Originally Posted By: finiter

Not exactly. Have anybody tried to incorporate wave nature into the corpuscular theory of light? The reverse has been tried: ie, incorporating particle nature to the waveform and that was a success.


Incorrect it fails badly in ight of recent experiments I doubt you will find anyone buy copenhagen interpretation of light.

QM reached that position that it's interpretation was wrong and they set out to proove it
(http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/story/2011/06/02/science-heisenberg-uncertainty-steinberg.html)

In itself it was a very simple experiment but it should be impossible under wave collapse theories. So it's not that the experiment changed just even doing a weak measurement should have collapsed the waveform which it didn't. So the interpretation was wrong.

Originally Posted By: finiter

Light is light, whether it is waves showing some particle nature, or real particles moving along a three dimensional helical path. The observed results will be the same; but the former will not be part of physics if my proposal is accepted, and at the same time the latter will be a part of physics.


How does a particle go through two slits at the same time?

Edit: Here is another experiment to consider
(http://www.bottomlayer.com/bottom/basic_delayed_choice.htm)

The bigger problem is how do you know the world has 3 dimensions ... this is a problem your generation usually understands very well because you have played 3D computer games and seen many 3D movies.

If your eyes and senses decieve you and we have a 3D illussion with like a CCD helmet on and sensory feed back would you actually realize that your world was not really 3D.

Thats a serious question to think about .. how would you know?

Last edited by Orac; 08/23/11 03:22 PM.
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.