The Game is Over

Please join me to another universe, where the people living in such universe are not like us, anything they see is either circle or a square, these people found a closed dark box, (yes, the box is a cube, it doesn’t matter now) Inside the box there is a shape as in the following Figure 1. One of these people asks himself, is the shape inside the box a circle or is it a square? He puts his hand so he touched part [1], he will say to the other’s this shape is not a square because I touched a curved part so this shape must be a circle (yes, if one of the two pictures is not applicable, he will transfer automatically to the other picture). Now if another one has put his hand inside the box and touched part [2] he will say to the others; I touched a straight part so this shape is not a circle, it must be square. Some would have concluded that it’s a circle, others would have assumed that it is a square. Alternatively, they will say this shape sometimes behaves as a circle and in other times it behaves as a square. They will either complement each other, or might fight each other. Anyway, these people would have said: is it possible to reconcile these two shapes? (i.e., first, they will oscillate between the two pictures and finally they will be mixing them) they will say: yes, it must be dual a squared circle and of course the natural result of this genius recombination is the absence of imagination. Even, if their results are very far from logic, they will find themselves forced to continue in this direction. When you ask them, why you think by this analogical way, their answer will be; it is the only game in town.

Figure 1:

Despite Newton’s question of whether light consists of a beam of particles or waves in motion? Is one of the oldest and the most interesting in the history of science, I think that Newton’s question by this form is responsible for the whole disaster, it restricts all the scientific thinking after him in just only two possibilities. After Newton’s theory, the physicists are divided between the two models for 200 years considering the wave theory is the only alternative to the particle theory and vise-versa. Finally (Einstein mixing the two untrue representations in a single fictious model) [3].

Philosophical view

There was an old belief that nature is fundamentally LOGICAL and CAUSAL i.e., it is our idea that the physical world behaves in a coherent fashion with respect to the human mind. This means that we are governed or ruled in the real world with the fundamental notions of formal logic, which include the law of non-contradiction, “the law states that; it is not valid to affirm (A) and (-A) at the same time, from the same side.

First about logic

Old physicists believe that the physical science is no doubt more strictly logical than any other field of intellectual activity. i.e., that logic is indeed an integral and central part of science. When the physicists studied the nature of light, they alternated between the two contradicting states (particle and wave) views regarding the light propagation form, those physicists witnessed philosophers who wrote that: Maturity is the ability to have two contradicting thoughts without feeling the need to choose one over the other [4]. Finally, Einstein (following Hegel) affirmed that those two contradicting views in a single concept, the photon model, in which the energy of corpuscle “localized” depends on non-localized property, the frequency of a wave. Then, the physicists extended this duality view to all universe entities (matter) via de Broglie view, they concluded that all carriers of energy and momentum propagate as waves but exchange energy like particles (from the single cells to galaxis). Those physicists claimed that this is because the micro world educates us something that is completely different from our experience of macroscopic world. Now, let us see where does this photon leads us in our quest to understand the reality of both light and matter;

A. Changing the meaning of physics: Bohr; It is wrong to think that the task of physics is to find out, how nature behaves, physics is what we can say about nature.
B. Disappearing the imagination form physics: Dirac said; no satisfying picture for the photon has been given, the main object of physical science is not provision of pictures but formulation of laws. This is because physicists claimed that our mental pictures (Images) and our mental logic are based on experience in the macroscopic world of classical physics - that is why (In their view) we cannot find a picture for the photon and to show that they are right, those physicists witnessed philosopher Emanual Kant who wrote in his “critique of pure reason” what may be the nature of objects considered as things in themselves (....) is quite unknown to us. We know nothing more than our own mode of perceiving them, which is peculiar to us.

a) The physicists considered Kant’s words as an excuse to accept the fictions photons with its unimaginable duality, and the result is that they stopped researching for the actual nature of light today, they use the duality paradigm without any commitment to how does light actually exists in nature [5].

C. The absence of Imagination leads to abundance the explanation, which was the core of the game of science, physics become a blind science just a complex mathematics.
D. Physicists end up with rejecting human logic.

a) Reference: using the nature of light - what is a photon Edited by: Chandr Asekhar Royc Houdhurt-AF. Kracklaver- Katherine Cheath.
b) Those physicists wrote; we need a new scientific epistemology to iteratively keep on refining our “human logic” that has originated all theories and move closer to our goal of mapping the “cosmic logic” that run all the interactions processes in our universe.
c) Those physicists also wrote; Therefore, the younger generation should be constantly asking and learning how can we stay focused on discovering actual realities in nature driven by “cosmic logic” Rather than stay limited to inverting realities that are ethically pleasing to our “human logic”.

E. To show that they are right, the physicists witnessed philosopher Hume; he denied the property of inductive logic via asking; why does and when does a single piece of past give useful information about future situation. i.e. Hume disregarded the existence of the precise deterministic physical laws which is coming from the inductive and deductive reasoning.

a) i.e. considering the photon Model as our tool for studying the light phenomena is responsible for the physicist’s belief to prefer looking for a new paradigm for doing science rather than kicking the photon concept outside the domain of physics.

Again, Einstein concept (the origin of duality idea) leads to de Broglie Matter waves leads to de Broglie’s wave packet (group) representation (and Schrodinger’s wave equation) leads to Heisenberg uncertainty leads to random chances leads to Max Born Probabilistic view leads to the funny many worlds’ interpretation [6].

My comments

I’m in complete agreement with the following David Hume words;

David hume

When a philosopher comes up with something that looks like a paradox and is contrary to basic beliefs of ordinary folk. It often fares better than it deserves, for two reasons. It is greedily embraced by philosophers. Who think it shows the superiority of their discipline that could discover opinions so far from common beliefs. When something surprising and dazzling confronts us, it gives our minds a pleasurable sort of satisfaction that we can’t think is absolutely baseless. These dispositions in philosophers and their disciples give rise to a relation of mutual comfort between them: the former furnish many strange and uncountable opinions, and the latter readily believe them.

Hume: A treatise of human nature. Book I, part II, section I. The photon concept

Einstein assumed that light might be constituted by;

“Photons or energy quanta each of (E = hν ) that are localized in points in space, move without dividing and can be absorbed or generated only as a whole”(3), the size of the photon is unknown:

Any Young Physicist Studied the Logical Positivism Will End Up with the Following Result¹:

When analyzing any concept, he found that the concept must be belong to one of four main types:

A. He found what is “referred to” by the concept is present just as described by the concept and then the concept is meaningful and true.
B. He found what is “referred to” by the concept is present but it is different from the image presented by the concept, then the concept is meaningful but untrue.
C. He found that there is a logical impossibility that the concept is referring to any of the assets of the world due to the virtue of its verbal composition, it does not carry any meaning at all. i.e., senseless assortments of words.
D. He found that the concept implies a contradiction in what it describes, it has an element that are contradicting to one another, consequently, it also does not refer to anything at all, it just composed of words that has contradictory properties.

a) The photon concept belongs to class “4” it is a point particle (localized), that contains energy depending on frequency (nonlocalized property). So, the photon concept is nothing more than a contradictory descriptive component.
b) The word “Photon” has no significance, no nominatum, no designatum, no denotatum, no referenatum.

The disaster is the thinking that as there is a word in physics it must have a peer in nature [7].

A. The photon concept Interprets the photoelectric effect, so why I do not accept it and why I don’t accept the contradiction aroused in it. My answer; This is a blue box, we have another different color box, we will call it a green box. i.e., by this simple way and because this box cannot be blue and not blue at the same time, (i.e. Because of the existence of the law of noncontradiction), we can say that such law is the base of all of our distinction between blue and green, consequently without which language itself would not have evolved.

B. The human mind who creates the science:

a) Science is a logical construction; it consists of a group of theses that are logically tight (I mean the premises and its results). The results which we got depends on our used concepts as well as the language we used in our trial to understand the physical phenomena, i.e. our used concepts indicate: The nature of our results and the direction of our thinking.
b) So, I consider the origin of our strange and illogical quantum ideas is coming from using the Einstein’s photon concept, which is unfortunately still our theoretical tool to understand the physical light phenomena.

C. In my view, the W/P duality supposition is merely physicists’ expectation projected on to reality. The duality idea does not have not any logical justification. I clarified in my previous works that there are photons and that the photons are nothing more than contrary descriptive representation.

D. The disaster is that we did not stop there but we made generalization by attributing such view to include all carriers of energy and Momentum in i.e. to all entitles of universe [8].

Second about causality

a) Causality is the classical natural physical idea that “the same causes must always produce the same results” without any exception, it is the basis of the whole science, and it is beyond the existence of the precise deterministic laws of nature. Any change of such strict causality means drastic alteration to the philosophy of the whole physical science. When Max Born Interpreted the double-slits experiment considering light as photons. He found that the identical photons (since all are generated by the same way) hitting the screen at different points, so he had no choice but to introduce the concept of probability so he had to modify the classical strict causality concept by Introducing the probability language to physics to show that, Max Born is right the physicists returned to David Hume (as an excuse for that change) the philosopher whom wrote:

b) “There is no justification for believing that there is any causal necessity in the ordering the events”.

c) Hume believes that all human knowledge is based on relations among ideas or sense impressions (causation is the force that compels one event to follow another is never experienced in sense impressions). So, anything not given in experience (in Hume view) should be considered as Mere invention and must be ruthlessly discarded-but no strict causality means that there are no precise deterministic laws in physics but only probabilities.

¹ Zaki Naguib Mahmoud, Positive logic, Arabic copy.

d) No strict causality means that we cannot go back track from any particular event (effect) to find somewhere in the dim recesses history its cause → consequently-we got the result that the universe is probabilistic prediction, we got uncertainty Instead and Randomness.

A. In my view such serious drastic alteration to the philosophy of physics is a natural consequence of the false view, considering light as photons.
B. In my view the regular succession of one kind of event followed by another is itself considered as a very strong (enough) justification for me to believing in the strict causal necessity until proven otherwise.
C. Max Born using the false photon model which is the main reason for this false drastic alteration to the physics philosophy i.e. is a natural result of his false view considering light as photon.
D. i.e. Hume disregarded the successes of the physical laws which are coming from the inductive and deductive reasoning.
E. Light today is the victim of the false physicists Interpretations for light phenomena. I tried to approach the actual light propagation form without violating the laws of logic by Introducing a new light model which it can be tested experimentally [9].

Some details

a) I obtained the quantization of light energy (E = nhυ) by picture appealing to the imagination (the wavy ray model). This picture I am offering is one that is open to discussion and experimental verification.
b) I clarified that neither the double - slit pattern is wave interference pattern nor the single slit pattern is a diffraction wave pattern light has not a wave nature.
c) I clarified that neither the photoelectric effect nor the compoton effect could be considered as a direct demonstration for the particle nature of light. Light does not have a particle nature. There are no photons so light does not have a dual wave-particle nature.
d) The photon assumption leads to the absence of imagination, which inturn leads to the absence of explanation, which inturn change the nature of physics to finally become a Blind science.

A. I showed that the photon assumption is incompatible (conflicts) with our theoretical knowledge, because such proposed photons are nothing more than a contrary descriptive componency from logical point of view.
B. I showed that such photon assumption is incompatible with our experimental knowledge because it could not interpret the double-slit experiment when the incident light becomes so faint (such that the proposed photons coming one by one).
C. I clarified that such photons forced the physicists today to look for a new paradigm of thinking for doing science rather than kick out the photon concept outside the domain of physics. All of this for the sake of Einstein.
D. I clarified that such photons with its unimaginable “waveparticle” duality leads us a stray in our quest to understand the reality behind light and matter.

a) The three main subjects of optics (geometrical optics, physical optics and quantum optics) have failed in representing the actual propagation form of light.
b) Today we are in need for a new theory of light to be constructed, the time has come to try to unify the three (the ray, the wave, the particle) untrue models on one new single picture, as feynman wrote such complete picture was not be available to us from a longtime.

A. The false (w.p.) duality view of light leads to the false matter waves idea, which is turn leads to the false Schrodinger’s equation to describe the propagation of such non existing waves.
B. I wander how the physicists made such terrible mistake by extending (generalizing) (via de Broglie) their understanding for all the universe entities (from single cells to galaxies) on something they failed to understand it, the light.
C. In my view, the fundamental equation of wave mechanics (the Schrodinger’s) equation) is absolutely baseless, we will override it. In my view physics should get back to speak classically. In my view it is just a question of time [10].

About Schrodinger’s eqn;

a) In my view, the quantum physicists are doing clowny mathematical tricks and maneuvers in constructing such new mathematical formalism by:

A. Representing the observables by the quantum mechanics operators, creating such a new mathematical instruction.
B. Creating many postulates and hundreds of rules, and also in using what they call “approximation techniques” to narrow the gap between the theoretical calculations and the practical experimental results.

Finally, I would like to say that the whole quantum philosophy in my view is nothing more than a group of delusions.

Upside down physics

a) In the natural scientific method, first, we have our own particular physical indication then we represent it by formulating a short hand illustration (i.e. mathematical equation) but in quantum mechanics, we have upside-down physical situation, for the first time, in the history of physics, we have the mathematical Schrodinger’s equation first and then we look for any suitable physical meaning such equation could describe it. Up till now there is no consensus among physicists about what Schroinger’s equation actually describe.
b) It should be noted that Copenhagen physicists spread abroad falsely that; there is no need to prove Schrodinger’s equation as it works without understanding what the equation really describes in physical reality and that the physicists have been hugely successful using it in their calculations.

For the believers in quantum mechanics, I have three questions

A. How do you interpret the absence of picture (image) that could illustrate the dependence of the energy contained in that photon (localized packet) on the frequency of its associated wave?
B. How you interpret that the matter wave nature could not be neither as mathematical device nor part of real world (external reality)?
C. How do you justify the absence of numerical examples of the problems of both Maxwell’s classical electrodynamics and also of quantum mechanics?

Conclusion: in what form does light propagate

Finally, I hope you take my point of view seriously and I can’t find any better words to end my vision than John’s words;

The philosophical idea

John Stuart Mill discusses the philosophical idea: The majority’s beliefs may be incorrect, whereas a single individual may be correct. Even if the whole human race agreed on one point of view and a single person disagreed, mankind had no right to suppress that person, just as it would be wrong for that individual to silence mankind, suppressing any voice in intrinsically harmful to humanity, both now and in the future. This harm is higher for those who suppress an opinion than for the person who has it. If the individual’s perspective were true, suppressing it would deny individuals the opportunity to amend their mistakes. If the opinion were erroneous, suppressing it would deprive them of something much more valuable: a greater grasp of the truth gained through the confrontation with falsehoods. Even if the majority’s conviction is absolute truth, denying it the opportunity to establish itself against falsity deprives it of the rational base and obscures the thinking that turned it from ordinary opinion to decisive knowledge.

I would like to express the deepest appreciation to professor EL Sayed Yehia El Zayat for fruitful discussion and scientific comments. In addition, a thank you to professor Salah Arafa who encourage me to complete this dissertation

1. Farouk MA (2017) The wavy ray model a new light model. International Journal of Optics and Applications 7(1): 1-6.
2. Farouk MA (2018) How physics became a blind science. Research & Development in Material Science 2(5): 203-205.
3. Farouk MA (2019) There are no photons. Evolution in Mechanical Engineering 2(3): 1-5.
4. Farouk MA (2020) Comments on the basis of wave mechanics. Research & Development in Material Science 14(2): 1536-1541.
5. Farouk MA (2022) Words about the physics philosophy. Research & Development in Material Science 17(1): 1923-1928.
6. Farouk MA (2023) Light is different. Research & Development in Material science 19(1): 2167-2173.
7. Lipson SG, Lipson H, Tannhauser DS. Optical physics. Cambridge University Press, USA.
8. Nkoma JS, Jain PK (2003) Introduction to optics-geometrical and physical. Robertson.
9. Feynman RP, Leigton RB, Sands M. The feynman lectures on physics.
10. Main LG (1978) Vibrations and waves in physics. Cambridge University Press, New York, USA.