```
Created: 07 May 2013
Published: 31 December 2013
Last updated: 06 November 2018
```

The ‘wave particle duality of light’ is still not well understood. Does light exists out of particles? Out of waves? Or something that displays both characteristics?

I am working on some theory of my own. My theory focuses on the more individual nature of electromagnetic (EM) quanta.

All below is in progress. Want to join? Please let me know!

Basics in my theory are:

– Time is not a physical property, only mathematical.

– Wavelength is NOT a physical property of electromagnetic radiation. Wavelength is used as descriptive property in mathematical models.

– Inertia of energy is physical.

– A good model for a Photon is an LC oscillator. Different ‘isotope’-photons exist for every frequency.

– There is no anti-energy. Only energy.

– Matter and Anti-Matter contain both the same sort of energy and are ‘isomers‘ of each other.

I have nothing more than my own imagination and the internet: Wikipedia is great, please help and donate also.

**Gathering observations:**

**Double slit experiment**

A famous diffraction experiment is the double slit experiment. It was published in 1807 by Thomas Young. The current explanation of this phenomena seems not to explain every observation.

The current explanation is based on interference of waves origination from the two slits. On the applicable Wikipedia site a picture of water waves is used as example. But:

- With light it is also possible to get the phenomena with only one slit or having a laser pass around a single fiber or even one edge.
- Secondly the patterns are also observed when 1 photon at a time is fired. AND also when one electron at a time is fired. So no interference between two photons or electrons is possible.

Increasing exposure times from left to right 1 photon at a time. Vegter, Wendrich and Dr. S.F. Pereira TUDelft

An example from March 2013 is the publication of ‘Controlled double-slit electron diffraction’ from Bach, Pope, Liou and Batelaan in the New Journal of Physics. A clear result. At page 4 in the picture showing the mask movement, a diffraction pattern is clearly visible in the 3rd position in the picture.

Diffraction pattern from ‘one’ slit; ‘Controlled double-slit electron diffraction’ from Bach, Pope, Liou and Batelaan in the New Journal of Physics

At this position, labelled 2380 nm, a slit is formed by:

- the left edge of one slit.
- the second edge is formed by the right edge of the mask!

Just as with my quick control measurement with two razor blade edges at different locations from the laser (and wall). Of which here a picture can be seen:

Laser 461.219.166.153.846 Hz ( 650 nm) with two separate low quality razor blades.

Seen from laser towards the wall; right blade at app. 150 mm; left blade at app. 300 mm; wall at app. 7000 mm.

(So the left blade blocks left side of diffracted radiation from right blade!)

**Conclusion for me** is that the phenomena seen in the double-slit experiment is not about interaction between EM-radiation quanta and not about the slits (or absence of matter). It is about near field interactions between matter and light. The double slit experiment is more likely to be an experiment where light interacts with four edges . **Light bends in the presence of matter, not slits.** This was confirmed a long time ago with the famous Arago/Poisson/Fresnel bright-spot experiment which was carried out in the beginning of the 19th century.

When the phenomena seen are caused by the interaction between light and matter, what can be the true explanation for these observations? Where to start?

**Here the theories start: **

Time is not a physical property.

Space-time is an expression often used in physics in the field of special relativity. But, when you think about it, the words ‘space-time’ seems to point to something that has nothing to do with physics.

My issue is not with the word space. This addresses for me ‘volume’. ‘Volumes’ which can contain energy, radiation, matter and even other volumes with different energy properties. For me, even volume is a form of energy experiencing changes in inertia. Just think about the expansion of space.

It is the word time that is the problem here. Time has been invented by humanity. Look at the definition of the **second** (symbol: **s**) (abbreviated **s** or **sec**) which is the base unit of time in the International System of Units (SI). One second is the duration of 9192631770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom.^{[1] }It is derived from a transition of energy or changes of energy from one state to another state.

Without those transitions of energy would time stand still? At a temperature of 0 (zero) Kelvin would time stand still?

The definition looks a bit like setting the duration of 1 hour equal to the time it takes to travel a distance of 10 km. So when I ride my bicycle for 10 km’s, precisely 1 hour of my time has passed. A racing cyclist which needs only need half of my duration would also use 1 hour for the 10 km’s of his/her time.

The same reasoning can be used for atom clock’s. At earth conditions the second is defined as the duration of 9192631770 periods. At space conditions these periods are different and subsequent time is different. No wonder that we need to change the atom clock’s settings @earth and @space for them to show the same numbers on the display.

In my opinion ‘time’ is only a result of the mathematical tools we use to describe changes in inertia of energies. Thus:

The physical cause is ‘change in inertia of energies’.

The mathematical effect is ‘change in time duration’.

The Lorentz factor for time dilatation has been proven with time settings of atom clocks in satellites. Which proves that the vibrations in the caesium 133 atom is different at space conditions. Which proves that the volume in which the caesium 133 atom resides has been changed after launch into space.

Instead of focussing on time it seems better to focus on the transitions in vibrational behaviour or in other words ‘changes in inertia’s of energy’. Because inertia is a physical property of energy (incl. matter). This reasoning does not change any findings in the field of special relativity. It only focuses on the physical aspects instead of the mathematical descriptions.

So Space-Time is out. The king is dead.

The new focus is Energy – Inertia. Long live the king.

The wavelength of light is not a physical property.

A photon is electromagnetic radiation, has (1) an eigen-frequency and (2) moves at the speed of light. Thus it is possible to calculate a wavelength by calculating the quotiënt speed/frequency. But performing such a calculation does not make the resulting answer a physical property of the photon.

Imagine you would be looking from a distance towards a police car, in persuit at night, with it’s flash/strobe lights on. By measuring (1) the frequency of the flash/strobe lights and (2) the speed of the police car you can calculate a quotiënt of the two numbers. But the result will not be the ‘wavelength of the police car’.

Calculating a wavelength cannot add this property to the observed physical phenomena.

Conclusions:

– Individual EM radiation quanta do not move in a wave like nature.

– Individual EM radiation quanta are ‘3D high frequency force fields’ interacting with other force field they meet on their journey’s.

In my theory I will use frequency instead of wavelength. (The exception confirms this rule.) Any questions on this wavelength topic?

The quantified delta in photon energy.

It has long been accepted that each photon exists out of a quantified amount of energy. But it is not known whether there is a minimal delta energy between two neighbour photons. Or does a minimum difference in energy not exist? In terms of E=h*f, is the frequency also quantified or not? How many digits in decimal notation? Can it be 0,001 Hz or 0,00000000001 Hz or even less?

The lasers I use are simple diode lasers with a frequency of 4,61e+14Hz (650nm). So 461.219.166.153.846 Hz (650 nm) will have to be increased with 708.477.981.803 Hz to become EM-radiation with a ‘wavelength’ of 651 nm. That is 0,7 THz or 708 GHz or 708.477 MHz !!

What would be the difference in diffraction pattern on the screen according the calculations today? Lets check on: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/phyopt/sinslit.html

First result at: 461.219.166.153.84**6** Hz = 650 nm (at c= 299792458 m/s) gives:

Second result at: 461.219.166.153.84**6** Hz + 708.477.981.803 Hz= 651 nm (at c= 299792458 m/s) gives:

Even at a frequency difference of 708.477.981.803 Hz only a very small difference of 0,01 cm in displacement is calculated over a lenth of 100 meters.

I cannot believe that photons will follow our human scale of length (m) nor frequency (Hz).

**Remember! During the experiment we do see a pattern!**

Maybe diffraction patterns are just different color photons? Which near the presence of matter bend at different angles and thus get separated/refracted. Anyone with more info for me on this?

We currently have no way to check where different color photons originating from the same position, end up on the screen.

So.. maybe there is a quantified delta in photon energy. Maybe there is a minimum difference between subsequent quanta of 127,32 Hz. (Just guessing 🙂 ) Anyone with ideas on how we can measure this?

.. But why do different colors then overlap? (see picture below.) Here I am thinking towards two options:

**Boundary layers**

Because we are dealing with an energy – energy interaction we would expect that a higher photon energy would interact more than a lower energy photon at the same distance. Just as with refraction. But distance also plays a role. The further apart, the less interaction. Could it be that two colors to arrive at the same location, would have to have (almost) the same interaction. Higher energy photons would have to have a higher orbit for the same interaction/bend angle as lower energy photons in a lower orbit.

See the proof of the possibility of boundary layers at the page ‘Looking into the slit’.

**What else could be an explanation? LC oscillator:**

According to general accepted information a photon has an E force field and an M force field. So the frequency of the photon must be the switching on/off of the two force fields. Just as the switching on/off of the flash lights on the police car. Still unknown to me is whether the E-field and M-field alternate or are on/off simultanious. Anyone with more info for me on this?

Switching with EM fields is also found in electronics. As an LC oscillator. Theoretically this oscillator has an eigen-frequency and loses no energy. Just as is the theory for photons/EM radiation!

The frequency of the LC oscillator is calculated with the product of the impedance L and the capacitance C. So, in theory, different values of L and C can result in the same LC product and subsequent have the same frequency (=color). These photons have different values for L and C and thus different EM force fields.

- As an example, when L = 2 and C =6, the product will be 12. Also for L=4 and C = 3 the product will be 12. The same frequency/color but different EM fields!
- Another example, When L=2 and C=6 the product will be 12. For L = 2 and C = 2 the product will be 4. Thus the same magnetic field but a different frequency/color

Does this maybe leads to the different spots with the double slit experiment!?

Light has been studied a lot with polarizers. From the findings with wire-grid polarizers it is clear that:

- the EM-radiation of which the (1) ‘magnetic L field is aligned’ / (2) ‘electric C field is perpendicular‘ to the wires/matter’ will pass or ‘be transmitted’ (Transmitted).
- the EM-radiation of which the (1) ‘magnetic L field is perpendicular’ and (2) electric C field is aligned‘ to the wires/matter’ will be blocked or ‘not transmitted’ (Absorbed of Reflected).

Also it is clear that EM-radiation at a 45 degree angle from the wires will partially pass the grid and will partially be blocked by the grid. Maybe also here different photon LC combinations can be ‘aligned’ more or less by the matter present towards the polarized direction (or be blocked). Clear is that the polarizer has an effect on the trajectory of the quanta.

When using different colors of sunlight on the same slit we get the following:

Thinking about bending because of high frequency EM-forces we can imaging that each color at the same distance from the center line should have had the same force interaction.

A calculation example, with in it the visible spectrum, can be seen here:

Suppose the bending is caused by the magnetic L. For an ultra violet quanta with a frequency of 9,99e14 Hz ( 300 nm) with an L=1 and C=1 the amount of bending would be the same as for an infrared quanta with a frequency of 2,50e14 Hz ( 1200 nm) with an L=1 and C=16.

Another important awareness is that it might be that different frequencies/colors can bend the same angle if the L component or C component is the same. Thus frequency different, color different, but bending the same angle. This would explain the overlapping bands in the photo’s above.

..But why does light diffract inversed from refraction.

To be continued later on…

**Conclusion for me**

Today two options still are in the running:

(1) Diffraction at different angles due to different force levels at different distances between EM quanta and the matter.

(2) Different colors with the same ‘L property’ or (‘C property’?) will bend at the same angle.

**An interresting side step to the electron-positron annihilation.**

In electron-positron annihilation two particles, a positron and electron, are found to annihilate into two photons with the same energy as the two particles.

This can only be the case when the ‘electron particle’ energy is another ´shape´ of EM radiation energy. Maybe each ‘electron particle’ exists out of a photon ‘locked up in a small circular space/volume’. As an example, look at two situations where a dog is running in a straight line in comparison to the same dog chasing it’s own tail. Remember for the next section: A dog can chase it’s tail only into two directions. Clock wise and counter clock wise.

Back to the ‘electron particle’ existing out of a photon ‘locked up in a small circular space/volume’. Think about the Mobius ring, a ‘1D space’ in a ‘3D space’. The Mobius ring comes in 2 variations, I will call these: (1) ‘clock wise’ and (2) ‘counter clock wise’. When the a photon would follow the ‘clock-wise Mobius ring’ , it’s resulting force field from it’s dynamic EM force fields could be opposite from the same photon following the ‘counter clock wise Mobius ring’. Hence one and the same photon can create an electron and a positron. When the angular speed of a dynamic force field is high enough, it would be experienced as static. See here: the ‘static’ electron charge.

Has anyone measured the frequency of the electron charge?

When the theory of LC model photons is true, then also LC model electrons will exist. With different values of the fundamental electron charge. This might explain:

- why so little clean electron-positron annihilations occur when electrons and positrons are brought together. Maybe only ‘equal’ LC electron-positron pairs will annihilate clean into two of the same photons.
- the electron diffraction pattern.

Has anyone measured the range of electron charges?

The electron-positron annihilation is the unlocking of the ‘energy inside the electron shape’ into another type of energy ‘shaped as’ radiation.

Flipping the direction of ‘the spinning dynamic EM field of the photon inside the electron’ could be the difference between matter and ‘anti-matter’. Therefore Matter and Anti-Matter can be seen as physics-‘isomers‘ of each other.

**Where to go next?**

In this short piece of theory there are two plausible directions:

- In E= h * f ; find the minimal ΔE / Δf in EM radiation. Showing a quantified delta in photon energy.
- to show that photons of one color/frequency (LC product is equal) do exist out of multiple LC combinations. Thus having different EM force fields that cause the diffraction patterns.

This theory is not yet true, but at least it is imaginative.