Explaining the Slit Experiment
Introduction to the experiment
In 1801, Young carried out an experiment where he passed light through two narrow slits cut into a partition and projected the beam onto a screen. If as Newton had suggested, light consists of a stream of particles, Young expected to see two shadows. Instead, he observed fringes (Fig 1). Young’s slit experiment was, thus, the first observational milestone to place in doubt Newton’s corpuscular hypothesis.
Albert Einstein and Niels Bohr debated Young’s Slit Experiment at the 5th Solvay Conference in Brussels in 1927. Despite that the corpuscular hypothesis for light and electrons had by then been thoroughly debunked, they inexplicably modeled their respective slit experiment arguments with particles. Both illustrated that particles of light would strike the window sills of the slits and ricochet towards the screen.
Indeed, the debate was about whether the entire slit assembly would move when the photon particles struck the inner part of the frame of the slit windows (Fig 2). In his 1935 paper in which he replies to Einstein’s famous EPR experiment, Bohr explains:
“Let us begin with the simple case of a particle passing through a slit in a diaphragm… this particle impinges on the diaphragm… the momentum exchanged between the particle and the diaphragm… we lose, on account of the uncontrollable displacement of the diaphragm during each collision process with the test bodies, the knowledge of its position when the particle passed through the slit.”
It is quite perplexing that Einstein and Bohr who are regarded as leading experts even today never learned something as fundamental as that reflection and diffraction are two different physical phenomena. Like the contemporary Quantum mathematicians, Bohr and Einstein mistakenly thought that the cause of interference fringes is that photon particles reflect off the walls of the slits.
The amusing explanations of Quantum Mechanics
So what explanations did the mathematicians of Quantum provide over the years for this phenomenon?
Bohr claimed in the same 1935 paper that light had a complementary nature. Light is BOTH a particle AND a wave. Together with other contributing mathematicians, they decided that what travels is not a physical object. What travels is a mathematical equation called ‘a’ wavefunction. This abstract wavefunction ‘collapses’ – i.e., it suddenly contracts and condenses – and converts into a more manageable and understandable discrete particle upon contact. One contemporary mathematician summarizes:
“an electron is a wave-like "potentia" until the wave "collapses" into a point by striking the photographic plate… the wave function… is only meaningful as a statistical description of the behavior of a large number of particles — not of an individual particle.”
If this did not shock you, you neither understood it nor its implication. The mathematicians are saying that particles don’t travel. Only waves travel or, alternatively, particles which comprise the wave travel within the wave. When the wave strikes a wall, it condenses into… take your pick:
a. an individual particle
b. a large number of particles
In his book, “From Newton to Einstein”, Ralph Baeierlain summarizes this breathtaking ‘knowledge’:
“Light travels as a wave, but departs and arrives as a particle”
The icing on the cake is that Bohr convinced his peers and the generations of mathematicians that came after him that the act of observing the photon decides whether light will morph into a particle or a wave.
It only got worse when more ‘creative’ mathematicians pitched in their valuable contributions. A deranged mathematician named Hugh Everett, who had obviously overindulged in statistics, proposed that there are many universes all around us and what happens to the photon particles after they pass the slits is strictly a matter of probability. The particles branch out into countless universes and perhaps some of the particles from these other universes are the ones that come into ours and interfere with the particles traversing the slits.
No more needs to be said about Everett’s ludicrous proposal.
Two other loonies of Quantum Magic, John Wheeler and Richard Feynman, proposed the exciting Absorber Theory: particles come from the future and interfere with those of your experiment. John Cramer has championed the Absorber Theory and explains the slit experiment thus…
“a normal "offer" wave and a back-in-time advanced "confirmation" wave… The offer waves from the laser pass through both pinholes and cancel at the positions of the zeroes in the interference pattern.”
A back-in-time advanced confirmation wave?
What is surprising is that these people have Ph.Ds! And yet more astounding, these papers were published in prominent, authoritative, respectable ‘scientific’ journals after being peer-reviewed! Try publishing something rational if you can. I dare you. The editors throw your effort directly into the trashcan.
To summarize, the mathematicians, too proud to admit their ignorance after so many years of research, are telling you in a roundabout way that they don’t know. Like Andersen’s Emperor, they prefer to parade around in public in their Adam clothes, smiling and waving at the crowds, acting with confidence, as if they know something. Meanwhile, they have convinced the lay public that these outrageous surrealistic explanations have been proven and reflect reality.
The Rope Hypothesis
One of the reasons that the mathematicians gave up on 'classical' Newtonian physics is that they could never, even to this day, find a rational physical interpretation for Young's slit experiment. Richard Feynman, a Nobel Prize Winner of the religion of Quantum Mechanics authoritatively declared the Slit Experiment to be:
“a phenomenon which is impossible, absolutely impossible, to explain in any classical way”
Perhaps Feynman gave up a little too soon. Maybe he wasn’t creative enough. Or perhaps he was overly gullible and swallowed the religion of Quantum Mechanics lock, stock, and barrel without doing any critical thinking. (It really doesn’t come as a surprise that a pushover such as Feynman was the ‘physicist’ that explained that the bullet that struck JFK in the head came from behind the car. The fact that JFK’s head went backwards, he said, was due to a ricochet effect.)
Let’s do the slit experiment with a hair and assume that light consists of a pair of torqued threads. Every atom in the Universe is connected to all others via these electromagnetic (EM) ropes.
The correct interpretation of the slit experiment now follows more naturally. Before we have ignition, the atoms constituting the flashlight, the hair, the air, and the screen are already interconnected by continuously torquing threads. When you turn the laser pointer on, the atoms comprising the filament receive a stimulus and begin to pump faster (Fig. 3). An increase in frequency translates into shorter links and light comes within visible range. This signal travels to the atoms comprising the sides of the hair which relay them onto the screen. The signal traveling to the screen does so along EM ropes that bind hair atoms to screen atoms. (In Fig. 3 only a couple of atoms are shown.)
Then it’s your standard wave explanation. If the ropes arriving at a screen atom from different sides of the hair are out of phase, the screen atom will not be stimulated. We have destructive interference. Otherwise, we have constructive interference.
So you see, Rich? The slit experiment does have a ‘classical’ (i.e., rational) explanation. We don’t need to invoke Quantum Magic to explain this phenomenon. We just needed the correct configuration of light and the atom. You were simply not smart enough to figure out how Mother Nature does her invisible magic trick!
Corollary: Never send a mathematician to do the ‘saw-the-lady-in-half’ stage trick. He might actually saw her in half and then attempt to convince you through equations that she is still alive in another universe!