The First Offering
The well known physicist Richard Feynman was fascinated by Young's double-slit
experiment, often stating that the experimental results never could be explained
in terms of any one or more understandable physical principles.
However if you click here
you will receive an executable file (PC format) that proves Feynman wrong.
This program should be run in a DOS session.
The program represents a simple physical phenomenon. Exactly
the same algorithms apply whether one or two slits are open, so the same
physical principles apply in both cases. As will be seen, 1 slit open results in
a no interference pattern, whilst 2 slits open results in a standard
interference pattern, both just as in the actual experiment.
The simple physical phenomena used in this demonstration is not explained
here, as its details are irrelevant to Feynman's argument, that no physical
phenomena can be conceived that produces the same basic result as the actual
2-slit experiment. Such phenomena have been made up as the demonstration proves.
This one demonstration proves that the experiment can be explained in simple
terms and has many ramifications. In particular, we can state now without
reservation that quantum Mechanics needs at least a certain amount of reforming.
The Second Offering
The experiments and demonstrations presented here show
that both wave theory and quantum mechanics need revision.
The intensity of a light beam measures the intensity of the
energy of the beam. The amplitude of a beam is calculated from knowledge of the
intensity, but amplitude is not a real entity. It is just a convenient
mathematical device. If two beams have the same polarisation, another
mathematical concept, then if the beams are mixed, the amplitudes have to be
added, then the modulus obtained to find the new intensity of the combined beam.
On the other hand, if the beams are orthogonally polarised, the intensities have
to be just added together. This is all standard theory and not that of the site
owner. After studying the experiments and demonstrations on this site, it will
be obvious that observed intensity is NOT the same as wave or photon
Again there is a concept called Amplitude also known by several other names,
which is treated in much the same way as above, but when the modulus is formed,
it is said to represent the probability of finding a photon at a particular
point in space. The photon probability is equivalent to the intensity,
and as stated above is shown here to be proportional to the photon intensity.
The First Experiment (The razor blade)
Object of experiment.
To show that in the interference pattern displayed on a screen, there is a smooth
distribution of incident photons and energy. For the first and most important part
of the experiment, only three pieces of equipment are required, and these usually
can be found in any school physics laboratory or simply obtained elsewhere.
A low power laser, e.g. helium-neon, is set up with its beam impinging on a large
screen about 3 to 4 metres away. The edge of a brand new razor blade, with the edge
vertical, is introduced into the laser beam near it origin. It is set so that about
two fifths of the beam is blocked. The arrangement is shown in Fig 1 below.
Light that passes very close to the edge of the blade is diffracted as shown
in the figure. I prefer to use the word deflected since 'diffracted' gives the
impression that the exact mechanism that causes the light to be deflected is
understood - it is not understood. It is vital in the further understanding of
the experiment, to appreciate that the rest of the beam, which is not blocked,
passes the razor edge too far away to be affected or deflected by the edge.
On the screen, the undeflected light just produces a bright spot,
whilst the light that has been deflected produces a continuous beam of light,
extending equally on both sides of the bright spot.
A second razor blade
edge is now introduced into the part of the laser beam about two inches further
along the laser beam. It is introduced however, at the other side of the beam,
but again so that it blocks about two fifths of the original beam. Thus, there
remains one fifth of the beam that remains unaffected and undeflected. The
second edge, being identical to the first edge has exactly the same light and
energy deflecting characteristics. Its affect is not influenced by the first
edge, and the first edge is unaffected by the second edge. This all follows from
the fact that there is an undeflected one fifth of the original beam that passes
both edges at the same distance - too far away from the edges to be affected.
Note that the body of the second razor blade will block half the deflected light
from the first edge. However, the second edge must cause the same distribution
of light and energy on the screen as the first edge. When we examine the
composite image on the screen, we see that at part A where deflected light
arrives from only the second edge, the anticipated continuous line of light is
seen. When we examine at the point where light arrives from both the edges (part
B), a typical interference pattern is produced due to light from the two razor
edges, as shown in Fig. 2.
We know that both edges must have the same even distribution of light and
energy on the screen at B, therefore there must be the same energy distribution
at the bright fringes as at the dark fringes. At first thought this seems
impossible, but we must remember that experimental results must always take
precedence over theories, no matter how well and how long these theories have
existed and been believed by multitudes of university students. In the two
remaining figures, methods are shown that confirm that the presence of any one
edge has no affect on the other. No detailed explanations of the figures are
made, since the methodology will be self-evident to anyone familiar with optical
Although standard theories
assert that there is little light nor energy in the dark fringes, this
experiment shows that is not so, and there is the same amount of energy incident
at both dark and bright fringe areas. There is however, a well-known standard
"proof" that almost all the energy is in the bright fringes and hardly any in
the dark areas, but it is a 'proof' dependent on the standard theories. Since
here these theories are in question, they cannot be cited against the experimental
results, otherwise we would have a circular, and therefore meaningless, argument.
Here I propose no detailed explanation of the
observed effect, other than to say I use my personal explanation for all the
experiments, and also in the demonstration of Young's two-slit experiment that
you may download if you have not already done so. I call it the Accumulator
Effect. Since both wave theory and quantum theory contain this error, regarding
the distribution of photons in an interference pattern, it will be necessary to
modify them if they are to continue to be taught in schools and universities.
First, it will be necessary to overcome the prejudice and narrow-mindedness.
Secondly the stress and fear associated with the career prospects of all
teachers of these flawed theories will have to be overcome.
The second experiment (Disappearing light)
Object of experiment.
To show that a beam of photons can be invisible and therefore almost undetectable.
This experiment is a modified form of Michelson's interferometer. It has two
added parts. First, an additional mirror (mirror 3 in the diagram) is added to
reflect back into the interferometer the light that usually forms the main
output of the interferometer. The second addition is that of a second
beam-splitter, placed between the laser's output and the interferometer proper.
This second beam-splitter directs half the light from the single output that is
heading back towards the laser, from the interferometer onto a screen. Its
function is to provide a means of conveniently monitoring the interferometer's
light output. A lens widens the image on the screen and again is present just
for convenience. All the mirrors of the interferometer are set-up to be
perfectly aligned. The means of ensuring this alignment are obvious to those
familiar with working with interferometers, so no explanation here. The actual
experiment is now done by moving one or more of the mirrors, 1 through 3, so
that the light seen on the screen is a minimum. Of course, these adjustments are
carried out with aid of specialised manipulators. Given that no matter how
precisely the optical components are manufactured, there will be some
imperfection in the image, so that zero light on the screen will be unlikely,
nevertheless the minimum will normally be very close to zero. The question is;
What has become of all the light and associated energy which enters the
Interpretation: - Two professors have analysed this
result using wave theory and their conclusions are illuminating. First, they add
all the components of light that are reflected back towards the laser and
screen. They agree that for certain positions of the three mirrors, these
components sum to zero in accord with the experimental result. However when
asked where the light and energy has gone, the answer is given that it has been
dissipated at the surfaces of the mirrors, because there are multiple
reflections occurring. There are however two problems with this "explanation".
First, if the light is dissipated in the mirrors, how is it that its components
heading towards the laser can be added? How can light that is lost in the three
mirrors, also exist on its way towards the screen when it has been dissipated in
the mirrors? The second way to show that this interpretation is wrong, is to use
mirrors that transmit a very small proportion of the light hitting their
surface. This transmitted light need be only 1%, so that the rest, minus losses,
is all reflected. This transmitted light can be monitored with light sensitive
detectors. The transmitted light is of course a small part of the light in the
three arms of the interferometer. When this is done, the total transmitted light
is found to be virtually constant whatever the settings of the mirrors. Thus we
can set the light intensity on the screen to a maximum or a minimum (zero), and
observe that the light intensity in the three arms and therefore the losses in
the three arms are the same in both cases. Now when there is a bright light on
the screen and the losses are the same as when there is nothing on the screen,
it follows that losses cannot account for the disappearing light.
Of course the correct interpretation is simple and easily understood, provided that
one dismisses the previous indoctrination that we all have undergone at one time
or another. There is nothing wrong with indoctrination provided that we realise
it is just that, and that we are prepared to discard it when a better
explanation or an original experimental result is available:- as here.
As in the first experiment, we see that it is possible to have a beam of
waves/photons that are not visible, but exist.
This experiment shows that the two principal theories of light phenomenon,
wave and quantum theories, are flawed and should be recognised as such,
so that modified versions can be formulated. To continue teaching theories
that are proved by experiment to be wrong is anti-scientific.
The Third Experiment (The 4% Interferometer)
It has always been argued that when a change occurs in the intensity of interfering
beams, due to the phase relationship between the beams being altered, then a
increase in intensity at one point is compensated by an decrease in intensity at
another point. In the experiment described below at one point the intensity
changes from dark to bright, by .0736, whilst the only other point to change
intensity does so by only .0032. Thus the usual assertion is shown wrong and it
follows that postulates, theories and mathematical processes based on this wrong
belief must be flawed to some extent.
The experimental arrangement is very similar to the
well known Michelson Interferometer. However instead of the usual 50/50 beam
splitter a thick glass plate is used. Its actual thickness is not important as
long as it is thick enough to allow separation of certain of the various
reflections. The part of the figure labelled "First reflections" shows how the
laser beam is split into three beams when it first encounters the glass plate. A
reflection of 4% of the intensity occurs at the front surface of the plate and
is absorbed by a optical stop (1) as it is not required in the remaining parts
of the experiment. A further 4% approximately is reflected from the internal
surface of the plate most of which leaves the plate heading for mirror M1. The
remaining 92% of the laser beam leaves the far surface of the plate heading for
mirror M2. The part of the figure labelled "Second reflections" shows what
happens to the two beams after reflection from M1 and M2. The beam from M1 is
reflected twice just as the original beam from the laser was reflected, so that
4% of it is reflected first to a stop and and a second 4% reflected back towards
the laser. These intensities are so small that for our purposes they can be
neglected. The remaining 92% (of the 4% from M1) leaves the plate heading for
the screen. Meanwhile the beam reflected from M2 reflects 4% (of its 92%)
towards the screen, coaxial with that from M1. It also passes 92% of 92%, which
equals 84.64%, back towards the laser. Thus there are two sets of beams that can
interfere constructively or destructively, according to the phase relationship
set by the position of M2. The Table in the figure sets out the resultant
intensities of the two beams for the two extreme positions of M2. These
positions are for maximum and minium intensity on the screen. It is seen that
the variation of intensity of the beam heading towards the laser is only .0032
whilst that on the screen is .0736, a ratio of 1 to 23. Thus moving M2 from one
position to the other changes the intensity on the screen from bright to dark,
whilst there is no corresponding intensity change in the beam heading towards
the laser. Later this can be monitored conveniently by replacing a third stop by
a screen, because the light at this point is a simple fraction of that heading
back towards the laser. Note that there are some other reflections that have not
been mentioned, but they are of very low intensity and more importantly do not
give rise to any interference effects. The experiment shows, in a very simple
way, that two beams can interfere to give an invisible beam (darkness) without
there being any other compensating effect.
Experiment No. 4 The Super Phoenix (Something arising from nothing)
Object of experiment
To show that at an area corresponding to a dark fringe, the energy and photons that are
"invisible", can be re-constructed as a visible image.
Although the apparatus, like that of the other experiments, is simple and
easily accessible, it does incorporate one special piece of apparatus - a
mirror. This mirror is somewhat unusual in so far as it is specially shaped to
correspond with the shape of just one interference fringe. To produce the
fringes, a Michelson interferometer, in which the reflection mirrors are very
slightly mis-aligned, is used in conjunction with a short focal length lens. The
arrangement and the fringe pattern is shown in the diagram.
A screen is used to help set the interference pattern so that about four
fringes are produced within a circle of 3 inches diameter. It would be possible
to select just one of the fringes, bright or dark, by making an appropriate
shaped slit in the screen, but this would have the unfortunate effect of
producing, at the same time, a lot of diffracted light, caused by the slit's
edges. To overcome this difficulty,the specially shaped mirror is used to select
and reflect the fringe to be used by simply placing it just infront of the
screen at a dark or bright fringe area. Diffraction effects still occur, but
none of the diffracted light is reflected into the path of the remaining optical
components, which consist of a set of suitable lenses (3 in my case). These are
selected and positioned to produce a much enlarged, in-focus image of the two
virtual light sources which give rise to the interference. The images of the two
sources should be spaced about 1cm apart and appear on a screen, which can be
conveniently observed in subdued lighting conditions during the rest of the
1) The special mirror is placed exactly where a
bright fringe occurrs, in front of the screen, and the lens system is adjusted
to produce clear images of the two light sources. Now the mirror is moved into a
position where previously there is, on the screen, a dark fringe. It is observed
that the two images remain substantially the same. This is in contradiction with
standard teaching, which insists there is very little energy in the dark fringe
area in comparison with that in a bright fringe area.
2) Now the lens system is adjusted to de-focus the images so that they
overlap, whereupon the overall brightness of the images is much reduced. If the
small mirror is placed to reflect a bright fringe then the overlapping will give
a brighter image than when a dark fring is reflected. It is obvious that the
energy passing though the lens system is the same irrespective of whether the
images are in or out of focus yet the intensity changes dramatically. Standard
theories do not predict or acknowledge this effect.
3) In the final part of the experiment, a small piece of dark card is used to
block, in turn, the path of the light within the interferometer which is
responsible for one of the light sources. Under this condition there remains
only one light source so that no interference can possibly occur. This means
that where there was a dark fringe area there now must be an intermediate light
intensity. This intensity is uniform over the 3 inch diameter area of the
original fringes. Thus at a dark fringe, this area will increase in brightness
when any one of the light sources is blocked. It is observed that the only
effect on the image screen is that one or other of the two images
disappears/reappears. That is, the total image brightness is halved/doubled
whilst at the same time the intensity at the selected dark area decreases/increases.
Again this could not possibly be anticipated according to standard teaching.
Conclusion:- Each of the three variations of the experiment proves, by
demonstration, that just because it is not possible to see light at a particular
place, it does not mean that there is no light energy there, and that in at
least some situations it is possible to re- transform this hidden energy back
into observable light.
If you have understood experiment 1 (Razor blade) and experiment 4 (Phoenix)
and have not been able to find a flaw in the experimental method
or the interpretation of the results, then you have no alternative but to
reject both classical wave theory and quantum theory. I don't mean that these
theories are all wrong, but rather that they need modification.
The BONUS Experiment
The object of the experiment is to show by a simple argument,
based on classical wave analysis, that the assertion by Dirac
that each photon passes, in some unspecified way, through both
Young's double slit experiment/
and interferes with itself.
The apparatus of the experiment is shown here and
could be classed as an Eraser type experiment due to the last polariser. The
eraser is applied to the polariser just in front of the screen. A laser supplies
the light, and the output beam is plane polarised at 45 degrees by a sheet
polariser. The light then enters an arrangement that is basically a
Young's double slit apparatus/
First the light is split by a beamsplitter
and later recombined by a second beam splitter. There are two outputs from the
second beam splitter but only one is used, the other is incident on a stop and
therefore plays no further part in the experiment. One of the two paths has a
vertically orientated polariser through which the photons pass, whilst in the
other path a horizontal polariser is positioned. The eraser polariser is
positioned in the path of the operative output beam oriented at 45 degrees. In
both cases photons that pass along the top
must be vertically polarised and therfore cannot at the same time pass through the lower
Without the eraser polariser in posion there would be no interference pattern
produced since it is well known that orthoganally polarised beams cannot interfere.
However with the eraser polariser in position, set at 45 degrees, the two beams
reaching the screen are both the same polarisation and therfore an interference
pattern will be produced on the screen.
It is impossible that a photon can, in any way, pass along both
the top and bottom paths because of its specific polarisation.
Therefore each photon passes through only one
yet interference still occurs. The interference is therefore
between photons that have passed through opposited
This is in contractiction the the Dirac assertion. This assertion however
is at the heart of modern quantum mechanics which therefore must have some
modification made to it if it is to be taken seriously in the future.
Below are some of the more frequent reasons given so far as to why some of
the experiments are flawed.
Also I give the fundamental reason why these type of arguments are invalid.
1) The experimental results must be wrong because they are not in accord with standard theories
THEORIES CANNOT BE USED TO PROVE EXPERIMENTS WRONG, BUT EXPERIMENTS CAN BE USED TO PROVE
THEORIES WRONG. To prove an experiment wrong, one has to show that there is an error
in the experimental method or that the results of the experiment have been wrongly observed.
2)The primary experimental observations are just as
would be forecast by a standard theory.
Many of the results are as per standard theory, but it is the ones
that AREN'T with which we should be concerned.
3)The experiments can be explained by the
following [ad hoc] theory.
Ad hoc theories are meaningless.
4)Objections based on not having read the explanations
of the experiments carefully enough.
Re-study the website material
5)Sheer prejudice based on long years of indoctrination and
an unwillingness to admit being wrong.
Difficult one this, but realising that when one is shown to be wrong (scientifically
speaking), one must accept it, then that person will have made a positive step
forward. In fact most discoveries in science have followed this route. Additions
to the periphery of existing views seldom carry things forward towards a new enlightenment.