Someone has to look at these: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Hui-Peng-39 This guy made a lot of double slit experiments, with very simple settings (lasers, lenses, etc.) and he claims that light is not a wave. There are tons of pictures and experimental results. I don't know if the site is reliable, but the articles seem genuine and on important journals too. Maybe Steve, you can prove him right or wrong? Thank you.
[deleted]
the interesting thing is about the experiments and the published papers. read them, if you like.
This is all the work of one person and the publications are kind of weird, It's all done by this researcher called Hui Peng that supposedly works at this James Peng Lab which I can't find on Google, then all his publications have one author which is pretty weird to happen if he actually works on a serious lab. This all feels more like one guy doing some experiments on its own and yet in the papers he always says "we" as if there was a team and yet he's the only author.
Also, I didn't check all the publications but it seems they're all preprints, meaning they haven't been peer-reviewed and it's just probably him publishing where he can without anyone actually checking his work yet.
Also the two abstracts that I checked don't actually mention what backs up his argument of these experiments showing behavior explained by photons and not a wave.
This doesn't mean he's wrong or that it invalidates his argument but it's definitely a red flag and it means that before believing what he's saying this has to be peer-reviewed thoroughly, especially with such a bold claim.
From a quick look it seems to me that he's misunderstanding what the double slit experiments show, but I have a major headache and can focus at the moment on this. But in short, this is probably bs, and yeah it definitely could be fun for Steve with the help of some experts explain the issues with Peng's claims and even publish something about it.
Maybe the "quick look" was too quick. For instance, this paper states clearly the name of the journal (peer revieved journal, of course) and the pages:
"International Journal of Physics, 2021, Vol. 9, No. 1, 48-52"
if someone has an access of this journal could verify easily if it's indeed a real article. And, like this, many others which contains the specific reference of the journal and the pages, which is more precise than a random statement "I think it's probably bs" written by a random stranger on the internet.
Moreover, I don't think you can publish the full text of a printed article, because that would damage the income of the journal, and maybe this explains why he didn't publish the published version of the papers.
Anyhow, the papers are very easy to read, they are not too technical. Maybe if someone actually reads the contents could say what he or she thinks about the contents of the papers and the implications of these experiments.
Particles are waves, ever heard of quantum mechanics?
the interesting thing is about the experiments and the published papers. read them, if you like.
Wave-particle duality is extremely well established science, and it would take a tremendous amount of contrary evidence to overturn that.
right? still, there are (allegedly) published, peer-reviewed papers with very strange results. Are you not curious about it? I posted one precise reference in another comment, as an example, until someone verify that the article is fake, making an access to that journal, why would we doubt about the articles?
A few articles from one author, with no confirmation, peer review, etc. is not “a lot of papers showing”.
that's not true. read my other comment.
It is fhe job of the abstract to motivate rhe reader, not a reddit commenter
I don't want to motivate anybody ;). The post is really only for Steve. Motivation comes from within. It is quite clear that you're not curious about this, and it's fine. Not everyone is curious about everithing.
This distinction is entirely semantic... A particle (with some wave-like properties) or a wave (with some particle-like properties). What you call it doesn't matter, just how it behaves, and how light behaves is pretty firmly established.
Really, it is pointless writing comments if you don't read the papers. I couldn't possibly sum up in one single sentence a great number of articles, with tons of images and experimental results. These results are not what they should be according to the actual theory. If you are curious, read them. This guy has a phd, and the papers are peer reviewed by another phd in phisics.
I'm not asking for a summary, and unlike everyone else in these comments I don't care about his credentials or peer-review. But I don't think it's worth reading all "the papers" on the off chance there's something novel there. What specific experiment deviated from theory?
The credentials and the peer-review assure you that there's something new to what we know about these experiments. If there wasn't, they would not have published them. They publish new discovery, or new insights to old theory. If it's not new, they won't publish them.
So, the answer to your question is "all of them". They are described in details, with pictures.
You can choose for yourself, I guess you could start with this:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/395330612_Double_Slit_Experiments_Showing_That_Light_Is_Photons_Producing_Both_Non-Interference-Pattern_and_Interference-Pattern_in_Same_Experiment_and_Thus_Wavefunction_Represents_Simply_Useful_Tool_Describing
If you're interested in physics, surely you can click some of the papers based on the titles and you can see if you are convinced by him or not. If you're not so interested, it's ok, and you will consider this a waste of time.
I am very curious, and I have read ten of them, and I find them amazing. I will surely verify some of these results at home, by myself.
This is 100% semantics, and is basically the definition of wave-particle duality (which he's somehow claiming it contradicts). That's why I'm drawing a blank as to what he thinks is new here. And his "zone 0-3" construction make me think he doesn't know what near-field and far-field are when it comes to waves/optics.
have you read the entire thing? don't you think his experiments contradicts the huygens-fresnel principle?