Study on the Diffraction-like and Interference-like Mechanisms of Particle Flow
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper demonstrates that the light and dark fringe in Young's double-slit experiment is not actually the diffraction and interference pattern of light wave. We investigate the scattering phenomenon after the particle flow passes through the gaps and find that the scattering type and scattering degrees of freedom of the particle flow depend on the physical parameters of the particles and the gaps. When the particle flow undergoes uniform scattering, a uniform "yes" and "no" interspersed discrete distribution pattern will form on the receiving screen. Based on the diffraction-like and interference-like mechanism of particle flow, this paper explains the electron diffraction and interference experiment, as well as the Young's double-slit interference experiment and the diffraction of light through circular holes and plates. This article provides an in-depth discussion on Einstein's concept of wave particle duality and de Broglie's matter wave hypothesis, as well as an analysis of Feynman's experimental idea of electron double slit interference. Our research shows that the matter wave hypothesis is not valid, which has shaken the foundation of modern quantum mechanics and has significant scientific significance. In addition, this study has important application value for the development of technology for detecting and analyzing particles or gaps.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".