If you want to view the article where it was finally printed because of the Adversity, then you need a subscription to ‘New Scientist’ magazine (unless you look up the person and find another forum where the article seems to have been copied to - so I will not name the other forum):
This website where this astrophysicist discusses this experiment is a blog, but it seems to explain it better perhaps than even the ‘New Scientist’ magazine article about it:
Now for the short version, a photon travelling as light at the speed of light – has been explained as being either a particle or a wave depending on how it is observed in the experiment according to the interpretation of quantum theory.
Steps in this physicist - an Iranian American physicist with a $20 high-school experiment and proves that ‘light’ is both at the same time – a particle and a wave thus sending quantum theory back to the early days - especially the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum theory.
Since I do not know if the experiment has been repeated (I doubt it because now it will only be published in a Foundation of Science Article finally after about 3-4 years - or somewhere that seems to be important now - have to check on that):
I thought it may be interesting to some people on this forum.
This blog gives one of the best reviews of it, although further down the page, I doubt if some other physicists will agree with whether string theory means what he thinks perhaps or that his equation he states (right-hand side) actually means what he thinks it means - I simply do not know.
This also may not mean that photons that move between particles of atoms will also behave this way either. That seems to be different, but then this seems to be preliminary since now it is only being recognized.
Okay, no discussion. Not quite sure what it all means.
Well, to me, it means or gives more creedence to the Holographic Universe (waveform) and also to people feeling pain and emotions (particles) as both are tied together, and one (either the particle or the wave) can no longer be ignored, just because to some scientists it does not fit into their ideas about the structure of everything in the Universe. Right now to me it means the wavefunction does not collapse and also brings up the challenge of those newer ideas that have been floating around by some scientists and physicists for years now, as actually being the real (particles) and unreal (virtual waveforms) Universe (with people in it also supposedly alive).
The article really didn’t go into anything that is new to quantum physics. It’s been long accepted in QM that the classical idea of waves and particles doesn’t adequately describe the behavior of matter at the quantum level and that matter isn’t made from pure waves or pure particles. Rather than saying that matter is both wave and particle it’s probably better to say it is neither. The classical terms are simply used descriptively to explain how something behaves in an experiment.
I suspect that the physicist had a lot more to say that what was printed in the pop-sci article. But I’m skeptical when an article say that someone “was prevented” from publishing an article to ArXiv. ArXiv isn’t a repository that requires peer review before allowing a legitimate researcher to post and article. It doesn’t accept obvious crackpot papers but it is pretty liberal in what it will allow.
Well, on the arvix place, I have heard there may be a certain political attitude connected with it at times. But all I do know is that it seems that ‘new scientist’ magazine had to print something first about his experiment, and that I am not sure what his experiment really means about changing that experiment in the first place by what he did. Just like always, scientists do not agree either on anything that seems out of the normal way of accepting ideas in the first place. But if it is some hardheadedness on the part of scientists along the way for about the last 90 years, then perhaps it may mean something different in the future. I just assume that also some other people end up assuming also. Meaning at one time in a science class, I thought humans actually knew something about science, because it does involve experiments and interpretation, but I was assuming, because later I found out, that actually the scientists may not know as much as they think they know. In other words, I sure some of it is - egos - and to me that is not scientific in the end. If that is all there is, then the only thing that will work is when a workable product comes out that does work in the end. Adding too much Uncertainty may be wrong also perhaps with the probability of the science work being done in the world.
It still is kind of like having the Catholic Church around in Galieo’s time and also the Protestant Reformation still around.
then we got:
variable speed of light (VSL) concept states that the speed of light in vacuum, usually denoted by c, may not be constant, for some reason. In most situations in condensed matter physics when light is traveling through a medium, it effectively has a slower speed. Virtual photons in some calculations in quantum field theory may also travel at a different speed for short distances; however, this doesn’t imply that anything can travel faster than light. While it is usually thought that no meaning can be ascribed to a dimensional quantity such as the speed of light varying in time (as opposed to a dimensionless number such as the fine structure constant), in some controversial theories in cosmology, the speed of light also varies by changing the postulates of special relativity. A fundamental change to relativity is needed if c is changing because relativity shows that space and time are equivalent.
