Wave-Particle Conundrum

History
Thomas Young’s double-slit experiment has been of great interest to philosophers, because it has forced them to reevaluate their ideas about classical concepts such as "particles", "waves", "location", and "movement from one place to another".

Around 1021, Ibn al-Haytham wrote a book, Book of Optics, wherein he proclaimed that light must be in the form of minute particles.

Around 1690 in a paper, Traité de la lumière, Christiaan Huygens achieved note for his argument that light consists of waves and this became instrumental in the understanding of wave-particle duality.

Around 1704, Isaac Newton released a book, Opticks, in which he revealed his studies on light to the conclusion that light was in the form of particles (“corpuscles”) rather than waves.

Then around 1803, Thomas Young published a paper, Experiments and Calculations Relative to Physical Optics, wherein he re-proposed that light must indeed be in the form of waves yet maintain particle like properties. In his famous “Double-slit Experiment” he shows how photons seem to interfere with each other to form an interference pattern.

This issue has been of interest to Science even up to 1989 with Claus Jönsson’s renowned version of the same experiment using electrons being repeated with high-tech equipment by Tonomura and his team at Hitachi in Japan.

The simple resolve of the issue of particle versus wave characteristics lies in the fact that every particle is actually merely a wave, in effect, chasing it’s own tail. But that assertion is not the point of this writing.

An interesting phenomenon arose during the years of studying the double slit experiment, which was that even when single photons (or any particle) were shot through a double slit aperture apparatus, what appeared to be a wave interference pattern became evident. This has led to many speculations of how a single particle can interfere with itself.

Thesis
In this thesis, I will take on the dubious task of trying to explain without pictures, what has confounded Science for the past 310 years concerning how it is that subatomic particles appear to have both particle and wave characteristics and can produce effects that seem to display wave interference of single particles with themselves. But what is more interesting to me is that all of this could have been resolved 1000 years ago by sticking to the logic of metaphysics or possibly even 6000 years ago with Ahdam, no "quantity statistics".

If we accept that a photon is a spinning substance, it must necessarily be lopsided in some way else it could never be detected as spinning. If something is truly 100% homogeneous, the universe would have absolutely no means to be effected by its spin and thus could not be said to have a spin.

Thus we can imagine something like a bicycle wheel with a white stripe painted around one point of the tire. As the tire spins, it also travels freely along the vector of its axle. But as it does so, that white point on its tire traces out a spiral path.

For the sake of this explanation, that stripe can be understood as a portion of the photon that is denser than other parts of the tire.

As the denser portion of the spinning tire approaches the edge of an aperture, the close edge of the tire must slow as it gets effected by the mass of the aperture edge. And the denser portion of the tire must slow even more then less dense portion would.

This effect of slowing merely the closer portion of the spinning wheel will cause the wheel to change its vector in a bend toward the aperture edge. But the amount of bend in the vector will depend on which portion of the tire was approaching. The denser portion will necessarily cause a greater bend than the less dense portion.

Thus the result of a photon passing by an aperture edge will be that the photon diffracts, but how much it diffracts, will depend on how close it came and also what phase of the spin happen to be nearer at the time.

Diffraction Pattern
We can call the “peak of the spiral” the time when the white stripe would be closest to the aperture edge and take one spiral segment from one peak to another for analysis of the diffraction effects.

If we demark that segment of the spiral from one peak to the next into 10 equal parts along the fundamental vector of the photon and see how much each segment would cause vector diffraction, we can see a diffraction pattern that would result from many photons randomly approaching that aperture edge. But we will find that it is not an even distribution.

When the dense, white stripe, portion of the wheel is closest to the aperture edge, the diffraction will be greatest. When the least dense portion, opposite to the white strip, is closest to the edge, the diffraction will be least.

But if we look at each segmented portion, we find that 7 out of the 10 segments represent a moment when the dense portion is closer than the axis of the vector. This means that if the maximum diffraction were 60 degrees and the minimum were 1 degree, more than half of the photons would diffract more than 30 degrees. The diffraction will not be evenly or gradually distributed from a little to a lot, but rather an increase in hits will be displayed as the diffraction is greater. It will understandably obey a sinusoid distribution.

This is an important attribute to note because this is what will end up causing what appears to be a wave inference pattern when single photons are passed through 2 apertures.

But due to the opposite side of the aperture, a reversed reflection of the same image will be generated leaving a hit rate that is lower in the center sinusoidally increasing out to both sides.

Now with merely that one picture of diffraction having an increasing number of hits with greater diffraction, we can construct what would be seen by having many aperture examples superimposed.

If we take two such example diffraction patterns as supposed from two apertures and overlap the patterns, we cannot avoid causing what appears to be a wave interference pattern. It doesn’t matter when the patterns were generated, if they are not from exactly the same aperture edge, a wave-interference like pattern will appear. This is due to the accelerated number of hits per diffraction degree.

Thus the resolve is that during a single particle at a time experiment, every aperture should be expected to produce a diffraction pattern that can overlap another apertures diffraction pattern to produce wave-interference like patterns.

But this is not to conclude that interference between particles never occurs. When particles can truly collide, they can add or subtract from the effect they will display and thus still have true interference potential. All subatomic particles must necessarily be formed of spinning waves.