Demystifying Double Slit Experiment

“If studying quantum mechanics doesn’t make you dizzy, you haven’t understood it” Neils Bohr, the father of quantum physics.

“If you are not completely confused by quantum mechanics, you do not understand it” John Wheeler.

“Quantum mechanics makes absolutely no sense” Roger Penrose.

“I think it is safe to say that no one understands quantum mechanics. Nobody knows how it can be like that” the great physicist Richard Feynman.

That’s how the physicists themselves have felt about the quantum physics, and we could imagine how it would be like for the fresh science graduates and the lay people. Quantum physics is full of absurdities and counterintuitive notions. According to this weird science, a particle can exist at multiple locations simultaneously, a particle can travel via multiple routes simultaneously, a cat can be both dead and alive, a door can be both open and shut etc etc at the same time. And then wave-particle duality, quantum entanglement, superposition, multiple universes and so on and so fourth… there exist so many mystical notions in quantum physics that defy our logic.

But why did our physicists come to those strange conclusions that made no sense, even to them? Well, apparently, that is what the results of the double slit experiment (DSE) implied. In this article we will take a relook at the Double Slit Experiment and see if we can make some sense out of this great historical experiment.

Thomas Young, a British physician turned physicist, conceived and devised this experiment in early 1800s. When light photons were fired in this double slit experiment, they produced wave like interference pattern on the detector screen which implied that each photon was traveling through both the slits like a wave. But how can a particle pass through both slits like a wave? If we can solve this puzzle, we can dispense with all the absurd teachings of quantum physics.

Imagine that we are undertaking the double slit experiment and studying the behaviour of water molecules. For this, we have a water gun which can shoot water molecules at any desired rate i.e. it can shoot water molecules one by one or in a continuous shower like manner. And we have a screen with 2 slits in it and behind this we have a ‘hydrosensitive’ screen which records the impacts of water molecules at various points on it. Now we shoot showers of water molecules with our water gun towards the slits in the first screen. While most of the water molecules get stopped by the screen, some of them pass through the slits and go on to hit the detector screen behind. We study the distribution of the hits on the detector screen. It is no surprise that we see the following pattern (two bands corresponding to the slits).

DSE water particles

Then we shoot water molecules one by one with our water gun. As our gun is not the best shooter in the world, it shoots the water molecules a bit randomly i.e. each molecule it shoots goes in a slightly different direction. So again, while most of the molecules get stopped by the first screen, some of the molecules pass through the slits and reach the detector screen. After a sufficient number of molecules have been shot, we study the distribution of hits on the hydrosensitive detector screen. It is again no surprise that we see the same pattern (i.e two bands) as noted above. This is obviously what we would expect from particles in our everyday world. We may call this as particle pattern of distribution in contrast to the interference pattern we get when waves are ‘fired’ in DSE. So far we have found nothing too exciting or weird.

Now let’s place our whole set up inside a large container (or a sea) of still water and repeat the experiment. Let’s presume that our ‘hydrosensitive’ detector screen, despite being surrounded by water, doesn’t record any ‘hits’ because the molecules are absolutely still and as such are not hitting the hydrosensitive screen. Of course in reality, water molecules will never be absolutely still (except probably at absolute zero temperature), so adjoining molecules keep colliding with the detector screen. But these random collisions by the adjoining water molecules will only produce a diffuse/uniform distribution of hits on the entire detector screen without any specific pattern or bands. We could ignore that as ‘background noise’ or set that as zero reading.

Now let’s ‘trigger’ our water gun to shoot water molecules one by one. After a sufficient number of molecules have been shot, we study the pattern of impacts recorded on the detector screen. What kind of pattern do you expect on the detector screen?

Interestingly, we don’t get the previously noted particle pattern (or two band pattern) now despite the fact that we have fired the water particles exactly as before. Rather we get interference pattern (or multiple band pattern) as shown below, which is characteristic of waves.

DSE water waves

Of course it is not difficult to explain why the particle pattern vanishes here and gives way to the interference or wave pattern:- Each water particle that gets fired initiates a wave in the still water which travels towards the first screen. While most of the wave gets reflected back by the screen, a portion of the wave passes through each slit and emerges on the other side as a ‘daughter wave’. Because there are two slits, there are going to be two such daughter waves or wavelets. These two ‘wavelets’ spread and interfere with each other and result in the interference pattern observed on the detector screen.

So what made the particle pattern vanish here and give way to the interference or wave pattern? Obviously it is the water environment which is responsible for the appearance of the wave pattern. Outside the water tank, the water particles produced only two bands. Now the question comes, if water environment could make water particles to produce wave like interference pattern, what environment could make photon particles produce the same? It must be obviously a photon environment. So the fact that photons cause wave like interference pattern in DSE implies that our world is immersed in an ocean of photons.

DSE photons

So when we fire a photon, it would initiate a tiny wave in the ocean of photons, which would then travel through both the slits and produce the interference pattern on the detector screen. Now it is no surprise that photon particles produce wave like interference pattern in DSE if we propose that our universe is immersed in an ocean of photons. Thus double slit experiment provides a direct proof of the existence of cosmic ocean of photons (in other words ‘Ether’). And unlike what the quantum physicists believe, a photon as such doesn’t pass through both the silts but it is the wave generated by the fired photon which passes through both the slits.

I have explained elsewhere why Michelson’s experiment doesn’t disprove Ether and how it actually disproves the superstition that speed of light is constant. I have also explained elsewhere how the so called aberration of star light fits in with the Ether model and also talked about the ‘rain-umbrella story’ which the physicists are unduly fond of reciting while promoting their relativity ideology.

Apart from solving the DSE puzzle and demystifying the quantum mechanics, this Photon Ether model explains so many other mysterious phenomena in simple and clear terms.

Gravity – Whirlpool model: Just like how an object spinning in water creates a whirlpool around it and draws objects towards it, Earth spinning in the ocean of photons could be creating a similar whirlpool around it and dragging objects towards it. So gravity is no longer a mystery and no mythical and absurd concepts like bending of space or warping of space as suggested by Relativity theory. The whirlpools in the photonic ocean generated by the spinning celestial bodies also explains the so called gravitational waves.

Inertia and mass: Existence of Ether explains why there is something called inertia and thus explains mass. Ether is probably what represents the Higg’s field and photons the so called God’s particles. The funny thing here is that scientists have disproved Ether only to reintroduce it with a different name and flavor!

Next we can describe the so called electromagnetic waves in simple and clear terms. They are nothing but waves in the ocean of photons and they are no different from the water waves in an ocean of water. But our science text books describe them as ‘self propagating electric and magnetic fields oscillating in perpendicular planes in vacuum’ no one can understand what that really means. Finally we can explain the so called red shift and cosmic microwave background radiation etc and dispense with the theory of Big Bang.

Electrons and double slit experiment : To explain the interference pattern produced by photons, we have proposed the existence ‘photon Ether’ which is nothing but a sea of photons pervading this entire universe. But how do we explain the interference pattern produced by electrons? Do we need to propose now the existence of what may be called as ‘electron Ether’ in addition to the ‘photon Ether’ or ‘lumiferous Ether’ described above? Absolutely not. In fact, not only electrons but many other particles (even ‘clumps’ of carbon atoms called buckyballs) were observed to behave like waves in the double slit experiment and we can explain all of them by the same Ether model.

Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.


  • pimikepi  On April 30, 2014 at 9:05 pm

    “Unlike what the quantum physicists preach the particle as such doesn’t pass through both the silts simultaneously but it is the particle’s energy which passes through both of them.”

    Incorrect. If you check which slit each particle passes through, you get no interference pattern. Unlike your “aether” superstition, which would produce waves and interference patterns anyway.

    Plus, you didn’t “disprove” the MM experiment and prove the existence of aether before. Your argument was wrong.


    • drgsrinivas  On May 2, 2014 at 3:59 pm

      ‘Checking’ involves blocking the path of one ‘wavelet’. So obviously you wouldn’t get interference. So simple! Of course, because your mind is infected with the relativity virus, you can’t appreciate that.
      I have explained elsewhere why Michelson’s experiment doesn’t disprove Ether and also exposed your pastors’ stupidity on that issue. You wouldn’t be a relativist if you have realised that.
      In fact, as I have already explained, the results of double slit experiment can be argued as proof of existence of photon Ether. The phenomenon of gravity, the so called cosmic microwave back ground radiation, aberration of star light, bending of star light, De Sitter etc etc can all be explained by the same Ether model. But don’t try to know how, the ‘relativity demon’ which occupied your mind doesn’t simply allow that because that would be suicidal for the demon itself.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Hysen  On February 7, 2015 at 5:08 am

      Ether exist weather you’re ignorant or have no idea about physics. It’s all about electromagnetism. That’s the stringest of all forces in nature, and by billions of degrees stronger than gravity. Without ether there would be no flow of electricity what do ever. Remember electromagnetism is what holds the whole universe together.


  • Tim Ruiz  On July 20, 2014 at 5:10 am

    Thank you for such a well reasoned way of showing this. I think quantum physics is sort of saying the same thing without realizing it with their fundamental fermions and bosons. The bosons are actually the Ether. I think they will eventually make the full circle back and realize the Ether and the true nature of what they call gravity (and none of it is really missing).

    Liked by 4 people

  • Jose  On October 1, 2014 at 2:50 am

    Clearly, drgsrinivas, you have a very small understanding of physics. You use an apple to prove that an orange is wrong. I have read much of your writings and find them to be closer to the ramblings of a child. You never give an alternative to SR, QM or GR. You just immaturely repeat how stupid people are if they believe in these PROVEN areas of physics. If you have an alternative that does not start with the words ” Consider, a man on a train”, but has actual mathematical calculations and evidence that is repeatable in experiments and is able to stand up to the scientific process, then please submit that. If it stands up to the rigors of the scientific method and gives a better description of the forces at work in the cosmos and expands on it, then you will be the next Einstein. But, as it stands, you will still be lying in bed at night dreaming of ways to become intelligent. Night after night, feeling mentally inadequate to the children in your neighborhood. Longing for the day when you get the recognition you think you deserve but will never obtain. I pity you and all the other people that you have poisoned with your inadequacies.

    That reminds me, I need to pick up some Cracker Jacks.


    • drgsrinivas  On October 1, 2014 at 10:45 am

      The believers of God may feel the arguments of the non-believers as nothing but ramblings of a child. But that doesn’t make the God believers any better than the non-believers. But anyway, I am not here to discuss about the feelings or religious beliefs of any particular crowd but am here to talk something that is logical.

      Let me tell you that to realise the stupid preachings of your religion, it really requires an unspoilt mind such as that of a child and not the indoctrinated minds like you.

      The alternative to your ‘proven’ stupid theories simply exist in common sense and simple reasoning. And I have presented the same on this blog. Religious minds spoilt by the stupid theories of modern physics, who believe that common sense and logic are of no use, can’t obviously realise that simple fact.

      I must admit that as a nonbeliever of your religion, I don’t think I can stand up to the ‘rigors’ and ‘standards’ of your scientific religion because doing so would demand abandoning logic and swearing by the superstitious beliefs of your religion. Having said that I do respect your religious beliefs as I do with any other religious crowd. But I don’t accept religious beliefs being promoted as science and spoiling the minds of the millions of innocent people.

      If it was for recognition that I was for, I would actually talk something stupid with the stupid scientific crowd, why would I engage in rational arguments and attract criticism from the stupid folk?

      To qualify yourself as a rational mind and prove yourself as not part of the religious scientific crowd, you must put forward a rational argument without invoking your religious beliefs for why double slit experiment can’t be argued as proof of existence of Ether. Or else you can elect to cling to your religion and keep chanting its superstitions! But that is not science in true sense despite your strong delusional preoccupation.

      Good luck either way!

      (BTW your demigod Einstein spent his entire life without sleep dreaming of the ‘Grand unified theory’. It must have been highly painful for him to see his own crowd chanting the stupid rules of quantum religion. Despite the fact that he failed ultimately in his search for the ultimate theory, he didn’t become any less amongst your religious crowd!

      Oh, I have almost forgotten to remind you that your religious pastors swear upon thought experiments to ‘prove’ your religious beliefs. Also you chant the same on a daily basis. Don’t you? Then why is that others shouldn’t propose thought experiments! Is it because your religion owns copy rights over thought experiments or is it because you don’t realise the fact that you chant your pastors’ thought experiments having got completely mesmerised by their words?)


  • Galacar  On October 1, 2014 at 1:30 pm

    to Jose

    I read a lot of hositliy in your post!
    Is your religion being attacked? No, that is not a joke, ‘science’ is a hardly
    disguised religion.
    And you are also for the so -called ‘scientifi cmethod’, which, in reality is a myth of course. If that recipe was that simple we would be done by now!
    And ‘evidence’ hmmm you are just indoctrinated by sheer propaganda of course.
    Have you read my posting that nothing, and I literally mean nothing has come out of ‘modern physics’., nothing, nada, zero, zilch!
    It really is all a ‘joke and you took it, hook,line and….


  • Galacar  On October 1, 2014 at 1:48 pm

    To drgsrinivas

    “(BTW your demigod Einstein spent his entire life without sleep dreaming of the ‘Grand unified theory’. It must have been highly painful for him to see his own crowd chanting the stupid rules of quantum religion. The fact that he failed ultimately in his search of the ultimate theory shouldn’t make him any less!”

    Well, the ‘unified theory’ is already here, for years! But it is supressed of couse by orthodox science (as said, surpression is it’s real job).
    But in order to understand it, you have to read the works of Bruce Cathie about the earth grid.


  • Jose  On October 2, 2014 at 2:23 am

    I have no problems with anyone attacking any established models of physics. But your misguided, uneducated attempts to “prove” a testable model is false by providing nothing more than metaphors as “proof” Is very amusing. Such as listening to a 4 year old child explaining the universe. They are so cute. They have a general picture of the world around them and when they grow up and learn more about the universe, their understanding will grow. This is how I perceive this website. I am hoping that one day you will grow up and come to understand how physics works. Your metaphors ignore important testable proven facts so that your incomplete “model” will sound half way plausible. This can all be boiled down to the fact that if you truly understood physics, you would laugh at the silly drivel that populates this website. But because you choose to not learns actual physics, you will always be stuck at a 4 year old level.

    I have not read your posting on how nothing has come out of modern physics, because, quite frankly, just that sentence is absurd. Why, just the fact that we are using computers to have this interaction. The world would not have computers if not for Quantum physics. The world would not have GPS capabilities if not for Relativity. The list can go on and on. And the biggest point I can make is that if your model of physics were the standard model, I would be banging this out on a stone tablet, outside my cave, while my mate cooks over an open campfire. we would perpetually be in the stone age.


    • drgsrinivas  On October 2, 2014 at 6:51 pm

      So, as expected, you elected to cling to your own religion and decided to discard statements that contradict your religion as childish. That is fine, people have right to have a religion and believe in it however weird or irrational that may be. And I can understand why you deliberately avoided answering to the specific question posed to you – that would just destroy your religion. As a faithful believer you must obviously do everything to save your religion. And you are doing the job very well in that regard. Keep it up!

      Before I leave you with your religious beliefs, I would like to make you aware of one important point (of course you are actually practicing it subconsciously!): If one resorts to stupid reasoning, one can argue anything as proof of any stupid theory and can claim credit for everything that exists in this world. Just like how you are claiming computers as proof of quantum physics and GPS as proof of relativity, the believers of God may claim the same as proof of existence of God. It may be true that it is your religious crowd who have actually invented and produced those funny gadgets and hence may want to solely get the credit. But the believers of God have a logical argument – it is actually God who created everything in this world including your religious crowd. So whatever your religious crowd invents and produces, the credit must go to the God in the first place. So computers and GPS actually prove the existence of God before they prove your stupid religion.

      Ancient humans were able to accurately predict the occurrence of solar and lunar eclipses despite their weird reasoning and understanding of why an eclipse occurs. And ancient physicians had successfully treated many diseases despite their poor understanding of the actual diseases and the pathophysiology. Finally just because a farm worker manages to produce eggs from hens, and grows paddy in the fields, it doesn’t mean that he knows everything about the creation. To do that he only requires a superficial knowledge of them. And same is the case with the ‘cultivators’ of your religion – they simply make use of some superficial knowledge to make your computers, GPS and other gadgets. Swearing upon those silly gadgets to prove your religious beliefs about the Universe only amounts to stupidity.


  • Galacar  On October 2, 2014 at 7:05 pm

    To Jose

    You wrote”

    “I have not read your posting on how nothing has come out of modern physics, because, quite frankly, just that sentence is absurd. Why, just the fact that we are using computers to have this interaction. The world would not have computers if not for Quantum physics. The world would not have GPS capabilities if not for Relativity. The list can go on and on. And the biggest point I can make is that if your model of physics were the standard model, I would be banging this out on a stone tablet, outside my cave, while my mate cooks over an open campfire. we would perpetually be in the stone age.”

    Well,so you talk a lot and know a lot but you haven’t really researched then eh?
    Absurd? Are you sure? only when you start studying, then you realise there is really nothing that came out of modern physics. Not even the computer.
    e.g, the transistor was invented years before quantum mechanics (which is bogus anyway) was ‘constructed’. gps doesn’t need relativity andf the list goes on and on.

    Now, you can be busy making knee-jerk reflexes without any conscious thinking on your part,Or start opening your mind and start researching.


  • Aerophos  On October 17, 2014 at 8:05 pm

    Good theory you have here Dr. One thing though, have you ever considered the following?: WHAT IF the double slit’s sides either deflects or attracts individual photons and that way it changes the direction/velocity of the photon. That could potentially also explain the results of the double slit experiment without the need for any ether. If photons are extremely light in mass, then it suffices to deduce that any surface like the surface of the double slits could potentially alter the velocity of a photon WHEN the photon travels extremely close to the surface. Either through weak forces or micro magnetism, etc etc.
    I’m sure THIS theory of mine has never been considered or discussed. Pathethic really. Good work that you’re doing. Much respect.


  • algol  On November 25, 2014 at 6:15 am

    I’d be interested to hear what you think of the delayed choice quantum eraser experiments. Take a look at this.


    • drgsrinivas  On January 2, 2015 at 10:29 am

      Delayed choice quantum experiments: A mess made messier. It only helps to complicate things, mesmerise and ‘prove’ to the religious scientific minds that quantum physics isn’t easy to resolve by commonsense. So the scientific minds religiously believe in what the physicists preach. When people are struggling at the fundamental level, why break heads explaining things that are made difficult for no good reason (as if the standard double slit experiment doesn’t yield to logic!).


  • Phaze  On December 23, 2014 at 4:11 am

    That’s interesting and everything, but it just looks like a different interpretation.
    Do you have any proof of your model? Perhaps a scientific publication? Because string theory accounts for everything in the universe too, but it’s not taken seriously because it can’t be tested yet.
    Can you test your ether model?


    • drgsrinivas  On December 23, 2014 at 7:30 am

      I am saying that double slit experiment is the proof of Ether. Ether is the conclusion that any rational mind can make from the double slit experiment. Nothing else would explain that logically. Of course for people who believe that our world could be weird and have no objections to believe that particles could exist in multiple places simultaneously and could travel via multiple paths simultaneously, yes, quantum religion without doubt would be the right explanation for double slit experiment.

      ‘Scientific publication’? The last thing that any rational mind would demand to accept truth. Rational minds don’t religiously swear by what is published, rather they logically analyse and conclude things by themselves. On this blog here, I am arguing against the superstitions of the ‘scientific religion’. Obviously no religious journal would publish things that contradict its own religious beliefs. That would be detrimental to the journal itself as well as to the religion! So if you the one who swears by published evidence and faithfully believes in what the ‘science pastors’ preach, don’t bother about what is discussed here.


    • Phaze  On December 23, 2014 at 9:34 am

      Well, we have evidence of our weird quantum behavior and relativity. Quantum tunneling is wacky and is actually has practical applications, like the tunnel diode and the STM. Relativity is accounted for in our GPS satellites. Religion doesn’t produce practicality and encourage ideas. I asked for a publication because you need to go through the peer-review process, which is a strict critique to see if your general idea isn’t majorly flawed in some way. It’s basically just a process to get others in the field to know about your work. It lets them see all the maths involved, the observations, and replicate them.
      That is the essence of what science is.
      You are substituting this for all crazy quantum behavior and relativity right? So, I’ll ask, what predictions can we expect from your model opposed to our established models?
      Predictive capability is perhaps the greatest strength to tell if you’re correct. So what can I predict with the ether model that I cannot predict with relativity?
      Also, how can we falsify your model?
      Just two simple questions that any model can answer.


      • drgsrinivas  On December 23, 2014 at 5:47 pm

        Just like there exist better explanations for double slit experiment, twin flight experiment, cosmic ray muons, there would surely exist better explanations for every thing else that your religion is proud of. I have explained why your twin flight experiment actually disproves your relativity. And I have exposed the stupidity of relativity religion and its mythical time dilation using your own photon clock. I have talked about why your Michelson’s experiment and star light aberration do not disprove Ether.

        For every religion, there exists an ocean of literature, and over that, vast number of publications get generated every year. To prove why some particular religious belief is wrong, we don’t have to look up the entire religious literature and address every single line of it (If that was so, then we will be forced to accept every religious belief as true). Rather it is suffice to say why its foundational concepts are wrong. Then the entire theory (whether we call religious or scientific) stands disproved.

        If a theory is correct, though it might sound illogical superficially, it should become more and more logical as we go deeper. If one is allowed to introduce/ propose more and more weird notions as we go on and also as and when one’s theory is in jeopardy, then any stupid theory can be kept ‘alive’ and ‘proven’ as true.

        Why is your mind fixed with the belief that religions don’t ‘produce practicality’ or encourage ideas. Do you think that religious publications just come in by divine creation and not from people’s ideas. Every religion has its own ‘peer review’ process. They simply don’t publish every paper that comes to them. Just try sending your most favourite scientific paper (arguing why religious preachings are wrong!) to some religious journal and see if that gets published. That would surely fail in their ‘peer review process’ and would get rejected. In fact it would be stupid to expect your scientific paper to get published in their journal.

        Something that measures one foot is longer than something that measures only an inch whether that gets published or not. Insisting for published evidence for things that could easily be understood by direct observation and deduced by simple reasoning only exposes one’s obsession and religious faith in publications.

        The predictive capability of Ether model has already been presented- It explains double slit experiment, the phenomenon of gravity, gravitational waves, the apparent constant speed of light observed in neutral pion decay etc. What about your modern physics? It relies upon two mutually contradicting theories to explain the same and that to with all the illogical propositions and mythical notions like curved space, dead and alive cat etc etc.

        If someone proves that relativity and quantum religions are wrong, it doesn’t mean that one has to explain everything from the beginning till the end of the universe nor that one is obliged to explain everything about creation, evolution etc. It just means that we will have to search for alternative explanations for all those observations which appeared to prove the wrong theories. One could still use them for practical purposes just like how you still use Newton’s model despite being ‘proven’ as wrong!

        Liked by 1 person

  • Galacar  On December 23, 2014 at 12:35 pm


    i really will try to be polite now,

    “Relativity is accounted for in our GPS satellites.”

    Search this site please, it is explained this is not true!

    “the peer-review process, which is a strict critique to see if your general idea isn’t majorly flawed in some way”

    Wow, you seem to be properly indoctrinated now!
    The peer-review process is in reality a way to keep the status quo in tact.
    Be more critical about what you write yourself.

    “Predictive capability is perhaps the greatest strength to tell if you’re correct”

    Are you sure? I see this only used to make concepts into facts!
    Well, you know, concepts cannot turn into facts. Never!
    Be more critical about what you write yourself.

    Sorry to say, I see you only parrotting the party line here, with no critical
    thinking at all. Just chanting the mantra’s of our more than ridiculous ‘science’!

    It is ok if you start there, but be open that you might be wrong.
    And start a revolution, start thinking for yourself!

    And, you probably haven’t read the whole site yet. I have writtem that there is
    NOT ONE thing because of ‘modern physics! Nor because of relativity or quantum physics.NOTHING!

    I might be wrong. but I haven’t beem able to find just one!!!

    So, if you show me one thing because of ‘Modern physics’ I am pretty sure
    I can show it to be wrong.

    Happy Hunting 😉


    • Phaze  On December 25, 2014 at 3:16 am

      Well, good for you trying to be polite. You didn’t do very well, because you basically called me a sheep with no critical thinking. But, good try?
      But, you and nivas didn’t answer either of those questions. And yes, predictive capability is the best way to tell you’re right. It’s why we rely on Genetics rather than Lamarckism…

      You two both wrote a lot, but I clearly asked,
      ” So what can I predict with the ether model that I cannot predict with relativity?
      Also, how can we falsify your model?”

      You can answer that with any model proposed in any field. If you can’t it’s not a model. Explaining something is not a prediction. Your model needs to be able to explain these phenomena yes (since you’re offering a replacement), but you also need predictions that are unique to your model. I also haven’t seen how you can prove the model wrong. If you can’t then it is no model.
      I’m not defending anything else except this. I don’t want to muddy the waters trying to argue 30 different points even though you both said things where I could.


      • drgsrinivas  On December 26, 2014 at 11:00 pm

        It’s really pity to see how modern physics spoiled the intelligent human minds.

        Phaze, relativity came into existence and got accepted because the scientific crowd thought Michelson’s experiment ‘disproved’ ether. If you had known that historical fact, you wouldn’t be posing the same questions again and again.

        Obviously if Ether exists, your relativity and quantum theories become superfluous.

        Hundred and one theories might appear to explain things in this universe. That doesn’t mean that all theories are correct. If one is allowed to make stupid assumptions and weird propositions, any theory can be argued as correctly predicting everything that you observe.

        One may argue that God theory predicts everything that your relativity and quantum theories do. But the scientific crowd don’t entertain that as a correct theory because they believe that the idea of God is superfluous.

        How one could falsify Ether model? Very simple- by demonstrating particle pattern of interference in double slit experiment with light photons!

        The scientific crowd ‘falsified’ Ether model using Michelson experiment. I have explained why they were stupid in assuming so. Now you could falsify me by specifically pointing out where I went wrong with my interpretation of Michelson’s experiment.

        Also I have explained how your twin flight experiment actually falsifies your relativity.

        A correct theory should be capable of explaining observations rationally. Predicting/ proposing stupid phenomena may make theories unique but not correct.


    • Phaze  On December 27, 2014 at 3:52 am

      Yeah, I’d still be asking those questions. Those are questions you ask of every model, I can’t believe you think the history of it makes any difference. Relativity could be wrong, but that doesn’t make the ether automatically correct or vice-versa.

      “One may argue that God theory predicts everything that your relativity and quantum theories do. But the scientific crowd don’t entertain that as a correct theory because they believe that the idea of God is superfluous.”

      You keep making this false analogy. God is not a theory. It isn’t even superfluous. It doesn’t explain anything, it doesn’t predict anything, and it can never be falsified. Whether you like it or not relativity has made predictions, given explanations, and can be falsified. You’re denigrating the scientific usage of theory every time you do this simply because you have a hatred of relativity.

      “How one could falsify Ether model? Very simple- by demonstrating particle pattern of interference in double slit experiment with light photons!
      The scientific crowd ‘falsified’ Ether model using Michelson experiment. I have explained why they were stupid in assuming so. Now you could falsify me by specifically pointing out where I went wrong with my interpretation of Michelson’s experiment.”

      Well the scientific community has done far more experiments than the famous Michelson one. So unless you have an article debunking every ether experiment that has come up negative then it doesn’t really matter. And your Michelson interpretation wasn’t clear enough for me to pin-point where you went wrong. You didn’t seem to critique the method, just the premise and didn’t properly explain what was wrong with their premise.
      What would matter is if you could set up your own experiment to help verify your ether model. Which is nowhere on your site. What you seem to be doing is just interpreting things with respect to ether. If you want to be taken seriously, you need experiments and not outlining one that we already know the result of.

      “A correct theory should be capable of explaining observations rationally. Predicting/ proposing stupid phenomena may make theories unique but not correct.”

      A correct theory explains observations, makes accurate predictions, and can be proven wrong.


      • drgsrinivas  On December 27, 2014 at 12:41 pm

        No body is saying that you shouldn’t be posing questions. But to pose questions and to get clarified, one must be intelligent enough to understand things that are clear by themselves.

        I meant to say that if you knew that simple historical fact that why relativity got accepted, then you would automatically get the answers yourself and you wouldn’t be begging for the answers. For people who struggle to understand/interpret such simple and straightforward stuff, it would be unfair to flood them with more information and expect them to understand. Obviously I was wrong in expecting your primitive religious mind to grasp what I have said about Michelson’s experiment, let alone comment upon.

        “Well the scientific community has done far more experiments than the famous Michelson one. So unless you have an article debunking every ether experiment that has come up negative then it doesn’t really matter”

        I thought you have paid attention to what I have said earlier “—To prove why some particular religious belief is wrong, we don’t have to look up the entire religious literature and address every single line of it. If that was so, then we will be forced to accept every religious belief as true——“.

        “What would matter is if you could set up your own experiment to help verify your ether model—“

        So you believe that your stupid religion holds copy rights upon the double slit experiment, twin flight experiment, Michelson’s etc etc, so you think that they must be interpreted only in the way that your stupid pastors preach and only to prove your religion. You believe that I have no right to look into those experiments and correct the gross mistakes that your religious pastors committed. And I can’t use them to support the Ether model even though the experiments are actually crying in favour of Ether. Rather you think that I should come out with my own experiment if I have to prove Ether? I can understand your religious argument. But you must be bold enough to declare your discipline as a religion. You can’t call your discipline as science but apply religious rules and religious practices!

        Here is my sincere advice to you- don’t bother to try to understand what we talk here. Your ignorant religious mind neither can understand nor can digest the things that we discuss here. So don’t waste your time and our time. Rather, cling to your own stupid religion and keep chanting its stupid manthra, and keep uttering the words ‘accurately’, ‘predicting’, ‘observations’, ‘falsify’ etc etc though they don’t really make sense to you, but just to pose yourself as intelligent. You know ignorance is bliss! Good luck!


  • Galacar  On December 27, 2014 at 12:01 am

    to Phaze,

    You wrote:

    “Well, good for you trying to be polite. You didn’t do very well, because you basically called me a sheep with no critical thinking. But, good try?”

    The reason I wrote that I try to be polite is ONLY because you ask questions that have already been answered on this site. So to me , it looked like laziness.
    If it is not, I apologize.
    About the ‘sheep’. First of all I didn’t mention this at all.
    But now we are at it, yes, most people are ‘sheep’. But I don’t mean that as a put down! I see children here go to the universitie near here. And if I see them
    I feel for them. Yes, they are being indoctrinated, and yes they even pay for all that garbage! . That is wat I feel for them. They are victims of an extremely evil system that destroys human capacity m intelligence, creativity, etc by Design!
    And yes, I don’t see you as very critical to the system itself. That part is true.
    But what to be expected? That IS the indoctrination.
    I dobn’t expext you to think clearly, also with regards to predicting etc, AFTER you have unlearned a lot you have ‘learned’ (better is “memorized”, nobody learns anything at a university)
    I am still researching how they dumb people down and kill their creativity and everyday it becomes more clear to me how they do it. But that is a looongg

    So, best to end this with a quote by Theodore Roosevelt about university ‘education’

    Theodore Roosevelt

    A man who has never gone to school may steal from a freight car; but if he has a university education, he may steal the whole railroad.



  • charan  On December 27, 2014 at 1:01 am

    (Just my thoughts-from my ‘Random Thought Machine’-….)
    Theories are just human constructions.And all attempts to justify it by either “quality of predictions” or “phenomonological significance” or by any other fancier prejudice, even though may attract significant crowd initially, will finally fall short of truth; as indeed is happening today.No ‘popperian ideals- conservative illusions’ may save it; if not for a thought experiment!!
    Just to remind, [1] even though irrelevent here, the very notion of Dark Matter includes two possibilities-
    1)either Newton, Einstein have to be partially-trying to be polite-wrong OR
    2)A “new” particle( or rather field) has to be introduced to ‘match’ the somehow mysterious observations!
    What has been discussed/said in this forum about Michelson’s experiment is true, whether we like it or not! And any new( or old) ideas need to include and embrace ontological factor in their ‘theory’.We just don`t need any kind of ‘Black Hole Wars’ today; instead we need to embark on radical change in our perspectives, obviously, about physics.
    [1] Source:C.K.Raju, Lee Smolin.
    Thank You


  • Galacar  On December 27, 2014 at 2:58 pm

    to Phaze

    Sorry, I have also given up on you.
    You just keep on talking in the same way and
    don’t even adress the issues we have raised.

    This will be of no use, but anayway,

    By ‘coincidence’I read yesterday about a university physicist who admitted that yes, he could ‘do’ physics with the math and all but he really didn’t ‘understand’ what he was doing! He even admitted that he was indoctrinated into this stuff!
    Now that was quite a confession I must say!

    If interested I can give the whole quote.


  • Dy  On January 2, 2015 at 7:27 am

    In one case of your untested hypothesis, you have the slits in the open air, in another, in a tank of water. What is the analogy with the original experiment which is not moved from open air to a supposed Aether?


    • drgsrinivas  On January 2, 2015 at 5:44 pm

      Untested hypothesis? You probably missed the whole point. Double slit experiment serves as a test of Ether existence. If there was no Ether, you would get particle pattern of interference when you fire photons.

      In fact, every observed phenomenon (including gravity) that physicists swear as proof of their weird theories, actually proves Ether model. So, unless one accepts misinterpreted evidence as proof and embraces illogical propositions to explain things, Ether model stands as a much better tested theory than quantum theory and relativity.
      Expecting the double slit experiment carried in an environment not filled with Ether is rather unwise in an universe permeated by Ether.


  • Galacar  On January 2, 2015 at 10:46 pm

    yes, indeed

    And as I have stated earlier here. There is NOTHING that works because of
    ‘modern physics’.You see, the thing is, every invention that is supposedly made because of ‘modern physics’ was made waaaaay before ‘modern physics’.
    (yes, the transistor, radio, wireless, x-rays, light, mri and so on and so forth)
    Now, when most of these things were invented it was in a time when the Aether
    was ‘en vogue’. In other words, people could make all these inventions because of their concept of the Aether! So, because that concept is not used in ‘modern physics’ I can easily state that, as long as ‘modern physics’ keeps the Aether ‘out”, there will come nothing of any substance from our ‘modern physics’!
    Nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing.


  • Nagas  On January 15, 2015 at 4:03 am

    I got a question for you doc, this Photon Ether that you talk about, what are
    the physical properties of this ether that waves? Density? Optical properties? Permitivity? Permeability? What is it’s dimensionality? Is it evenly scattered? If it is, how does it maintain it even scatter? Does it flow?


    • drgsrinivas  On January 15, 2015 at 3:05 pm

      Surely you must have read science a lot!
      I am sorry but I don’t know the answers to your questions (except that Ether can flow and get dragged by moving objects). And I also don’t know much about the physical properties of water either.
      Do you think that will change my above explanation of the double slit experiment?


  • Nagas  On January 15, 2015 at 7:05 pm

    First, I read a lot about everything, that’s why I’m reading this site, I’m not a believer in what you call Science Religion, but I’m not gonna blindly believe in your explanation either before making the questions that arise in my mind. You ask me if your ignorance about Ether and Water affect or not your above explanation, I do think that it does. Because if you don’t know the Ether properties how can you answer me questions such as.

    1.- If it flows just like water, then there must be currents of Ether, does a photon travelling against that current get affected?

    2.- How can light travel in a straight line in space if it’s a flowing environment?

    3.- Finally, if Ether does exist, can you calculate the density of it maybe by checking the intensity of the interference pattern that you get?

    It’s not the same making your experiment in a pool of water or a pool of liquid honey.



    • drgsrinivas  On January 22, 2015 at 1:31 am

      I salute to your highly sceptical mind but let me tell you that it is much wiser to do experiments in a pool of water and make logical conclusions, and extrapolate them to unfamiliar/invisible situations than to make bizarre and stupid propositions like particles popping out of nothing, waves without a medium, a particle travelling in multiple directions simultaneously, a particle existing in multiple locations at the same time, a cat that is both dead and alive simultaneously (one may add: a cat born and not born, its mother conceived and yet not conceived, their parents mated and yet not mated!) etc. Now, coming to your questions:

      1)Ether could be still, flowing in straight path or could be making whirlpools just like how water and air would do depending upon the local forces/ environment. The scenario of a photon travelling against the ether current would be no different from the scenario of a water particle fired against the stream of water. Don’t ask me now about the scenario of a photon travelling perpendicular to the ether stream. Again that would be no different from the water scenario.

      2)Light travels in straight line: This is another scientific myth recited by the science students. Using the same methodology that one uses to ‘prove’ the above myth, I could prove that sound and water waves also travel in straight line! The truth is that waves, whether they are ether waves (light), water waves, or air waves (sound), get scattered in all possible directions as they propagate. And the energy from the source travels in all possible radial directions and not just in one single straight line. But of course, a wave may not travel with equal velocity in all directions. (I have discussed about wave motion in depth in a separate post). Imagine a stone being thrown into a pond of still water. Depending upon the angle/direction of throw and the force, it could generate an ‘elongated’ or ‘conical’ wave that travels faster in one direction (principal axis). If the water is flowing, then the shape of the generated wave as well as its principle axis of propagation will change. The so called ‘Aberration of star light’ proves that light path gets affected similarly by ether winds.

      3)Measuring the density of Ether medium: I am not sure about that but comparison of refractive indices could be of some help.


  • woodside  On February 26, 2015 at 10:01 pm

    Hi . I can see that your explanation explains how the emmitted quantum of light propogates as a wave, however , your explantion does not explain how the quantum of wave spreads out in all directions , parts of it goes through the slits and daughter waves are formed from this fraction of the quantum, then they spread out over the whole screen but a full quantum is registered at a single point on the screen.


    • drgsrinivas  On February 28, 2015 at 2:10 pm

      Actually there isn’t anything called a ‘full quantum’ and there aren’t any size criteria to consider something as a point. We must be able to distinguish between arbitrarily believed things and the absolute.

      We know that the energy of a ball depends upon its velocity. Imagine that you shoot identical balls onto a sensor screen at different velocities. The sensor registers a single impact each time it receives a ball. You might say the sensor registers a ‘full impact’ each time but that makes little sense. The strength of the impact registered obviously varies with the energy of the ball. Each registered impact can’t be taken as a full impact. And every sensor has a threshold level which means that very weak impacts may not be registered. So when the sensor fails to register an impact, that doesn’t really mean there wasn’t any impact at all.

      Similarly when the photosensitive screen registers an impact, it doesn’t mean that a ‘full quantum’ is registered each time. A red photon (a slow moving photon according to me) transmits smaller quantum of energy and produces a weak signal compared to a blue photon (fast moving photon). So the quantum of energy is not the same always and it is wrong to assume that a ‘full quantum’ is registered with each photon’s arrival.

      And when the screen registers an impact at a ‘point’, it doesn’t mean that the area surrounding this point didn’t receive any impact/ energy at all. The point just represents the area of maximum energy transfer. The surrounding area also receives some energy i.e. part of the impact. In the case of the ball, deformation of the ball transmits some energy to the immediate vicinity and the air currents created by the ball transmit some of the energy from ball to the far off zone. Over how much area the sensor registers the impact depends upon the threshold and sensitivity of the sensor surface and the ‘shape’ of the object/wave (see

      Similarly, the point of impact recorded on the photosensitive screen just represents the area of maximum energy transfer. Though the ether wave hits the whole of the screen, the maximum energy transfer occurs only over a tiny area. I have discussed these concepts in the next page- electrons and double slit exp.


  • woodside  On March 2, 2015 at 6:04 pm

    I’ll re-word that correctly.

    A detection event is the detection of the same sized amount of energy that left the source being detected at the sensor.

    In your explanation the emission from the source spreads out and is partially blocked and what is left then spreads out again before arriving at the detector and so an account for the energy at the detector is missing from your explanation.


    • drgsrinivas  On March 4, 2015 at 10:12 am

      So you believe that in the double slit experiment, the energy of the photon or electron particle remains the same both at the point of its release from the source and at the point of its detection on the sensor screen! But why do you believe so? Is it because you feel that is logical or because you believe there is some experimental evidence? Do you know any physicist who has experimentally measured the energy of the photon or electron at both the points and confirmed your rather illogical assumption?

      I will let you think.


  • woodside  On March 5, 2015 at 10:13 pm

    A photon is defined with a specific amount of energy. If the photon is the same then it has that energy.


    • drgsrinivas  On March 6, 2015 at 4:38 pm

      Well, that definition doesn’t hold true in our universe where motion is relative. The energy of a photon depends upon its frequency (e=hf). And we know that different observers may measure different frequencies for the same photon (red shift or blue shift) depending upon their state of motion. So the same photon may be seen to carry different amounts of energy by different observers depending upon their relative motion.

      Ether is like a sea photons. So what strikes the sensor is not actually the same photon that you fire. But, even if we assume that there isn’t anything called ether

      1)With so much weird stuff happening in the quantum world and virtual particles popping in and out of space, how can you be so sure that it is the same photon that reaches and strikes the detector?

      2)Even if it were the same photon, how can you be so sure that its energy remains the same both at the source point and the detection point without actually measuring?

      Basically it is illogical to believe that a particle’s energy remains the same throughout its journey. We know that electrons also behave in the same way as photons and produce wave like interference pattern in the double slit experiment. Do you think that the energy of the electron remains the same both when it gets released from the source and when it gets detected on screen?


  • woodside  On March 6, 2015 at 10:25 pm

    The particular characteristic of the double slit experiment is that although during the experiment the interference pattern builds up in discrete dots there is no dots found in the dark parts of the pattern.


    • drgsrinivas  On March 7, 2015 at 10:03 am

      When a wave hits a surface, the strongest impact is felt at the ‘centre’ (bright spot). Though the wave hits the entire surface, the strength of impact falls as one moves away from this maximum impact point. That leaves the rest of the screen ‘dark’ or ‘unstimulated’. I have explained that in detail in the next chapter.

      If you think photons’ behaviour is really different from that of water waves in double slit experiment, why do scientists use the water waves’ analogy to ‘prove’ the wave nature of light? When I use the same water analogy to explain the behaviour of light in the same double slit experiment, people find it highly illogical and difficult to understand. I can understand the problem- people’s minds are indoctrinated and spoiled by the authorities so much that they find it highly difficult to understand/ accept anything that goes against the views of the authorities.

      Liked by 1 person

  • woodside  On March 7, 2015 at 4:05 pm

    Hello again.
    Considering the centre of intensity model, it does not quite fit the results as the spots are unevenly spaced.
    The spots on the screen are unevenly spaced but there are no spots at all in the dark parts of the pattern. Destructive interference of unevenly spaced inphase and antiphase maximums of intensity would not leave this result.
    G.I. Taylor 1909 was the first to look into this.


    • drgsrinivas  On March 9, 2015 at 4:35 pm

      I don’t quite understand your argument. It makes no sense like the quantum theory itself! May be that way, it actually helps to prove quantum theory!!!

      Do you mean that Ether waves doesn’t explain the alternate light and dark bands on the sensor screen? Then how come water waves are able to produce that pattern (i.e. alternate strong and weak impacts) How come the quantum pastors always talk about water waves and draw analogy to water waves in double slit experiment to prove the wave nature of light?


  • Galacar  On March 8, 2015 at 10:02 pm

    drgsrinivas wrote

    “I can understand the problem- people’s minds are indoctrinated and spoiled by the authorities so much that they find it highly difficult to understand/ accept anything that goes against the views of the authorities.”

    YES!!! That is exactly what is going on!
    I am on some forums now to explain that there really is no technology because of
    our ‘Modern Physics”.i

    Not the transistor, not the ic, not the nri, not the mobile phone, not the computer, not the hybrid or electric car, not x-rays, not optics, not telescopes
    and well, as you can figure, the list is endless!

    But they , the people on the fora, just don’t get it! But it is soooo simple, once one mind is no longer indoctrinated with a lol of crap!

    But sometimes unbelievable to watch! People without having done any research
    into thse things, have the biggest mouth about something they haven’t even looked at!

    Such is sadly the state of affairs in our wolrd…


    • drgsrinivas  On March 9, 2015 at 5:01 pm

      Science forums? They are like militant camps. It is not only futile but is dangerous to enter into their own den and teach morals to them.

      Unfortunately, most lay people and science students believe that physics is a very difficult subject to understand. Something that can be easily understood is not science for them. In other words, to accept something as science, it shouldn’t be clear to them. That is the plight of modern science world.


  • charan  On March 9, 2015 at 5:40 pm

    “” If thinking is natural,so is Science,and if it is supposedly difficult; then ‘is thinking, as a natural process ridiculous and hence unnatural?’. Does this mean that nature would allow us to go on fantasizing and make things difficult to understand–for if nature would allow us to do that, it does not make any meaning for the entire Thinking Process.
    Is it the basic ability-and Responsibility-of Human Beings to think about nature?(need not to worry,this process is being mistranslated in today`s terminology as ‘Science’.)Are we destroying it by making things complicated?
    And nature will allow us to think,and understand her,only if we have a sense of humble quest for knowledge,to figure out the workings of nature.If the entire ‘information-gathering’ process is based on the single premise of quenching our own Intellectual Ego,then how would that explanation of nature be considered as ‘Scientific’? Because, if Science is description of nature,and if nature will allow us to understand her only when we remove our Ego,then how can we be so adamant about our understanding? Is the increasing technology is being misinterpreted as ‘Science’?
    If, for any question about nature, the answer-generally given by ‘experts’- begins by stating-“in my opinion”, then how can it be Natural?For we do not need opinions, we are searching for Truths about Nature, right?
    What is the use of rigid compartmentalization,arrogant conclusions if our quest(-ion) is itself ill-defined? “”
    Thank You


  • Galacar  On March 9, 2015 at 9:40 pm


    You are absolutely right about the forums! However, I seem to be very stubbortn
    I still give it a try now and then, agains my better judgement.
    Forgive me for being human.;)


  • Johan Frans Prins  On April 9, 2015 at 6:34 am

    Using the ether to justify “single particle” diffraction is not necessary. A moving electron and a moving photon are both EM-waves. The photon moving with speed c and a momentum mc, for which there exists a relationship to the frequency f(p) of the photon-wave given by hf(p)=E=mc^2. In this case m is only dynamic energy which can be directly obtained from the Maxwell’s equations.

    An electron also has an energy mc^2=hf(e), but in this case a momentum p=mv where m now has both a dynamic and a rest-component, which defines a wavelength (lambda)=h/(mv). This EM wave has a lower speed. The fact that such a wave exists can be directly derived from the Lorentz equations when not stupidly assuming “length-contraction”.

    The main property of an EM wave is that it changes shape and size when its boundary conditions change. Thus when such a wave encounters a double slit it changes shape and size and do actually move through both slits and interferes with itself to form a diffracted wave-front impinging into the screen. Within the screen there are zillionth’s of atomically sized absorbers each of which can only absorb a wave with energy hf.

    Thus a diffracted photon-wave or electron-wave when it resonates and thus encounters such an absorber must change shape and size to match the boundary conditions of the atomically-sized absorber, and therefore a “spot” is recorded. The next diffracted photon- or electron wave-front need not resonate with the SAME absorber and this leaves another spot. Resonance is more probable where the wave-front (which is NOT a probability distribution) has its highest intensity. Therefore the diffraction pattern appears after many photon- or electron-waves have moved through BOTH slits as ONLY waves can do.

    If one places a detector at the slits, the wave that has moved through BOTH slits has to change shape and size to match the detector. The diffracted wave-front is thus destroyed BEFORE it reaches the screen. No diffraction pattern can form on the screen.

    Einstein was correct to conclude that there is no ether and that therefore in free space (note FREE SPACE) a light wave must move with the same speed c relative to any other entity no matter with what speed this entity is moving relative to the light-source. Unfortunately Einstein then immediately screwed up by ILLOGICALLY “deriving” “time-dilation”, which is obviously absurd as you have pointed out: And he also derived “length-contraction” by using the so called “inverse” Lorentz-equations by transforming the moving rod into its stationary state. This is not allowed by any relativistic transformation EVER. Einstein, like Newton, never grasped Galileo’s brilliance.


  • Galacar  On April 12, 2015 at 1:20 pm

    Johan Frans Prins wrote:

    “Einstein was correct to conclude that there is no ether and that therefore in free space (note FREE SPACE) a light wave must move with the same speed c relative to any other entity no matter with what speed this entity is moving relative to the light-source.”

    With all due respect:

    How come that there is NOT ONE thing, and I mean NOT ONE,
    that is made because of ‘relatvity’ or ‘modern physics’ for that matter?
    ( I am talking technology here now)
    There IS a reason for this and it has to do with the ‘aether!’

    2 There have been experiments with show that the speed of light (c) is
    NOT , I repeat NOT a constant and it has been shown to be possible
    to a faster speed that what c officially stands for.

    3 There is something wrong with the experiments of Galileo as well!
    Namely that he never did them!!!!!

    4 The way ‘science” is ‘sold’ to us is utterly wrong and is, as I have stated
    somewhere else here, it is used to dumb us down and keep us away from
    so-called ‘sensitive areas”. So, ‘science’ has nothing to do with any truth
    finding and most ‘scientists” are ill-equiped to do any truth searching, thanks
    to heir neurotic inducing ‘education”!! A ‘neurotic’ is someone who can’t see
    straight at the truth without bending it. For a more detalied explanation of
    this, look up ‘character armor” and Wilhelm Reich.

    sorry to say, but….

    Therefore, your argumenst hold no ground.


  • Arjun Kapoor  On June 5, 2015 at 3:53 am

    But your explanation still does not explain why the electrons behave ‘normally’ / ‘as expected’ and form two lines instead of the wave pattern when a camera is put near the slit for observational reasons. Its as if the electron knows it’s being watched.


    • drgsrinivas  On June 7, 2015 at 6:41 pm

      Nice question! Before I answer that, may I know the explanation provided by your quantum theory for the same phenomenon?

      BTW, “as if the electron knows it’s being watched” doesn’t constitute a sufficiently reasoned explanation. Instead you could also say “as if some quantum witch directs the electron to pretend like a particle when humans put a camera near the slit” etc. Both explanations are absurd and doesn’t flow from a preceding logical assumption.

      Liked by 1 person

  • Grenda  On June 19, 2015 at 8:59 pm

    The reciprocal actions between particles (responsible for discrete phenomena) and the surrounding substrate (responsible for the wave behaviours), including the double slit experiment are well reproduced by the droplet experiments. That strongly supports the idea of ether


  • Charles Hagriss  On June 26, 2015 at 5:16 am

    How do you explain the interference pattern going away when a detector is placed at one of the slits?


    • drgsrinivas  On July 12, 2015 at 2:47 pm

      I have actually been waiting for the quantum believers to present their explanation for the same. As expected they have failed to come up with a rational explanation.

      Quantum believers invent a new and stupid proposition in each scenario that they encounter in the double slit experiment (and also elsewhere). For example, to explain the wave like interference pattern produced by particles in the double slit experiment, they proposed that each particle travels in all possible paths simultaneously. Obviously there exists no physical mechanism that helps us explain/ understand/ conceptualise this proposed mythical phenomenon. So in their eagerness to explain some weird thing, they proposed another weird thing.

      And to explain the disappearance of the interference pattern with detectors placed near the slits, they invented another stupid proposition: a particle would know whether it is being watched or not. Apparently, when nobody ‘looks’ at the particle, it would proceed like a wave but when someone watches, it would behave like a particle. And again, there exists no physical mechanism that would support this weird notion.

      Actually Quantum religion wouldn’t have been so bad if the quantumists had deduced the second stupid proposition logically from the first stupid proposition. But that didn’t happen. Rather both stupid propositions are independently ‘derived’/proposed.

      That means, if someone puts forward a more rational model (ether) to explain the interference pattern in DSE (1st scenario) and challenges the first stupid proposition, the new model’s apparent inability to explain the disappearance of interference with detectors (2nd scenario) doesn’t in anyway undermine the value of the new theory. Theoretically one could still use the second stupid proposition in the new theory. At worse, the new theory becomes half stupid compared to the fully stupid original theory.


  • drgsrinivas  On July 12, 2015 at 3:02 pm

    Yes, the loss of interference pattern can be easily explained by the ether model. Before we go into that, let me mention that the interference pattern observed in DSE is not an all or none phenomenon and also that there are so many other factors that influence the appearance/ disappearance of that interference pattern in addition to the placing of ‘detectives’ near the slits.

    First, simply by decreasing the distance between the two screens, we can make the interference pattern disappear and give way to particle pattern.

    detectors and DSE

    Similarly, whether we get interference pattern or particle pattern depends upon the distance between the slits, width of the slits, depth of the slits etc. By adjusting any of these parameters, we can make the interference pattern disappear and give way to particle pattern and by doing the opposite, we can make the interference pattern reappear.

    How do we explain the interference pattern giving way to particle pattern in the above scenarios? Obviously it would be stupid to say “well, the photons have somehow known about the changes made in the experimental setup and hence choose to behave like particles”.

    Similarly, increasing the intensity of light source can change the picture and produce particle pattern (possibly due to decreased scattering). And it would be stupid to propose that high energy photons are more intelligent and are more conscious of the observers in the vicinity and hence behave like particles.

    It only requires commonsense to explain why we get wave like interference in some scenarios and particle pattern in other scenarios in the double slit experiment.
    Similarly it is possible to explain why placing the detectors will decrease the interference pattern using commonsense and without resorting to the stupid propositions of the quantum religion. Probably, placing the detectors will narrow the effective slit aperture and/or deepen the slits and so they will have the same effect as narrowing the slits and/or deepening the slits.

    detectors and DSE

    By placing detectors near the slits (any mechanism that attempts to feel/detect the daughter wave coming out of the slit), we are effectively blocking the peripheral portions of the daughter waves and are only allowing the central portions to reach the photosensitive screen. It is possible that the ‘central beams’ of the daughter waves proceed to the second screen without much scattering and hence without interfering with each other. Thus we can explain why the interference pattern gives way to the particle pattern in DSE when detectors are placed near the slits.

    In addition to the above ‘detectors at the slits’ experiment, there exit umpteen number of such scenarios/ extensions of double slit experiment in the quantum mythology to make things look confusing and complicated and thus to help the quantum pastors promote their weird quantum religion to the ‘scientific masses’. And I am sure it would only require simple commonsense to explain each of those ‘bizarre’ and ‘mind boggling’ observations chanted day in and day out by the quantum believers in support of their quantum religion.

    Finally, what the mind doesn’t know, the eyes can’t see. Quantum physicists are basically working in the dark with no idea of what could be going on at the deeper level. As they analyse the data, they surely mess up/ fudge the data and subconsciously make ‘corrections’ attempting to fit the data to their stupid imaginations. And, unable to fit every bit of the data, they would ‘weigh’ things as per their ‘mental scale’, ignore some bits and stress some bits. So what they ‘find’ may not exactly agree with the Ether model. If the quantum physicists undertake the double slit experiment and analyse their results with my ether/ water model in their mind, they will surely realise that every bit of the data would exactly fit in with the ether model without the need for any ‘corrections’ or omissions.


    • drgsrinivas  On July 12, 2015 at 3:09 pm

      Another thing that I have forgot to mention above is that, by increasing the distance between the screens, we can make the interference pattern reappear even with the detectors at the slits!

      detectors and DSE


  • Max  On January 22, 2016 at 8:34 pm

    Well as someone that knows nothing about physics beyond A-levels, but has an interest in trying to logically understand the double-slit experiment, I do find this article clear from a logically argued point of view.
    To me however, I cannot help but agree with so many commentators that are being shot down here – can you prove this through another type of experiment, or measure the interactions creating these new waves, or make any predictions?
    Otherwise it’s just a nice logical argument based on outcomes, which, anyone can do. I seems to me you should be able to test this transfer of energy and interaction with other particles, and also test that this energy is still recorded in the measurements.
    Question: The water drop, moves other water drops (in the sea example), and these water movements are recorded on the paper. The paper records water hits – not other energy forms. Are you saying, simple firing a water drop, means there is an associated “other energy” that is moved, and this “other energy” is interacting with the paper and being recorded, if so can you not analyse these interactions and thus show ether’s (or whatever) existence?


    • drgsrinivas  On January 25, 2016 at 6:58 pm

      I would say you are actually blessed for not studying physics beyond A level because the higher the qualifications one has in physics, the less one understands this world. With too much of formal education and training in any discipline (whether you call it scientific or religious), people’s minds become so frozen that they loose the ability to think laterally. Just like you, I neither had any formal higher education in physics nor do I have any qualifications conferred to me by any scientific body. (Of course, I did study postgraduate level physics and I must tell you that it helped me a lot, not in understanding physics though, but in understanding the gross misunderstandings of the scientific community!)

      I argue that the interference pattern produced by photons in DSE proves the existence of an all pervading photon Ether. But Quantum physicists argue the same as proof that photons travel simultaneously in multiple directions. And as you said, others may put forward their own ‘logical’ arguments. For example someone may argue the DSE as proof of existence of ghosts. The ghost theorist may insist that it is because of some ghost that we observe the interference pattern in the DSE. Now how shall we judge which model represents the correct one?

      Obviously we will choose the most rational explanation. You can’t ignore logic here and expect some other experiments or measurements or caculations to decide the truth. If you ignore logic and not insist for rational explanations, the ghost theorist will then claim every other experiment as proof of his ghost theory just like the relativists and quantum physicists. Not even one experiment or observation really supports the absurd propositions of relativity or quantum physics. But still, physicists claim every experiment as proof of their absurd theories because there exist no logical constraints upon them.

      The assumption that a particle travels simultaneously in all the paths is as irrational or even worse than the ghost assumption. Only Ether model provides a rational physical basis for the interference pattern produced in the DSE.

      But, is there any other observational evidence apart from DSE in support of the Ether model? Well, yes. In fact every observed phenomenon in this universe supports the existence of Ether:

      -the phenomenon of gravitation
      -the phenomenon of magnetism
      -the so called CMBR
      -gravitational waves
      -gravitational red shift
      -the scenario of neutral pion decay
      -the slowing of moving clocks
      -inertia and mass
      -aberration of star light and so on.

      I have addressed all these issues in various posts on this blog. Without ether, we will either have to resort to the mystical notions like warped space, slowing of time, dead and live cat, virtual particles etc of modern physics or the theory of ghosts to explain the above phenomena.

      I don’t really get what you meant by “just a nice logical argument based on outcomes”. Remember that Logic is the most powerful tool in understanding this world. If some measurements and calculations go against Logic, I can assure you that the error lies in the methodology/ mathematics used. Logic dictates that light waves don’t travel at the same velocity. The fact that all the great physicists of the world measure the speed of light as ‘c’ just proves that they are all committing a major blunder while measuring the speed of light. Water waves don’t travel at the same velocity: water waves with high amplitude travel faster than those with low amplitude. And the amplitude of a water wave decreases as it propagates and so is its velocity. And there is no reason to believe that Ether waves or light waves behave differently in this regard. So don’t swear by calculations and measurements but stick to Logic even if that means you are alone against the whole world. Firstly, majority of the population are not intelligent enough to realize the truth and secondly, the ritual of compulsory education is consuming and indoctrinating all the tender minds. So it is not a surprise that there remain only a handful of truly intelligent and rational minds in our modern world.

      You will get the answer to your last question in the post

      Liked by 1 person

  • Free Thinker  On January 29, 2016 at 11:23 am

    Hello all,
    It has come to my attention that just this week renowned musician B.o.B. has released a song calling into question the teachings of the “scientific community” (read: “church”). He exposes the many lies and conspiracies (eg scientists being extremly well payed to spout their nonsense). Please excuse the course language of the song, but i suppose no other language will do when dealing with a subject so vile as mass deception. My favorite line from the song is: ‘Indoctrinated in a cult called science”, I think it just sums up so much of what you, Dr, Have been sayin on this blog.

    As expected, all of the cult leaders have now come out fo the woodwork to “””debunk””” his claims (doesn’t that just always happen?!) I expect he will be promptly silenced by those who do not want him telling people the truth (heaven-forbid)

    I have posted the song lyrics below for you to look through. Very interesting stuff, and even more interesting the response by the scientists (church leaders)

    [Verse 1]
    Yo, you ain’t seen my best
    Checkmate, ain’t a game of chess
    Globalists see me as a threat
    Free thinking, got the world at my neck
    Hah, am I paranoid? Picture Malcolm X
    In a room full of pigs, trying not to bust a sweat
    Aye, Neil Tyson need to loosen up his vest
    They’ll probably write that man one hell of a check
    Aye, I’m over here on this side of town
    Come on over, over, over, over here try to clown
    Aye, I never pipe down
    If they weren’t coming for me then
    They definitely coming for me now
    I can’t even keep my phone charged up
    All this shit I’m talking, I should get my home bought up
    Rappers get off of my dick and get your own bars up
    Now the mirror lizard’s breath got the clones scared cuz
    Woo, use your, use your common sense
    Why is NASA part of the department of defense?
    They divided up the seas into thirty-three degrees
    Feeding kids masonry, bruh, be careful what you read

    [Hook 1]
    Flat line, flat line
    There’s no superior blood line
    Flat line, flat line
    You got me once but that died, aye

    [Verse 2]
    Voice, voice, do I have a voice?
    Do I give a fuck? Do I have a choice?
    Joint, joint, I roll up a joint
    Keep my shooters in the game like I hate to disappoint
    I see only good things on the horizon
    That’s probably why the horizon is always rising
    Indoctrinated in a cult called science
    And graduated to a club full of liars
    Heliocentrism, you were the sixth victim
    Fuck you and your team, you can sit on the bench with ’em
    They nervous, but before you try to curve it
    Do your research on David Irving
    Stalin was way worse than Hitler
    That’s why the POTUS gotta wear a kippah
    I’m a man first ‘fore an artist
    Get a lawyer, look up Doctor Richard Sauder

    [Hook 2]
    Flat line
    You fooled us for the last time
    Flat line, flat line
    There’s no superior blood line

    [Interlude: Neil Tyson]
    So you want to find the farthest point from that center. And it turns out sea level at the equator is farther away from the center of the Earth than sea level near the poles. It has nothing to do with global warming and melting of the ice caps

    (Why is that?)

    Because… Earth, we know it spins, once a…. day. Yes, thank you. Three people know that, how long a day lasts here

    (Good for row number two, they’re off to a great start)

    So you, so you spin, you know when you spin pizza dough, it kind of flattens out. It gets wider in the middle and…so Earth throughout its life, even when it formed, it was spinning. And it got a little wider at the equator than it does at the poles. So it’s not actually a sphere, it’s an…it’s oblate, it’s officially an oblate spheroid. That’s what we call it. But not only that, it’s slightly wider below the equator than above the equator

    (A little chubbier?)

    Little chubbier, chubby’s a good word, it’s like pear-shaped. So it turns out the pear-shapedness is bigger than the height of Mount Everest above sea level

    [Hook 2]
    Flat line
    You fooled us for the last time
    Flat line, flat line
    There’s no superior blood line


  • Galacar  On January 29, 2016 at 8:05 pm

    @Free Thinker

    Thank You!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    People ARE waking up!!!!!


    I LOVE THAT!!!!



  • Galacar  On January 29, 2016 at 9:16 pm

    People are waking up to all the bullshit around them.

    So, TPTSB are getting soooo desperate that they have to use math to
    discredit ‘conspiracy heories”!:

    “Maths study shows conspiracies ‘prone to unravelling’

    It’s difficult to keep a conspiracy under wraps, scientists say, because sooner or later, one of the conspirators will blow its cover.”

    More here:

    Now, first this math is off, of course.

    But furtermore, as is stated on this site, is that logic will ‘win’ from math
    if the underlying ideas of the math are wrong.

    In this case it is sooo easy to dismis this math!

    Just apply his math to the “Manhattan Project” and the amount of people involved.

    Ah well, negaitive publicity is also publicity. 😉

    Nuff said



  • Galacar  On January 30, 2016 at 1:16 pm

    Gee, I am hoping I am writing not too much here.

    But it is for a good cause! 😉

    With regards to the study about math & conspiracies, mentioned above.

    I just found out that in the official research paper the author warns us not to take this research too seriously!

    Hmmmm THAT wasn’t mentioned in the newspapers or when it was spread all over the internet!

    Ah well, it is a classsic example of :

    “First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, and then you win.

    ― Mahatma Gandhi”

    So, nowe are at stage 2 ! As I said, negative publicity is also publicity 😉




  • Galacar  On January 30, 2016 at 2:17 pm

    This might seem a bit off topic, but it actually is one big jig saw puzzle

    in which ‘science’ hence relativity shite and quantum bollocks have a place,

    And are a piece of a very very giant puzzle.

    If people only knew how deep this rabbit hole goes!

    We are lied on nearly everything in this world.

    I have studies this for years and have come to the conclusion that the following is false:

    (But please please please don’t take my word for it, As we conspiracy researcher say: Do your own homework. We are in this mess because we trusted the
    ‘authorieties’ blindly.)

    (And I am also waiting for the coincidence therorists, they are sooo funny all the time!;) )

    Anyway, these are some of the lies:

    Global warming. climate change.
    The moonlandings did take place
    (macro) evolution
    Marconi invented the radio
    Edison the lightbulb
    Quantum mechanics.
    There is no aether (!!)
    gravity holds the universe together.
    vaccinations are good
    math can’t go wrong
    The planets are solid,
    There are no conspiracies ..;)
    there are no ghost, esp ect
    telepathy is non existent.
    we live in a democracy
    governemt creates money
    Big pharma is to be trusted
    Terrorists are a real threat.
    gmo is soooo good for you.

    and the list goes on and on and on and…

    BUt it looks like we are waking up!!!!


    Yes, I am politically incorrect! Think about it why this term is used in a
    ‘free society’



    Nuff said



  • Galacar  On February 8, 2016 at 1:17 pm

    There is another way to explain the wave-particle duality.

    Still pondering and exploring this one.

    As I have written before I am rather convinced that we live in a holographic


    Now, When you look at a hologram you are looking at interference patterns,


    Then out brain decodes this interference patterns and after decoding we can see

    a three-dimensional object.

    For example, if we look at a “building” we are looking at interference patterns

    Then we decode these interference patterns as a ‘building’.

    (Technology is now able to produce very solid looking holograms:

    Here is an example,

    and here is a very very impressive use of holography!:

    “Magic Leap create new incredible hologram WOW! Augmented reality in HD )”

    Now, it might be that the ‘wave’ in the experiment above, is the interference

    pattern and the ‘particle’ is the decoding by our brain of that wave.

    Well, we live in interesting times, don’t we?




  • Galacar  On February 24, 2016 at 10:26 pm

    I want to expand a little on the “world is a hologram” issue:

    (This is why “the limit of the speed of light” was invented to
    keep us in this hologrphic matrix, hence the relevancy with relativity.)

    “The Video Game That Made Elon Musk Question If Our Reality Is A Simulation

    In June, a team of programmers will release a ground-breaking new video game called No Man’s Sky, which uses artificial intelligence and procedural generation to self-create an entire cosmos full of planets. Running off 600,000 lines of code, the game creates an artificial galaxy populated by 18,446,744,073,709,551,616 unique planets that you can travel to and explore.

    Bostrom’s paper starts with the following abstract:

    This paper argues that at least one of the following propositions is true: (1) the human species is very likely to go extinct before reaching a “posthuman” stage; (2) any posthuman civilization is extremely unlikely to run a significant number of simulations of their evolutionary history (or variations thereof); (3) WE ARE ALMOST CERTAINLY LIVING IN A COMPUTER SIMULATION. It follows that the belief that there is a significant chance that we will one day become posthumans who run ancestor-simulations is false, unless we are currently living in a simulation.”

    So, now there is technology ( in the public domain) that can show
    that a computer generated world is possible.

    And then there is this:

    “Additionally, in the last couple of years, theoretical physicist S. James Gate has discovered something rather extraordinary in his String Theory research. Essentially, deep inside the equations we use to describe our universe, Gate has found computer code. And not just any code, but extremely peculiar self-dual linear binary error-correcting block code. That’s right, error correcting 1’s and 0’s wound up tightly in the quantum core of our universe.”

    Don’t know yet what to think of the latter, because I don’t take string theory very seriously, nor the ‘quantum core”

    But is is extremely interesting, to say the least!

    My two cents



  • chris  On April 17, 2016 at 4:30 am

    Okay, a Lot of good input. Some things agreed, some others just not thought out far enough. Thanks Drg, you’re almost there. Galacar, the enlightening of deceptions I mostly concur with. Free, I’ve never read the lyrics or the song but the words ring true. I wanna know what sites he was on to find…wait, I don’t. Not looking up those names again but I am gonna start posting things here and there so maybe somebody should start thinking about MY check before I post about everything.


  • chris  On April 17, 2016 at 4:41 am

    I will continue, with minimal commentary and commence once I know what I’m writing will be posted, unlike the last thing I wrote.

    I will start by saying that I am no physicist, however, I do understand the subject quite easily, can interpret as well as explain my theories, even though some of them go beyond what we’ve come to realistically accept. That’s fine because I have no problem at all giving a thorough explanation, answering questions, giving examples in their simplicity (sometimes with humor) and also accepting the ideas of others if I feel they’ve validated a reasonable point.


  • chris  On April 17, 2016 at 5:09 am

    It was nice to read what John wrote, so eloquent.

    To begin, I note that everything that is in existence has a counterpart. All things were created in balance, forming this next part that is, everything ties into everything else. Without one fubction, another couldn’t function. Something like how with every action, there’s a reaction. With every reaction, somewhere typically the result starts over or has a reciprocal spawning from the reaction, only the reaction is balanced, thus transcending back into the state of again being an action. A ripple effect gone wild through the interaction of the endless energy that helps makeup spherical detection.


  • polarvortex1  On April 17, 2016 at 7:59 am

    Okay, I don’t see my other posts but this one should work finally. I shall for now on be known by the nickname polarvortex1.

    I am in no way a phycisist but understand the science or basics enough to the point that I have many of my own theories, use common sense, aren’t limited in acceptence or denial of everyones opinions…and am also well versed in the majority of its offspring’ of quantumness. Which I’d like to note that there are way too many quantum fields. Perhaps there shouldn’t be so many sub-fields while keeping a couple main, narrowing down the genre to simplify some topics. Maybe this would partake in modifying areas if restrictions are placed on things that are meant to explain things that have little restriction. The irony of that might help induce more open-mindedness with it’s attempts to iron out the feeble loopholes that seem to restrict some opinions and block others. Which is the main reason Johns lyrics were appreciated and nearly agreed upon, with the exception of a few lines. A couple of them hit a little close to home though.


  • polarvortex1  On April 17, 2016 at 10:54 am

    Heh, all the comments appear at once. Good, I can begin.

    Comments on the Double-slit: Okay, well, energy needs attraction to do a few things, such as altering its current path. Attraction is positive, exciting electrons. Which takes me to my next point, quarks.

    Quarks are energy that promote movement essentially generating energetic spin in a subatomic form. These small particles are at the beginning and end of wavelengths, two per side. When stimulated, they become virtual particles through electromagnetic resonance, increasing their energy momentarily until unifying to the objectifable source that ignited the initial attraction.

    Now, our personal resonance is energetic. The body emits an aura, energetic field of spectral differences and similarities making it unique to ourselves. Some call this our essence. Because of how we’re constructed, we emit energy. The magnetic field we permeate captures some of the energy we give off, creating a personal EM field. When we direct our attention to things, we send energy elsewhere, especially when directed to something specific. Energy comes in and energy goes out.

    This interaction is how the Duel-slit experiment works. When directing our focus to something specific, like a photonic particle-wave.

    Supposing that that particular wave has been emittled from a photon(its then induced through an electronic field matrix, reached by multiple connections through an array of alternating frequencies also becoming involved in the process)that finally commissioned electrons that have been transmitted by directional intercepted attention.

    Now, through an integrated source vigorously positioned to acknowledge this phenomena, like a Double-slit microscope, this cooperative interaction occurs as the quarks are then seen when its own electron energy’ increases, increasing the quarks vibration thus allowing the quark to eventually be released from the wave. As the particles spin increases(mainly in the front but also flowing minimally to the back of the wave due to its energy pathology) in velocity, the magnetically guidied attraction pulls both the quark and electron(s) to the accompanying electron(s)that made initial contact.

    The process is swift, only allowing the quark to be deemed virtual for a short duration and only until the vibration is highly strong enough to allow the photon to release extrapolated energy.

    Until the frequency has emitted enough power a few other things happen. The energy transmitted that the photon adopts after its front is powered spurs thermal heat energy, which in turn is what allows the photon to share its light beam with the quarks electron, switching the negative electron to positive, as it always travels with the positive electron(as a readily available counterpart) and temporarily changing its state. Next, turning the potential energy from the first positive electron into kinetic, the combined frequencies from the quark, its spin and the wave are conduits in generating the thermal energy responsible for eminating a lighted spectral field that is made possible by being adjoined to a photonic structure opposed to a gravitational wave. Not only does the quark brighten, it’s also able to represent its true luminary fluorescence, allocating which flavor it is as the quarks color is briefly displayed in the virtual form.(also, the usage of kinetic electron energy decreases the frequency slightly, funding the equality needed to travel simultaneously together with proportionate unification that leads all three into an uninteruptedly transmutation towards its newest desired destination).

    As this particle is freed, the connecting adjacently located quark takes the place of the previous as the departure instigates change and relocation. The transfer of the newer quirk that will bare the fortunate duties of forwardly spun guidence will bring closure to an inevitable source needed to collaborate earths daily polarized fluxuation, keeping day and night within their proper interval. The leftover energy is included instantaneously, as a stronger energetic rush of excitement exits the wavelength open tailing, a unique sensory marking reminiscent of a perfume is added, as this is what is added to an energetic flavor to stimulate the needed attraction that is inherently intuitive towards motion and its velocity as well as the subtle values that keep everything as it maintains a grip on the stability of life so we can justify without means what we consider a reality. With this added yet discreet scent, the energy that is barely further than the bounds of kinetic finds a compatible replacement justified in a stream of attraction, following a newly connected magnetic vortex formed from a field of sub-attracted partitioning particles, each one helping, each one doing their part as all things go back to normal in a collaborative effort we now can use in a comprehensive and luster ranging from alpha, beta, omega as it ends with alpha.

    There is more, but the fields along with the means of travel through various conducting and reducing forces that are also employed in my explanation have been temporarily omitted due to time constraints, meaning, I’ll be back later and also I don’t want to get into a big debate about this ether stuff, especially if I don’t believe what I read on this page is what ether actually does and did not want to mention that I thought muons(matters resistence or a resiliient energetic shield) are what I believe to be gravitons, allowing matter to flow freely through the gravitational field without restraint.

    Any questions, feel free to ask away…..


  • Galacar  On April 17, 2016 at 12:34 pm

    chris wrote:

    “Galacar, the enlightening of deceptions I mostly concur with”

    Well, good, but don’t forget, I barely scratched the surface.



  • Tomas Hertzell  On May 20, 2016 at 1:40 am

    Hi. Can you explain this: QM people say that if you make the measurement after the wave has passed the slits, you get the same result as if you measure before the wave has passed the slit. Clearly this will not happen with water, or?



    • drgsrinivas  On May 20, 2016 at 11:43 am

      In fact QM people could even ‘prove’ with their weird maths that you get the same results even before you think of doing the experiment! That is the magic of QM. All that is possible because they put a precondition that you shouldn’t use your brain while discussing QM. LOL.

      Theoretically, yes, the information carried by a particle or a wave could reach the detector even before that particle or wave actually reaches the detector. For example, when you throw a ball towards a screen, the ball’s energy (in other words, the information about the ball) would reach the screen in the form of air winds (or air wave) well before the ball actually hits the screen.

      Similarly, a water particle, as it moves in a pool of Ether, it sends an Ether wave ahead of it. So the information about the water particle could reach a detector even before the particle reaches the detector.

      Going even deeper, as a photon particle (Ether particle) moves in the ultra-ether medium, it sends an ultra-ether wave ahead of it— and so on. Thus it is possible that if the detector is sensitive enough, it could sense and register the photon’s information even before the photon ‘actually’ touches the detector.

      Thus the information from every ‘object’ has already reached and so exists at every other point in the space. In other words, an object can be felt/ detected at multiple places at the same time: while the object exists in a physical form at one location, it exists in a more subtle form farther away.

      Conversely, every point in space possesses the information/data from everywhere else in space (‘Holographic Universe’). While the information from nearby objects would be at a gross/ physical level, that from a faraway location would be at a subtle level.

      If we go deeper, we could even explain the basis of Time with the Ether model.


  • idpnsd  On July 6, 2016 at 9:23 pm

    “Then we shoot water molecules one by one with our water gun.” – This is the most important problem with electrons or photons. We cannot generate a stream of single electrons. We do not have the engineering technology to shoot single electron at a time. Even the narrowest beam will be sending millions of photons or electrons simultaneously. So, we never used single particle, and therefore particle is a wave has never been validated.

    But the ether idea will still be meaningful and explain the experiment correctly, even when we cannot generate single electron.

    There is a theory in Vedas which says the entire universe is filled with (1) root material and (2) root cause.

    The root material is used to generate all other particles and materials. Since every effect requires a cause, the root cause is the origin of all causes. This root cause is the soul. Just like earth is filled with oxygen and nitrogen molecules similarly the universe is filled with these two tiny invisible particles, which are visible to any high level yogi. Take a look at


    • drgsrinivas  On July 7, 2016 at 7:32 pm

      It looks like you haven’t thoroughly read the quantum mythology. In almost every description of the double slit experiment, physicists preach that they first perform the DSE with beams of particles and then they repeat the experiment by firing the particles one by one. The physics pastors never miss to stress “photons/ electrons produced wave like interference pattern not only when they are fired in continuous streams but also when they are fired one one by one”.

      Even I am skeptical of their capability to fire photons/ electrons one by one but then I guess it might not be impossible to fire ‘bucky balls’ one at a time. Apparently, bucky balls (which are large complexes of carbon atoms) also produce wave like interference pattern similar to photons and electrons. More over, quantum maths predict that even foot balls would produce wave like interference pattern in DSE. And I am sure you would agree that foot balls can be ‘fired’ one by one. So, irrespective our physicists’ capability to fire individual photons, we are ought to explain the scenario of individual particles producing interference pattern in DSE and that is exactly what I have done above.

      I believe that Vedas contain the Truth and I do agree that ancient Rishis realize that. But our modern educated folk, misguided by science, always misinterpret what is mentioned in Vedas and other ancient texts, and hence they will never really know what Vedas teach.

      I can’t believe in your description of root cause as some kind of invisible particles. I will elaborate on this when I get some time.


      • idpnsd  On July 8, 2016 at 5:46 am

        “…not only when they are fired in continuous streams but also when they are fired one one by one…”

        I think by continuous streams they mean a stream of single electrons. My point is that we do not have any engineering technology to generate a stream of single electrons. Therefore the fundamental assumption that – they used single electron in DSE – is wrong. Thus DSE does not prove that particles have wave like properties.

        Math cannot describe laws of nature. Math is created out of real numbers. Real numbers are false, because they are not objects of nature. You cannot create anything true using something false like real numbers. Thus QM math is all wrong. The book has a chapter on QM.

        It is also my point that every particle has a soul. Therefore you cannot isolate a particle from the influence of all other particles and its environment. It is therefore not possible to isolate any object in nature. You cannot isolate earth from its environment; the earth will no longer remain earth. Its atmosphere will vanish, all humans will die, oceans will evaporate etc. It will be a dead earth. Same thing will happen to particles, they will be dead.

        The book on soul theory has a chapter named soul theory. It describes the details of root material and root cause. The content of this chapter is taken from Samkhya Theory of Vedas.


      • drgsrinivas  On July 8, 2016 at 6:50 pm

        “…My point is that we do not have any engineering technology to generate a stream of single electrons. Therefore the fundamental assumption that – they used single electron in DSE – is wrong. Thus DSE does not prove that particles have wave like properties”

        Well, that is not my assumption but is what the great physicists claim. They even claim that they are capable of detecting through which slit each electron or photon passes!!!

        Irrespective of what the current engineering technology is, the point is that theoretically it is possible for the individually fired photons (or electrons) to produce wave like interference pattern in DSE (just like how individually fired water particles would produce wave like interference pattern in the underwater DSE). But that doesn’t prove that photon particle has wave like properties. It only proves the existence of ether environment. If there was no Ether, light particles would produce only two bands irrespective of whether we fire them in singles or in trillions.

        As I have explained elsewhere, mathematics is just a language, albeit a short hand language. It is nothing more and nothing less. If a rational argument is presented in the language of maths, you can’t argue that it is false just because it is in mathematical terms. English is created out of some symbols that are not objects of nature. Does that mean that statements in English are all false?

        BTW, I have glanced through your blog. It is highly enlightening on some issues. I truly appreciate your work.


      • idpnsd  On July 8, 2016 at 10:13 pm

        “Well, that is not my assumption but is what the great physicists claim..”
        I understand and agree with you.

        “just like how individually fired water particles would produce wave like interference pattern in the underwater DSE” – You do not need water particles. If you make two metal balls to vibrate up and down in a fixed place you will still see the interference. There is a video on the net for this demonstration. But this is water wave interference, and not the ball interference.

        “If there was no Ether, light particles would produce only two bands irrespective of whether we fire them in singles or in trillions.” – Correct, but only when light is not itself a wave.

        So there are two input cases (1) light is a wave (2) light is a particle. Similarly there are two output cases (a) light wave interference (b) ether wave interference.

        “Does that mean that statements in English are all false?” – Chapter one on truth defines truth as – laws of nature are the only truth. I am not sure if English violates any law of nature, but real numbers do. Here is one law: English is composed of a finite set of alphabets but real numbers have infinite cardinality. Nature is always finite. The objective of the book is to show that all of math, physics, economics, philosophy, etc. are wrong. But all religions are same and correct.

        Thank you for visiting the book site.


      • drgsrinivas  On July 10, 2016 at 1:58 am

        What do you think? Sound is a wave or sound is a particle?

        I believe it is neither. And same is the case with light.

        Sound is a sensation that our brain perceives when specific energy signals reach our auditory mechanism via air particles or water particles or some medium’s particles. So it is air waves or water waves that are involved in giving us the sensation of sound. In other words, it is air particles and water particles which make us hear the sound. So there isn’t anything called sound wave or sound particle per se in reality. What we call as sound waves are actually air waves or water waves etc. If we call that air waves which give the sensation of sound as sound waves, then we should be calling the air particles as sound particles!

        Same is the case with light. Light is a sensation that we perceive when ether waves impinge upon our retina. So it is ether waves and ether particles (or photons) which are involved in giving us the sensation of light. If somebody wants to call ether waves as light waves and ether particles as light particles, that’s OK with me as long as that somebody realizes the deeper truth and doesn’t mess up science with absurd concepts like wave particle duality.

        Our modern scientific education has conditioned and spoiled human brains so much that it now requires great intelligence and revolutionary mindset just to know the basic stuff!

        Our present classification of waves into sound waves, water waves, light waves etc. is rather messy. We should be classifying waves as ether waves, air waves, water waves, solid media waves etc. I have explained elsewhere about this. Ether waves not only give us the sensation of light, but they can give rise to touch, heat, pain, sound sensations as well depending upon the intensity and frequency of ether waves and the sense organ or body part that gets stimulated.

        Why do you believe that our Nature is finite? Lord Krishna describes this universe as infinite. There is nothing that is unnatural in Nature. We have infinite real numbers because Nature has allowed that. And, infinite number of permutations, combinations and words and sentences (meaningful and meaningless) are possible with the finite number of English alphabet. That shouldn’t make rational arguments in English language as irrational and false. And same is the case with the language of mathematics.

        Liked by 1 person

      • drgsrinivas  On July 10, 2016 at 2:05 am

        When a ball is thrown into a pool of water it produces a water wave and not ball wave. True in a sense. And similarly when a ball is thrown into ether, it would produce ether wave. But then that ether wave carries the energy pattern of the ball, so you could actually call that as a ball wave. (I have explained elsewhere that a wave is nothing but a holographic image of its source i.e. every portion of a wave carries the energy copy of the source. For example, if you divide the water wave generated by the ball into 10 parts, then each part carries the energy copy of the ball (see: )

        You may argue that a ball is different from the ether wave it generated. The truth is that what you sense as a ball is ultimately made from ether, the ‘root material’. A ball just represents a specific pattern of vibration of the ether particles. Every object, including an electron, represents a wave in the cosmic ocean of Ether.

        And when two electrons (which are nothing but ether waves) produce interference, rather than calling that as just ‘ether wave interference’, it would make much more sense if we call that as ‘electron interference’.


      • drgsrinivas  On July 10, 2016 at 9:42 am

        “Chapter one on truth defines truth as – laws of nature are the only truth”

        What is a law of Nature? A law of Nature is something that represents Truth.
        But that kind of circular definitions take us no where near truth.


    • idpnsd  On May 21, 2018 at 10:46 am

      On July 10, 2016 at 9:42 am = You wrote
      “What is a law of Nature? A law of Nature is something that represents Truth.
      But that kind of circular definitions take us no where near truth.”

      Examples of laws of nature is like – Gravity, Birth-Death process, Reincarnation, Destiny, etc.
      But QM, SR, Newton are all wrong, because they are based on assumptions.


  • Jules  On July 23, 2016 at 8:30 pm

    Check this out:


  • Greg Marlow  On July 29, 2016 at 1:23 pm

    All the weirdness of double slit experiment can be explained by the fact that we are only looking at it from a stationary frame perspective. If you look at the special relativity equation for total energy you see that it has a velocity of the speed of light. For an observer in an orthogonal rest frame to that perspective it looks entirely like a wave of light and would defract and interfere just like light. In our reference frame we observe the momentum energy component (wave) and the rest energy component (particle) of the total energy separately as the velocity of a particle with rest mass. So it looks like you can have a wave and a particle at the same time. How much wave-like and how much particle-like it looks only depends on what perspective you are looking from.


  • osolev  On July 8, 2017 at 1:22 am

    Dear sir, have you tried to talk with experts like Penrose and Hawking, or lesser experts like US cosmologists, e.g., Sean Carroll?

    I think they leave out ether because it had been proven to be non-existent.

    However, I really like to know whether all experts who are not I guess receptive to your ideas, do they really do experiments with only one particle at all?

    For I am sure that no scientists can deal with only one particle at all, but reports are always implying that experimenters do control even just one particle alone.

    I think that is impossible, not even the scientists using the Hadron Large Collider can do that, controlling only one all alone single particle at a time.

    The way I see all these experiments on particles, it is not in fact dealing with particles, but what they interpret to be particles, from the effects visible to them, the scientists, which effects are brought about by man invented equipment, no matter it is so big and large by coverage of square kilometers of land area.

    And I also tend to see all these talk about particles and fields and etc., they are all mathematical constructs, i.e. in effect thoughts in the mind of scientists, which thoughts do not correspond to any objective reality that is outside and independent of man’s i.e. scientists’ mind.

    But I am not any quantum mechanics expert at all, and also not any deep mathematician, though modesty aside, I do serious thinking.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Vangrab  On May 13, 2018 at 11:10 am

      Osolev, although you are 100% right about particles and all other things that do not exist in the real world, except in the world mind of those socalled “scientists”-the true fact is that fields do exist ina real world universe, take oridanry magnets for example, take gravitational fields as well electromagneti-their effects are omnipresent in the real world, and there is also Kirlian’s photography, however particles simply do not exist at all.
      Energy fields are definitely real we can observe their effects on the environment every single day, for example magnets that I have right now in my hands, although their magnetic fields are invisible they sure have hell of the effects, and for example polar lights in both north and south-they are the effects that you get when something hits Earth’s electromagnetic field.


    • Vangrab  On May 13, 2018 at 11:18 am

      Also, my body has energy field just like all other physical objects and phenomenons in entire universe (who knows maybe even the entire universe is one huge or infinite energy field that is made of immanese or infinite number of smaller energy fields), that’s what makes us physical, we are all just walking energy fields..
      However, what is energy none truly knows, because it is not the ability to do work, energy both creates and enables the creation of ability to do work and work itself, what exactly energy itself is none truly knows-this is much more metaphysical question, than physical one.


  • axilmar  On May 6, 2018 at 7:03 am

    If we rotate the slits 90 degrees, then the interference pattern that we get is also rotated 90 degrees.

    That means that waves of light are not 2d waves, they are 3d waves.

    But if they are 3d waves, we wouldn’t see continuous vertical or horizontal bars on the detector screen, we would see vertical/horizontal bars with interruptions in them, because what works in one axis should also work on the other axes for 3d waves.

    Therefore, the conclusions drawn from the double slit experiment are highly dubious and need to be carefully reexamined.


  • relativity-is-a-spoof  On November 15, 2019 at 9:49 pm

    Heard of the de Broglie-Bohm pilot wave theory? It’s actual physics but you might enjoy it. All you’ve done here is compared a classical system to a quantum system and said “it’s the same”, which isn’t an explanation. How do you know the same laws apply? Could you please send a link to any published papers showing proof that photons etc follow this same mechanism. Thanks


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.