On the subject of reasonable interpretation of the two slit experiment.
It is commonly argued in physics that the two slit experiment provides evidence, or even proof, that light has some kind of wave properties and is not just a fundamental “particle” quanta of energy, traveling at a constant speed, and at a given frequency.
I would argue that thorough analysis of the physics, and the presumptions used to derive popular interpretation, reveal that the experiment has been grossly mischaracterized to suit a preferred magical description of reality.
Water waves as comparison
The strongest evidence justifying the conclusion that light must be a wave is the fact that using water waves the interference pattern created is nearly identical to the pattern created using light and 2 slits. This is strong circumstantial evidence but it is not evidence strong enough to justify a conclusion in a foundational dispute. In this case a fair judge must hard test the evidence, and I would argue that the fair investigation necessary to that testing does reveal the circumstantial evidence to be weak and unsubstantial when compared to other theories that can explain the cause of the effect.
It should be known fact to all college educated physicists that there is a single slit interference pattern that is identical to the two slit pattern with the exception that the central maxima produced is twice the width and four times the intensity. The fact that this result is not in any way duplicated in fluid wave mechanics is good reason to think the two slit results are just coincidental. There is also the problem that single slit interference makes conversations about what slit the the photon traveled through in the two slit experiment kind of ridiculous. Why would the photon have to travel through both slits if in the single slit experiment it can produce the self caused wave interference by just traveling through one?
It's about the surfaces not the slits ....stupid
Being that water waves are not consistently analogous, and no physical wave splitting or creating mechanism is required when the experiment is performed using one slit and light, it is reasonable to test other causes besides “openings”. In my experience I have heard no professional physicist pay the slightest attention to the composition of the slit material or even speculate regarding any role the slit material might be playing in creating the interference pattern. Physicist should certainly be aware that on the atomic scale surfaces are likely nothing like what we experience. They plainly tell us that matter is mostly empty space with energy equal to its mass. They teach that when light transitions from matter of one density to matter of another density it will refract. Yet when discussing pushing light through two closing surfaces they imply all this atomic science to be irrelevant.
Here I will argue that when thoughtfully considered it is the nature of the surfaces which accounts for the patterns seen in slit experiments using light or electrons. When considering the mechanical differences between the single slit and double slit experiment, with a focus on changes in the surfaces, it is observed that the two slit experiment doesn't just add two surfaces it adds them in a location of highest light intensity. This fact, if acknowledged, has glaring implications quite capable of explaining why the diffraction pattern [interference pattern] reveals itself with greater contrast in the two slit experiment.
Put simply, in the single slit experiment the 2 surfaces are as far as possible from the center --presumably more intense-- light, and in the two slit experiment, two surfaces are placed as close as possible to the center of the light source. Clearly this provides explanation for why a given photon would have a higher probability of being diffracted by surface forces
in the two slit experiment.
Regarding surface forces:
Since before Newton it has been observed that cast shadows often have a fuzzy edge which becomes more observable proportional to the length of the shadow. Bringing that fact into this discussion, I would suggest that the diffusion at the shadows edge is an example of single surface diffraction. Clearly the surface of objects does something to light as it passes close by, and that effect is made more visible as it is magnified through projection over distance. I would argue that this fact of nature is the origin of the two slit phenomenon, and that the same effect is just multiplied as you bring surfaces in close proximity to each other. A simple experiment illustrates the point... If you move two of your fingers together against a bright background, like an LED monitor, you can easily observe the space between your fingers darkening well before they make contact. If you do the experiment carefully you may even see what appear to be darkening field lines form between your fingers.
The darkening is a clear indication of light diffraction and it is clear that the two surfaces create an effect many times more intense then single surface fuzziness.
The Draft Science Link Box
Just right click, and 'bookmark' this Link --
(or drag the link into your bookmark toolbar)
To load the tool just click the bookmark you created.
or if you have Greasemonkey [firefox] installed or tampermonkey [chrome], use this user-script --and the tool will auto load
for firefox you might need this to enable Active Content Toggle Mixed Active Content
To add the toolbar to your website post this code inside the BODY tages: