Re: Wave particle duality has been disproven for photons also.

On Fri, 30 May 2025 10:06:28 +0000, Thomas Heger wrote:

Am Mittwoch000028, 28.05.2025 um 20:56 schrieb LaurenceClarkCrossen:
>

>
Particle wave duality is no longer accepted as it has been
experimentally disproven.
>
The question regarding photons is still disputed.
>
"Did We Get the Double Slit Experiment All Wrong?"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DpMcC-E5l5c
>
Light is a wave and not a particle.

>
>
There is no "duality" of a wave and a particle, but it is a particle
wave.
>

>
>
No
>
Particles are actually 'timelike stable patterns', while waves are not
stable, hence move through space.
>
But stability is a question of the perspective.
>
E.g. you could 'adjust the own velocity' (theoretically) and fly
parallel to the wave.
>
IoW: you fly with the speed of light and look backwards, to a -say-
laser beam, which stems from your home station.
>
Now the ray from home gets red-shifted, the more the faster you fly.
>
Once you reach c, the ray had frequency zero and you could regard the
wave as a particle.
>
Or you could try to 'catch' a wave and keep it in your realm.
>
This would also make a particle out of the wave, too, because in that
case the wave does not move through space anymore.
>
>
>
TH

I don't think relative motion can make a particle out of a wave or that
what light is is a matter of perspective.

>
>
It makes actually some sense, if we would give up the so called
'particle concept' altogether.
>
Actually we need a continuum, which could be both: particle and vacuum
(depending on the perspective).
>
But since 'materialism' is hard wired into our brains, we cannot even
think about this possibility.
>
But I would guess, that the idea of real, lasting, material particles is
plain wrong.
>
I have actually developed an alternative approach called 'structured
spacetime', which works quite well.
>
The reason is, that some aspects of reality fit to current quantum
mechanics, but some aspects contradict simple logic and cosmological
necessities.
>
Since a good concept needs to match all known facts, we had to think
'beyond our limits' and about higher dimensions, from which we perceive
only a certain subset.
>
The tricky part is now, to estimate the structure of these higher
dimension from the behavior of objects in our own realm.
>
This is very similar to the popular picture of 'flatlanders, who cannot
see, that they are flat and a world exists, which is not flat.
>
But 'flatlanders' can actually assume, that such an invisible world
would exist and calculate, how that could eventually look like by simply
observing their flat world and extrapolating that to three dimensions.
>
Same can we, but with a few more dimensions.
>
TH

"But it has
been known since the time of Sir Arthur Eddington that the curved
spacetime explanation is
not required by general relativity [see Van Flandern, T., "Relativity
with Flat Spacetime", MRB
3, 9-12 (1994)] or certain other variants that preserve agreement with
the classical
observational tests of the theory. Other authors have proposed minor
modifications of the
field equations to replace spacetime curvature tensors with
gravitational energymomentum density tensors [Rosen, N., "General
Relativity and Flat Space. I & II", Phys.Rev.
57, 147-153 (1940)]. Indeed, there is even some direct experimental
evidence against the
curved spacetime explanation that is provided by neutron
interferometers. ["The Role of
Gravity in Quantum Mechanics", D.M. Greenberger and A.W. Overhauser,
Sci.Amer. 242,
May, pp. 66-76 (1980).] The results are incompatible with the geometric
weak equivalence
principle because the interference depends on mass." - "Possible New
Properties of Gravity" Tom Van Flandern