[alancalverd]

1. Stop using the term.

2. Learn some physics.

3. Realise that there is more nonsense than sense in cyberspace, so any search engine that compiles a response from unattributable historic sources is likely to be misleading.

[mxplxxx]

1. Stop using the term.

2. Learn some physics.

3. Realise that there is more nonsense than sense in cyberspace, so any search engine that compiles a response from unattributable historic sources is likely to be misleading.

I gather you are referring to Wave/particle Duality in physics. The basis of quantum mechanics. Do you have any basis for your assertion that Wave/particle Duality is no longer relevant in physics.

[paul cotter]

Alan has repeatedly explained that we need two different models of em radiation, depending on what we are doing. If we are looking at phenomena such as refraction, diffraction or interference we use a wave model. If we are looking at the photoelectric effect or black body radiation we use the particle model. Neither is more correct than the other, they just have different scope of application. Science concerns itself with observations leading to theory to explain such observations. At no point does science claim to know precisely what the true nature of light is at it's most fundamental level and I doubt if this can ever be done. Instead observation leads to theory and from that theory one can make predictions. It just so happens that for em radiation two models are needed, depending on the circumstances, and that's all.

[alancalverd]

We use two mathematical models to describe the propagation and interaction of electromagnetic radiation. A wave model predicts diffraction, interference, etc, and a particle model describes interactions at a molecular, atomic or nuclear level.

Confusion arises in many people's minds (and among mindless chatbots) with the introduction of "wave functions" that describe the probabilistic distribution of particles, and the fact that quantised transitions emit single packets of em radiation known as photons.

Much of the problem stems from the legacy of continuum or classical physics. Trouble is that you can't predict quantum phenomena from classical models of mesoscopic systems, so the archaic dualism "it's sometimes a wave and sometimes a particle" doesn't help.

[hamdani yusuf]

Electromagnetic Wave Equation in Free Space
00:00 Maxwell's equations in vacuum
00:27 Derivation of the EM wave equation
02:13 Velocity of an electromagnetic wave
03:17 Structure of the electromagnetic wave equation
05:00 E- and B-field of plane waves are perpendicular to k-vector
07:24 E- and B-field of plane waves are perpendicular
08:15 Summary

An interesting comment I found. Usually Youtube quickly deletes comments with links.

Electromagnetic waves are only created by sources. So it is not valid to set the sources to zero. When the source is included, this results in the wave equation equal to a source. Solving this inhomogeneous PDE yields a nonlinear phase vs distance dispersion curve. Apply phase speed and group speed operators on this curve shows that the both the phase speed and group speed are instantaneous in the nearfield and reduces to the speed c in the farfield, starting at about 1 wavelength from the source. After that the speed decays asymptotically toward speed c, but never becomes exactly c, even at astronomical distances from the source. So the speed of light is not a constant as once thought, and this has now been proved by Electrodynamic theory and by Experiments done by many independent researchers. The results clearly show that light propagates instantaneously when it is created by a source, and reduces to approximately the speed of light in the farfield, about one wavelength from the source, and never becomes equal to exactly c. This corresponds the phase speed, group speed, and information speed. See the following paper for details:

https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0603240

Any theory assuming the speed of light is a constant, such as Special Relativity and General Relativity are wrong, and it has implications to Quantum theories as well. So this fact about the speed of light affects all of Modern Physics. Often it is stated that Relativity has been verified by so many experiments, how can it be wrong. Well no experiment can prove a theory, and can only provide evidence that a theory is correct. But one experiment can absolutely disprove a theory,  and the new speed of light experiments proving the speed of light is not a constant is such a proof. So what does it mean? Well a derivation of Relativity using instantaneous nearfield light yields Galilean Relativity. This can easily seen by inserting c=infinity into the Lorentz Transform, yielding the Galilean Transform, where time is the same in all inertial frames. So a moving object observed with instantaneous nearfield light will yield no Relativistic effects, whereas by changing the frequency of the light such that farfield light is used will observe Relativistic effects. But since time and space are real and independent of the frequency of light used to measure its effects, then one must conclude the effects of Relativity are just an optical illusion.


Since General Relativity is based on Special Relativity, then it has the same problem. A better theory of Gravity is Gravitoelectromagnetism which assumes gravity can be mathematically described by 4 Maxwell equations, similar to to those of electromagnetic theory. It is well known that General Relativity reduces to Gravitoelectromagnetism for weak fields, which is all that we observe. Using this theory, analysis of an oscillating mass yields a wave equation set equal to a source term. Analysis of this equation shows that the phase speed, group speed, and information speed are instantaneous in the nearfield and reduce to the speed of light in the farfield. This theory then accounts for all the observed gravitational effects including instantaneous nearfield and the speed of light farfield. The main difference is that this theory is a field theory, and not a geometrical theory like General Relativity. Because it is a field theory, Gravity can be then be quantized as the Graviton.

Lastly it should be mentioned that this research shows that the Pilot Wave interpretation of Quantum Mechanics can no longer be criticized for requiring instantaneous interaction of the pilot wave, thereby violating Relativity.  It should also be noted that nearfield electromagnetic fields can be explained by quantum mechanics using the Pilot Wave interpretation of quantum mechanics and the Heisenberg uncertainty principle (HUP), where Δx and Δp are interpreted as averages, and not the uncertainty in the values as in other interpretations of quantum mechanics. So in HUP: Δx Δp = h, where Δp=mΔv, and m is an effective mass due to momentum, thus HUP becomes: Δx Δv = h/m.  In the nearfield where the field is created, Δx=0, therefore Δv=infinity. In the farfield, HUP: Δx Δp = h, where p = h/λ. HUP then becomes: Δx  h/λ = h, or Δx=λ. Also in the farfield HUP becomes: λmΔv=h, thus Δv=h/(mλ). Since p=h/λ, then Δv=p/m. Also since p=mc, then Δv=c. So in summary, in the nearfield Δv=infinity, and in the farfield  Δv=c, where Δv is the average velocity of the photon according to Pilot Wave theory. Consequently the Pilot wave interpretation should become the preferred interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. It should also be noted that this argument can be applied to all fields, including the graviton. Hence all fields should exhibit instantaneous nearfield and speed c farfield behavior, and this can explain the non-local effects observed in quantum entangled particles.

*YouTube presentation of above arguments:

*More extensive paper for the above arguments: William D. Walker and Dag Stranneby, A New Interpretation of Relativity, 2023: http://vixra.org/abs/2309.0145

*Electromagnetic pulse experiment paper: https://www.techrxiv.org/doi/full/10.36227/techrxiv.170862178.82175798/v1

Dr. William Walker - PhD in physics from ETH Zurich, 1997

[paul cotter]

Hmm, I am not sufficiently good at physics to analyse this stuff but it looks to me to be a highly dubious anti-relativity rant. There is unfortunately no shortage of Einstein haters on the net.

[hamdani yusuf]

So the speed of light is not a constant as once thought, and this has now been proved by Electrodynamic theory and by Experiments done by many independent researchers. The results clearly show that light propagates instantaneously when it is created by a source, and reduces to approximately the speed of light in the farfield, about one wavelength from the source, and never becomes equal to exactly c. This corresponds the phase speed, group speed, and information speed. See the following paper for details:

https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0603240

Any theory assuming the speed of light is a constant, such as Special Relativity and General Relativity are wrong, and it has implications to Quantum theories as well. So this fact about the speed of light affects all of Modern Physics. Often it is stated that Relativity has been verified by so many experiments, how can it be wrong. Well no experiment can prove a theory, and can only provide evidence that a theory is correct. But one experiment can absolutely disprove a theory,  and the new speed of light experiments proving the speed of light is not a constant is such a proof.

The experiment described in the research paper seems to be simple enough to replicate. I already have done some experiments using radio wave. I think it's worth trying for my next project, when I have the opportunity and spare time.

My hypothesis here is that having the same phase doesn't necessarily mean that the radio wave travels from the transmitter to the receiving antenna instantaneously. It might be caused by reflected wave from the receiving antenna leading to the formation of standing wave.
A simple modification to the experiment can be done to verify or falsify this hypothesis. Just change the orientation of the receiving antenna, so that its reflected wave doesn't strongly interfere with transmitter. See if it changes the phase of received wave. I predict the phase difference will no longer be zero.