a whole most likely travels in a straight line, it is only after having interacted with something like a 2-slit obstruction that we get a recoil waving effect. This recoil flux wave motion helps explain the pattern.

Clearly if the photon has any field about it, then that is a major discovery in terms of explaining wave particle duality, the rest is self explainitory - minus the random impact coordinates with respect to the pattern fringes of which I have already explained how that comes about several times regardless of specific model.

Amplitude and displacement may just be all field after all. Photons of different energies have different magnitudes of fields accordingly. We might even find that photon particles come in different sizes, it is the subtle size differences that mathmatically extends or reduces the field about it. Can define field size as wavelength according to the EM Spectrum.

So what about photon - photon field interference? Does this mean the superposition of waves principle has truth to it afterall? No that only applies to classical surface waves, destructive and constructive interference... But even if the fields interfere, the particles does not appear to, so the point is mute. More clearly, photon field interference only leads to changes in field density, the fields overlap.

TO SUMMARIZE THE PHOTON MODEL THAT WILL EXPLAIN WAVE PARTICLE DUALITY

If a photon can be said to be a particle with a field around it, then we now have a common link to every other particle that exhibits wave particle duality. Additionally I have described how interference patterns come about as a result of a recoil flux effect by interaction between the field and the obstruction and then the particle is guided by such resulting interactions. It is the field that defines the boundry of a photonic system, it is the field that acts as a waveguide for the particle contained. It is the field not the particle that will interact with the obstruction due to EM charge field repulsion. It is only the particle albeit that we see impact on a photo screen rather than the particle + field which would give a larger dimension to the spot. In other words the entire photon energy is not dilluted across a field that disappears on impact; perhaps the field collapses to the particle and therefore conservation of energy. The photon energy is transfered to electrons, there is any easy way to know for sure... use photons of different energies, larger wavelengths and see if the size of the mark varies accordingly. If the mark is always the same regardless of wavelength then the field + particle is absorbed by a single electron and we can say it collapses into the dimensions of the electron.

The photon is more than likely a particle with a field afterall, ie. a charged particle. and not necessarily a particle without a field that travels in a wavelike motion.

-------------------

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phonon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brillouin_scattering

-------------------