Since 1801, physics has taken Young's experiment as a definitive contradiction of Newton's particle model of light, but it's not. Every variation of it that has been performed and reported so far is consistent with Newton's model via an explanation that wasn't available in Young's day; namely, that the particles of light, being massive, are affected by the gravitational effect of the electrons orbiting the atoms of the walls of the slits, and that since orbital motion is periodic, so too is that gravitational effect, and so too is the outcome. The photons' motions are affected periodically; the result is a regular pattern, and the results from accredited physicists' running of Young's experiment so far are consistent with both Huygens's and Newton's models and are therefore inconclusive. Since 1839, physics has taken Bequerel's discovery of the photovoltaic effect as a definitive contradiction of Huygens's wave model of light, which it is, and which left them a seemingly unanswerable question because the particle explanation of Young's experiment wasn't yet available: if light is neither particle nor wave, what is it? Since 1905, physics has taken Einstein's wave packet as the definitive answer. Many tests have been applied to it and to his Theory of Special Relativity (which depends upon it in the second postulate in On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies), and the reported results are always consistent with it and the theory. All tests are passed within the error bars, all predictions are true within the error bars... But Young's experiment has never been completed. There are two variations of it that have never been performed (or never reported) by accredited physicists, and as it happens, both of them confirm Newton's particle model and contradict Huygens's wave model. I described both in posts on this platform repeatedly over the course of 2023. They have of course been ignored: as is usual with academics, only those who are accredited in a discipline are accepted as capable of contributing to it, or even worthy of being informed that they got it wrong, when that's the case. So I'll just leave them here consolidated into one post. The first became available when the double-slit variation replaced Young's original card variation: it's so simple that I can and did perform it myself. Mount the slit plane so that the slits are vertical and it can be rotated back and forth while the light traverses the slits. Wave theory predicts that the light will emerge from the slits normal to the plane they're etched on and thus that the pattern on the screen beyond the slits will move up and down as the slits are tilted back and forth. But it doesn't move, which is the prediction of Newton's particle model, and a definitive contradiction of Huygens's wave model and wave-particle duality. I don't have the resources to perform the second, but universities do, and in fact I'm certain that it has been performed, probably many times over, but the experimenters can't accept it and don't report it. Because it's never reported, every experimenter sees only their own result, and can convince themselves that it's anomalous, not consistent. Run the single-slit experiment with solitary photons traversing the slit. According to the wave model, interference cannot occur: it therefore predicts zero diffraction, but my software simulation based on Newton's particle model of light predicts that diffraction will occur, again definitively contradicting Huygens's wave model and wave-particle duality. I've seen comment to the effect that according to Quantum Mechanics, a solitary wave can interfere with itself. I caution you to remember that valid mathematical formulae do not always describe reality, and that there is no observed result anywhere, at any time, in any circumstance, that justifies explaining single-particle single-slit diffraction with such an assumption. This won't go away, you know: Newton's particle model of light is confirmed and Huygens's wave model is contradicted by experiment and by simulation (and if you perform the second experiment, by two distinct experiments), which breaks Special Relativity and explains why the theories that depend on it have taken such a beating since JWST became operational. It leaves in its wake the problem of creating a new fundamental theory of physics, which I, not having all the information accredited physicist have, cannot do, but I do have some of the infornation necessary... Postulate matter as composed of particles, from which gravitational force fields emanate at c. Postulate gravitational force as acting through through those fields, which merge additively when they intersect, and which impel particles of matter into motion. Define a field energy factor: {-(c),c}: 0. (1) φ(v,a,θ) = < R* \ {-(c),c}: sgn(c - v) sqrt(1 / abs(1 - (v + sinθ a)² / c²)), where v is the linear velocity of the accelerated masses relative to each other, θ is the angle of approach or recession and a is a list of angular velocity parameters. These can be real numbers or real number pairs, say (k,f), where k is a body’s radius of gyration, f is its phase frequency and a = kf is its angular velocity, Apply φ() to Newton's gravitational force equation and his energy and momentum equations: (2) F = G φ(v,a,θ) M m / d². (3) E = ½ φ(v,a) m (v + a)². (4) P = φ(v,a) m(v + a). Those answer the questions answered by both SR and GR, including that raised by the precession of Mercury's perihelion. And it's compatible with QM. String Theory too. -------- * R, the Real Number set.
