Search FQXi

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Contests Home

Current Essay Contest

Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, SubMeta, and Scientific American

Previous Contests

Undecidability, Uncomputability, and Unpredictability Essay Contest
December 24, 2019 - April 24, 2020
Contest Partners: Fetzer Franklin Fund, and The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation

What Is “Fundamental”
October 28, 2017 to January 22, 2018
Sponsored by the Fetzer Franklin Fund and The Peter & Patricia Gruber Foundation

Wandering Towards a Goal
How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intention?
December 2, 2016 to March 3, 2017
Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fund.

Trick or Truth: The Mysterious Connection Between Physics and Mathematics
Contest Partners: Nanotronics Imaging, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, and The John Templeton Foundation
Media Partner: Scientific American

How Should Humanity Steer the Future?
January 9, 2014 - August 31, 2014
Contest Partners: Jaan Tallinn, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, The John Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American

It From Bit or Bit From It
March 25 - June 28, 2013
Contest Partners: The Gruber Foundation, J. Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American

Questioning the Foundations
Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?
May 24 - August 31, 2012
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, SubMeta, and Scientific American

Is Reality Digital or Analog?
November 2010 - February 2011
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation and Scientific American

What's Ultimately Possible in Physics?
May - October 2009
Contest Partners: Astrid and Bruce McWilliams

The Nature of Time
August - December 2008

Forum Home
Introduction

Order posts by:
chronological order
most recent first

Posts by the author are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.

RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

Sergey Fedosin: on 10/4/12 at 5:54am UTC, wrote If you do not understand why your rating dropped down. As I found ratings...

Ke Xiao: on 10/2/12 at 21:46pm UTC, wrote Dear George, Thank you! and I will read your essay later. Best wishes.

George: on 10/2/12 at 17:46pm UTC, wrote Hi, dear Ke, I have seen your essay just now and immediately have decide...

Ke Xiao: on 9/28/12 at 16:26pm UTC, wrote Dear Edwin Eugene Klingman, I am very glad to see somebody from NASA. I...

Edwin Klingman: on 9/28/12 at 6:12am UTC, wrote Dear Ke Xiao, A very impressive essay. Thank you for contributing it. I...

Ke Xiao: on 9/26/12 at 8:20am UTC, wrote Dear Eric Stanley Reiter, You still not yet understood my idea that is...

Hoang Hai: on 9/19/12 at 13:54pm UTC, wrote Dear Very interesting to see your essay. Perhaps all of us are convinced...

Constantinos Ragazas: on 9/14/12 at 13:32pm UTC, wrote Dear Eckard, ... insightful comments, as always. Yes it is rather strange...

RECENT FORUM POSTS

Georgina Woodward: "Be careful, there are many people who are not who they pretend to be." in Global Collaboration

Georgina Woodward: "The preceding explanation of wavefunction collapse is, I think,..." in Consciousness and the...

jim hughes: "I'm not a mathematician. So what I see here is some smart people who..." in Consciousness and the...

Steve Dufourny: "Hello FQXi, the members and all, I try to do my best to unite and convice..." in Global Collaboration

Georgina Woodward: "Broken machine: What do[es] I see next? The I that was, E.I, has not been..." in The Room in the Elephant:...

Lorraine Ford: "Hi Stefan, I hope that a good leader, and a good political party, is..." in The Present State of...

Lorraine Ford: "We live in an age of computing. But physics, mathematics and philosophy,..." in The Present State of...

Georgina Woodward: "I've copied the comment to the thread where it belongs. This orphan can be..." in The Room in the Elephant:...

RECENT ARTICLES

Good Vibrations
Microbead 'motor' exploits natural fluctuations for power.

Reconstructing Physics
New photon experiment gives new meta-framework, 'constructor theory,' a boost.

The Quantum Engineer: Q&A with Alexia Auffèves
Experiments seek to use quantum observations as fuel to power mini motors.

The Quantum Clock-Maker Investigating COVID-19, Causality, and the Trouble with AI
Sally Shrapnel, a quantum physicist and medical practitioner, on her experiments into cause-and-effect that could help us understand time’s arrow—and build better healthcare algorithms.

Connect the Quantum Dots for a New Kind of Fuel
'Artificial atoms' allow physicists to manipulate individual electrons—and could help to reduce energy wastage in electronic devices.

FQXi FORUM
September 29, 2021

CATEGORY: Questioning the Foundations Essay Contest (2012) [back]
TOPIC: Rethinking the Double Slit Experiment by Ke Xiao [refresh]

Author Ke Xiao wrote on Aug. 29, 2012 @ 12:40 GMT
Essay Abstract

The wave-particle duality relate to the space-time property of matter by Planck constant. The fine structure constant is linked to the double-slit and the uncertainty principle in Quantum Mechanics. Compton scattering and interference of double-slit is established by the cross-linked angle, and vice versa. The single-slit direction is described by Sinc-function which could combine the classical diffraction and quantum interference effect in the same experiment. This space-time model explain the experimental mystery of the double-slit.

Author Bio

An independent researcher retired from GE.

Don Limuti wrote on Aug. 29, 2012 @ 19:29 GMT
Dear Ke Xiao,

I like this essay. In spite of Feynman's reservations, physics needs to understand the dual slit experiment. You have done this by linking the dual slit experiment to the fine structure constant. Nice work.

Don L.

I have given some thought to Feynman's mysterious e (related to the fine structure constant). I think you might find it interesting in relation to your own work. http://www.digitalwavetheory.com/DWT/18_Feynmans_Mysterious_
"e".html

report post as inappropriate
Ke Xiao replied on Aug. 29, 2012 @ 21:00 GMT
Dear Don L.

Cheers,

KX

report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson wrote on Aug. 30, 2012 @ 09:02 GMT
Ke

Fine structure relevance to the twin slit experiment and duality is well explained and, for me very agreeable. See the excellent Kingsly-Nixey essay I've just read posted the same day as yours for consistent ontological and mechanistic aspects, and my own essay also discussing Fraunhofer refraction and the wider kinetic implications of absorption and atomic scattering.

I have to admit not being a mathematician so your quantitative proofs were beyond my analysis, but from your commentary I find the important part, their foundational assumptions, should be trustworthy.

I would greatly appreciate your views on my essay, in which many readers just scanning quickly seem not to have grasped the very important kinetic relationships. I hope you'll agree your own work is consistent, but please give your views.

Thanks and best of luck.

Peter

report post as inappropriate
Ke Xiao replied on Aug. 31, 2012 @ 18:57 GMT
Peter,

Thanks for the kind words!

Regards,

KX

report post as inappropriate

Constantinos Ragazas wrote on Sep. 1, 2012 @ 02:38 GMT
Dear Ke Xiao,

The double-slit experiment is a puzzlement only if we assume light is made up of particle photons following a projectile trajectory from 'source' to 'sensor'.

I have proven the following proposition: "If the speed of light is a constant, then light propagates as a wave" (see End Note II of my essay, “The Metaphysics of Physics”). Thus, the CSL Postulate of SR contradicts the Photon Hypothesis.

For this and other sound physical reasons, we should treat light to be a wave, pure and simple! And as a wave, the mystery of the double-slit experiment just goes away! In my FQXi 2011 essay, “A World Without Quanta?” I provide an explanation for the Tonomura (1989) single emission double-slit experimental results. Also, you can find my paper “A Plausible Explanation for the Double-slit Experiment in Quantum Physics” (2010) by googling the title. And two years ago I had extensive conversations on just this topic in fqxi blogs. In brief, the explanation I offer is based on the following:

1)energy propagates as a wave while it interacts discretely

2)before discrete 'manifestation' of energy there is continuous 'accumulation' of energy.

3)The 'burst' of energy emitted at the 'source' is not the same 'burst' of energy detected at the 'sensor'.

4)Energy is 'manifested' locally at the 'sensor' once a minimal threshold is reached and local equilibrium conditions occur.

Though my present essay does not directly concern the double-slit experiment, the references and ideas discussed in it have a direct connection to it. I think you will find it interesting and enjoyable to read! Please do!

Best wishes,

Constantinos

report post as inappropriate
Ke Xiao replied on Sep. 2, 2012 @ 02:11 GMT
Dear Constantibos,

Thank you for the response, and I wish you would've thought more deeply:

(1) You said: "The double-slit experiment is a puzzlement only if we assume light is made up of particle photons following a projectile trajectory from 'source' to 'sensor'."

However, look at those double-slit experiments done with electrons, can you assert that the electron is also...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Constantinos Ragazas replied on Sep. 2, 2012 @ 04:38 GMT
Dear Ke Xiao

Be assured I have given all my ideas deep thought over many years. So don't assume otherwise. But you do have every right to make constructive arguments against my claims.

I argue, "The double-slit experiment is a puzzlement only if we assume light is made up of particle photons following a projectile trajectory from 'source' to 'sensor'."

This is obviously a true...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Ke Xiao replied on Sep. 2, 2012 @ 19:28 GMT
Dear Constantibos,

You do not want to argue about the double slit experiment done with Neutron and He-atom and C-60? That is the evidence that these particles do not have a "stunt double" between "source" and "Screen", and such is the case with electron and photon. Wave-particle duality is the experimental reality, it does not matter you believe it or not.

If you can't pass the peer-review to prove the correctness of your \eta theory, you should ask yourself: Why? Is Planck, Einstein and the whole World wrong, or are you wrong? If you believe have found something like Galileo, Good luck!

Best wishes,

KX

report post as inappropriate

ABRAHAM wrote on Sep. 2, 2012 @ 10:06 GMT
Dear Ke Xiao,

Good article, but I feel it may be too heavily reliant on Math for the average reader [like myself] however I would like to offer a geometric explanation based on equilateral Energies in the hope of it 'shedding some light'on the matter for you.

I would appreciate your comments on the same, as well as my essay on Tetryonics - the Charged geometry of EM mass-ENERGY-Mater [particularly its explanation of QED processes - more detail is available on my YouTube channel]

As Tetryonics defines it with equilateral energies, Wave~Particle duality is not applicable to EM waves (& the Photons that comprise them) under the strict physical definition of a wave and a Particle (with EM waves being a 2D planar field with EM mass [E/c^2] and Matter having the properties of EM mass AND 3D volume [E/c^4] in conventional co-ordinate systems).

However if you define the Bosons & Photons comprising an EM wave as Transverse and Linear EM waveforms respectively, then a duality of EM waveforms does appear.

Wave-functions & Probability densities are the direct result of the equilateral geometries of EM energy waveforms and are easily accounted for in Tetryonics [see attached].

The mysterious Fine structure constant is determined directly from Tetryonic theory by equilateral geometry and is responsible for charge and the familiar coupling constants [see QED videos www.YouTube.com/tetryonics] - however its true value is .007539822 [inverse 132.6291192] - as opposed to the current value determined from observational measurements.

The equilateral Quantised Angular Momentum [m^2/s] of Planck's Constant is in turn directly responsible for the fundamental quanta of Charge [1/12e], the geometry of ALL Matter and the physical constants we observe.

I am only too happy to discuss at greater length many of this QED points if you need further clarification on any points [as space is obviously limited here].

report post as inappropriate
ABRAHAM replied on Sep. 2, 2012 @ 10:18 GMT
I thought I'd attach some additional illustrations specific to your essay on interference patterns for your consideration [as taken from my QED website videos].

I hope they'll help illustrate Tetryonic charge geometry's applicability to the 'problem' of wave~particle interference patterns and how they are created.

report post as inappropriate

Ke Xiao replied on Sep. 2, 2012 @ 19:34 GMT
Dear Abraham,

Thank you for the response.

This essay was originally drafted for a journal of theoretical physics, passed the peer review and I'm looking for a sponsor to publish. I heard about the FQXi topic on August 28, so I just put a shortened version here. It involves some math derivation on the high-school or pre-collage level, certainly not as complicated as the QED path-integral.

According to Feynman, the double slit experiment is the "central paradox" in modern physics, and the fine structure constant is the "greatest damn mysteries of physics." I am still learning more everyday, and working very carefully trying to understand it.

I will look at your essay sometime later.

Best wishes,

KX

report post as inappropriate

Eric Stanley Reiter wrote on Sep. 10, 2012 @ 22:07 GMT

I see you are still using wave interference. I did not finish studying your article and the posted messages here in detail. You asked for experimental evidence and I have it here in my essay entry. The Unquantum Effect is the first and only serious challenge. It defies the particle aspect in these so-called particle interference experiments. We do not need to add some edge...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate
Ke Xiao replied on Sep. 12, 2012 @ 22:09 GMT
Dear Eric Stanley Reiter,

I feel sorry for you criticize others even before read though.

You misunderstood my essay as “still using wave interference.” My work shows that the Wave interference is caused by the Particle scattering. “In other word, there will be no interference if without relativistic quantum scattering. The fine structure constant is the magic hand behind the...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Eric Stanley Reiter replied on Sep. 14, 2012 @ 07:44 GMT
I read enough. I think you did great with your math, but I disagree with your philosophy and how you used the math. I read enough to see you still use wave interference. I quote you: " This model clearly displays the particle-wave duality by particle scattering and wave-interference."

You say you do not use wave interference, then you say you do. Too confusing.

I know full well the paradox of the double slit experiment and there was no need to explain that. There is no sense of doing my experiment with visible light. I explained in my essay that the properties of the gamma are necessary to see through the photon illusion. I am not down converting hf to half frequency to make two-for-one. They are full-height pulses. After I show how to get two-for-one, I am fully justified to say there are no photons. Just to be clear: there are no photons.

A gamma ray is not like a cosmic ray (which is matter and can split). Gamma is light. If I kill the photon with gamma, photon is dead. "Shut up and calculate" are empty words in the face of an experiment that keeps working.

You have not addressed the more important issues I brought up. Are you calculating edge effects? How would you explain neutron interferometry? I can. Your arguments against me are read poor.

I like your math and it seems there is lots to learn from you about the fine structure constant. You are just hung-up on particles the way everyone else is. We can expect that.

Thank you

ER

report post as inappropriate

Ke Xiao replied on Sep. 26, 2012 @ 08:20 GMT
Dear Eric Stanley Reiter,

You still not yet understood my idea that is combined the particle-scattering and wave-interference in the double slit experiments. The paradox of double slit experiment need explanation, and so does the wave-particle duality. You said "there was need to explain that" then you are simply quitting from this topic.

How to explain your gamma-ray experiment is your job. How to approve "there is no photon" is also your problem. This essay only deal with the double slit experiment.

You said: "How would you explain neutron interferometry? I can." I like to hear that in detail.

report post as inappropriate

M. V. Vasilyeva wrote on Sep. 12, 2012 @ 22:28 GMT
Dear Ke Xiao,

interesting article, with excellent graphics. Somewhat difficult to read, due to some English errors. If you like, I could fix them for you.

I too have a geometrical explanation (in 4D) showing why both matter and light appear to move in waves in double slit experiments.

The explanation itself is not in my essay but in the last comment in my thread (topic 1547), post #50 (the last post at the moment). It was a quick write up and contains some errors, but I cannot change it now. However, the overall idea is how I see it, in 4D. The example is given on an analogy with a fictional world with one dimension removed.

I would very much value your feedback.

xie xie

report post as inappropriate
Ke Xiao replied on Sep. 12, 2012 @ 22:44 GMT
Dear M. V. Vasilyeva,

Thank you very much if you can help me on the English. I have four books published in Chinese but always feel uncertainty when talking English. Please send my an email (my email is in the essay).

I will look at your essay.

Yours

KX

report post as inappropriate

M. V. Vasilyeva replied on Sep. 13, 2012 @ 19:15 GMT
Done! They were very minor corrections. It could be too late for this contest, but I hope you can use them to get your work published.

report post as inappropriate

Hoang cao Hai wrote on Sep. 19, 2012 @ 13:54 GMT
Dear

Very interesting to see your essay.

Perhaps all of us are convinced that: the choice of yourself is right!That of course is reasonable.

So may be we should work together to let's the consider clearly defined for the basis foundations theoretical as the most challenging with intellectual of all of us.

Why we do not try to start with a real challenge is very close and are the focus of interest of the human science: it is a matter of mass and grain Higg boson of the standard model.

Knowledge and belief reasoning of you will to express an opinion on this matter:

You have think that: the Mass is the expression of the impact force to material - so no impact force, we do not feel the Higg boson - similar to the case of no weight outside the Earth's atmosphere.

Does there need to be a particle with mass for everything have volume? If so, then why the mass of everything change when moving from the Earth to the Moon? Higg boson is lighter by the Moon's gravity is weaker than of Earth?

The LHC particle accelerator used to "Smashed" until "Ejected" Higg boson, but why only when the "Smashed" can see it,and when off then not see it ?

Can be "locked" Higg particles? so when "released" if we do not force to it by any the Force, how to know that it is "out" or not?

You are should be boldly to give a definition of weight that you think is right for us to enjoy, or oppose my opinion.

Because in the process of research, the value of "failure" or "success" is the similar with science. The purpose of a correct theory be must is without any a wrong point ?

Glad to see from you comments soon,because still have too many of the same problems.

Regard !

Hải.Caohoàng of THE INCORRECT ASSUMPTIONS AND A CORRECT THEORY

August 23, 2012 - 11:51 GMT on this essay contest.

report post as inappropriate

Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Sep. 28, 2012 @ 06:12 GMT
Dear Ke Xiao,

A very impressive essay. Thank you for contributing it.

I hope you can explain a few things for me. First, in your equation (2) you have two equal signs. The first equal sign is of course the definition of the fine structure constant. It is the second equal sign that I am confused about. Are you saying that (alpha)(h_bar) is *always* the value (p.r - Et) or are you specifically instead choosing a case where it is assumed to be true? If it is always true, then all wave functions would simply have the same constant phase, would they not?

My next question is whether this relation is actually used in the calculations? On page 3 you use alpha in the Compton wavelength, but it is not clear to me that it is related to (p.r - Et) as much as to the geometry of the double slit experiment. Perhaps I am confused.

My next question is whether the Compton scattering is with a bound electron in the slit edge?

I think your essay is very important and I would like to understand it. Perhaps after I understand these points I will be able to ask further questions.

Although the question of the value of the fine structure constant (and Boltzmann's constant) are very important, as they couple and/or scale the physics, I am most interested in understanding your explanation of the physics of the double slit.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate
Ke Xiao replied on Sep. 28, 2012 @ 16:26 GMT
Dear Edwin Eugene Klingman,

I am very glad to see somebody from NASA. I was a project leader for NASA and DOE program at 1980s. You also asked the good questions:

(1) In the equation (2), the first equal sign with + and - are for the different charges e2/c, and importantly, the second equal sign link to the same dimensional pr and Et. However, The value of (p.r-Et) may be not "always" equal. If you understand the concept of Heisenberg S-matrix (scattering matrix), you will better understand this equation.

(2) The particle scattering is a very complicated process, depending the type of particles. Therefore, the free electron and bonding electron must calculated differently. I remember Feynman have calculated the bonding electron for the magnetic momentum, and claimed the Schwinger relation of free electron anomaly ae=alpha/2pi should also worked for the bonding electron. However, there are always small difference on the higher order calculations.

(3) My essay here is a shorten version of the original paper accepted for the Journal of theoretical physics. I did not rewrite it for the "Questioning the Foundations: Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?" Therefore, I did not claim the incorrectness of Huygens-Fresnel drawing in classical physics text book. In fact, we all taught wrong at high school, then confused in the rest of life. Many people think they know the double slit but in fact not. This is a central problem for the quantum theory as Feynman point out.

(4) My essay shows the real calculations for many different types of the double slit experiments. The most importantly, how the two slit are linked together in equation (6). I am trying to show how particle-scattering and wave-interference worked together as the space-time model. Please sent an email if you like to talk more (address in my essay)

Yours,

Ke Xiao

report post as inappropriate

George wrote on Oct. 2, 2012 @ 17:46 GMT
Hi, dear Ke,

I have seen your essay just now and immediately have decide give 10 ball for it(as per as I known your works already!) I hope you will find some time to study mine work and apprised it.

essay

Best wishes,

report post as inappropriate
Ke Xiao replied on Oct. 2, 2012 @ 21:46 GMT
Dear George,

Best wishes.

report post as inappropriate

Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 05:54 GMT
If you do not understand why your rating dropped down. As I found ratings in the contest are calculated in the next way. Suppose your rating is
$R_1$
and
$N_1$
was the quantity of people which gave you ratings. Then you have
$S_1=R_1 N_1$
of points. After it anyone give you
$dS$
of points so you have
$S_2=S_1+ dS$
of points and
$N_2=N_1+1$
is the common quantity of the people which gave you ratings. At the same time you will have
$S_2=R_2 N_2$
of points. From here, if you want to be R2 > R1 there must be:
$S_2/ N_2>S_1/ N_1$
or
$(S_1+ dS) / (N_1+1) >S_1/ N_1$
or
$dS >S_1/ N_1 =R_1$
In other words if you want to increase rating of anyone you must give him more points
$dS$
then the participant`s rating
$R_1$
was at the moment you rated him. From here it is seen that in the contest are special rules for ratings. And from here there are misunderstanding of some participants what is happened with their ratings. Moreover since community ratings are hided some participants do not sure how increase ratings of others and gives them maximum 10 points. But in the case the scale from 1 to 10 of points do not work, and some essays are overestimated and some essays are drop down. In my opinion it is a bad problem with this Contest rating process. I hope the FQXI community will change the rating process.

Sergey Fedosin

report post as inappropriate