Category Archives: Science with Sense

Double Slit Experiment as Proof of Akash (Ether)

“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 great physicists themselves had felt about quantum physics, so we could imagine how it would be like for the fresh science graduates and the lay people. Yes, 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 forth… 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 the early 1800s. When light photons were fired in this double slit experiment, they produced a 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 (Akash or Ether, one of the five elements of Nature or ‘Pancha Bhutas’). 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 Akash or 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 Akash or 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.

Rationalists vs Religious believers

In ancient days, people had blindly believed in religious teachings and obeyed whatever the religious heads preached them. They didn’t question even when the teachings sounded absurd for two reasons: one was that they had blind belief in the religious authorities as already said, and whenever they felt something was weird, they preferred to put that down to their own ignorance. The other reason was that arguing against the established religious authorities was seen as an offense, and people who argued so had suffered humiliation, isolation as well as physical punishment. But over the time, many great philosophers and logicians stood against the weird and superstitious beliefs of the religious society. They had exposed the absurd nature of many religious notions utilizing logic and experimentation, and that slowly lead to the development of ‘science’ as a strong discipline in the society. And ever since, people have developed more and more faith in ‘science’ having witnessed the ‘success’ of science in explaining the Nature and its role in advancing human civilisation.

That brings us to the Era of Modern science: People now blindly believe in Science, they adorn scientists as the ultimate authorities of knowledge. Whenever some scientific teaching sounds absurd, not only lay people but even science students prefer to put that down to their ignorance in the belief that scientists can’t go wrong, a situation not different from how people behaved in the ancient religious society. Many a times people don’t even know what some scientists actually teach, but they chant their theories (e.g. special relativity, general relativity etc) and worship them as Gods. Intellectuals who try to raise their voice against the prevailing weird theories and scientific superstitions are at a similar risk of humiliation, isolation and deprivation just like how people suffered in the ancient religious society for arguing against the absurd religious teachings.

Thus science which started off as a ‘logical revolution’ in ancient times and stopped people from blindly embracing the weird religious teachings has ended up in a rather awkward situation – people now religiously believe in science despite all its weird teachings.

Before accepting the weird teachings

Just because some theory sounds weird or illogical, it doesn’t automatically mean that the same is really weird or illogical – that could well be due to one’s ignorance or inability to understand the same. Having said that, it doesn’t mean one has to curse one’s ignorance always and blindly believe in all the weird things espoused by the great scientists. When faced with some weird sounding statement or theory, I believe that a rationalist would take one of the following approaches:

Try to explore it in depth and see if there is any deeper logic to support the apparently weird sounding theory. If the theory remains illogical ‘throughout’ and doesn’t yield to logical deduction at any point but instead leads to more and more counterintuitive notions, rationalists rather than blindly accepting the weird theory (or labeling the Nature as weird), look for alternative logical explanations for the data that originally lead to the weird theory.

Or

Accept one’s ignorance and inability to logically explore the theory in depth. In this scenario, despite one’s feeling that a theory is weird, one may chose to believe in the weird theory and its absurd predictions because one has faith in ‘science’ and has high regards for scientists. But this makes one a religious follower of science and not a real rationalist. (Of course one can still claim oneself as a rationalist as long as one is conscious of the fact that one is going by faith and doesn’t confuse one’s faith in ‘science’ as the Truth!)

But scientists and ‘skeptics’ don’t seem to behave like rationalists. Neither they are able to explain their weird theories by a deeper logic nor do they accept their ignorance and religious behavior. Rather weirdly, they propose that Nature itself is weird and so are their scientific theories. Physicists claim that they have lot of experimental proof as well as mathematical support to believe that our Nature is weird. So we shouldn’t expect our logical sense to decide whether some theory is right or wrong, they preach.

Physicists argue that our commonsense and logic depends upon how we experience and see things in this world i.e. our picture of the world. And they preach that we can’t swear upon our picture of the world as completely true because apparently that could just be an illusion created by our brain. And apparently all that we see and experience (from sitting in our room, watching TV, brushing teeth to discussing about relativity etc) in this world could just be our ‘feelings’ created by our brains nervous activity and may not represent the actual reality, hence physicists preach that we can’t swear upon our commonsense and logic as ultimate. But then how come physicists swear upon their observations (airplanes flying, atomic clocks ticking, muons reaching the earth, mercury perihelion shift, bending of star light etc) as real and use them to support their weird theories? The ticking of atomic clocks and mercury perihelion etc could just be illusions created by the physicists’ brains! Also the mathematics which they swear upon could just be an illusion created by their distorted brains!

If we accept that our Nature is weird and believe that it does not yield to logical deduction, we can’t draw valid conclusions out of any observation in this world. We can draw valid conclusions only if our world obeys logic. So we must believe in a logical world before we go on to argue/discuss whether some theory is right or wrong.

If some observation is really weird and we are unable to explain it logically (e.g. double slit experiment), we must accept that as proof of our inability or limitation of our material knowledge, instead of accepting that as proof of weird Nature. Obviously material knowledge will never be able to explain Nature to the ultimate level. Scientists, rather than accepting their ignorance and inability to logically explain certain things, have resorted to blaming the Nature as weird. Ignorance is not something to be ashamed of but denial or ignorance of the possibility that we may be ignorant is definitely something to be ashamed. And Ignorance is itself not a hindrance to understand the Nature’s secrets but denying that surely comes in the way.

If one believes that our Nature is weird and counterintuitive, one may do so but one can never prove that because proving something involves logical interpretation of data and one can never interpret things logically in a weird Nature. So if someone claims that they have enough experimental evidence to believe that our Nature is weird, only two possibilities we can think of – there must either be logical misinterpretation of the experimental data driven by false scientific beliefs (relativist’s error) or denial of existence of things beyond their remit of understanding of Nature (quantumist’s error).

Go to Next Page

Go to Main Index