Double slit solution solved, time is 3 dimensional

[Oldand Dilis]

13 hours ago, Ghideon said:

14 hours ago, Oldand Dilis said:

Perhaps this makes the importance of counting the hits clearer

Unfortunately not. 

No extra hits on the front wall signifies they are ALWAYS peaks of waves hitting the wall. For extra hits on the back wall they must have been coming from secondary waves passing on from after their crest hit the front wall. They arrive later so they are not recording in the first time dimension, not just mechanically but mentally also. MindsI are focusing on the first time dimension

4 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

I simply ask questions about things i don't understand to be able to improve my analysis, here as in other situations. If you are not interested in a genuine attempt at a scientific look at your idea then this discussion can end here. If you just look for some support for your ideas then you are in the wrong forum and I'm the wrong individual.

 

Given your ability to explain and style of explaining your ideas so far it make perfect sense that great thinkers (and all other others) are unable to grasp.

 

 

I would say it's again too easy to criticise,  you answered straight away, obviously didn't take the time I am asking, begging, imporing people to take to THINK about it. Its clear you didn't.

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Oldand Dilis said:

Really?? Please show me where my equation has been thought of let alone verified. I think you assume it must have been but you are incorrect. 

That’s your job, not mine. I don’t see an equation that can be tested, anyway.

I’m saying the existing theory works. It matches experiment. Either your model gives the same result or it doesn’t. If it doesn’t, it’s wrong. In any event, you bear the burden of showing how your model is consistent with what we know.

 

Consider the following thought experiment. You start with 2 slits, and start adding slits, all with identical spacing, but all located within the laser spot.

The interference fringes will be sharper as you add the extra slits, but will not change in their location. But each added slit represents more transmitted photons and fewer absorbed photons. How does that compare with your model.

 

[Oldand Dilis]

2 minutes ago, swansont said:

That’s your job, not mine. 

I’m saying the existing theory works. It matches experiment. Either your model gives the same result or it doesn’t. If it doesn’t, it’s wrong. In any event, you bear the burden of showing how your model is consistent with what we know.

No its you who claimed that this has been done before not me. You should provide evidence to back your claim or its obvious I am correct. It hasn't been analysed as I direct.

 

Au contraire, it is well known that the theory of gravity is NOT well known, how to measure it is fairly well known (still not exact). There is NO MODEL EXCEPT MINE which even attempts to provide an explanation of gravity mechanics, mine does. What scientists are repeatedly saying almost everywhere is that science needs an all encompassing field theory to make sense of  what the maths are suggesting that's what I have done and everyone seems to bebe discussing MATHS. I have even seen it said we are at a point where maths cannot go further we need to step more into philosophy (if I can find that quote I will paste it here). That's how I came at this... by visualisation, philosophy whatever term is preferred yet everyone still seems to be focusing on the maths. I think rigid thinking scientists are resistant because it suggests that there are realms that cannot be measured but are real. Traditional thinking is if there's no maths its not science its not real, this is clearly incorrect, For example love the most powerful thing ever cannot be measured but few serious people would deny its VERY REAL. scIentists may not like to face the fact that some dimensions cannot be measured but its clear what the DSE shows is the maths I provide will prove that there are dimensions but science cannot necessarily access them as it wishes. Again philosophy NOT maths is what is needed to break the quantum deadlock, I have done it now as you correctly say the burden is mine, finding someone able to think with an open non defensive, non resistant mind and able to grasp it is truly hard. This I know too well just as many others in history I mentioned did. 

37 minutes ago, swansont said:

That’s your job, not mine. 

I’m saying the existing theory works. It matches experiment. Either your model gives the same result or it doesn’t. If it doesn’t, it’s wrong. In any event, you bear the burden of showing how your model is consistent with what we know.

No its you who claimed that this has been done before not me. You should provide evidence to back your claim or its obvious I am correct. It hasn't been analysed as I direct.

 

Au contraire, it is well known that the theory of gravity is NOT well known, how to measure it is fairly well known (still not exact). There is NO MODEL EXCEPT MINE which even attempts to provide an explanation of gravity mechanics, mine does. What scientists are repeatedly saying almost everywhere is that science needs an all encompassing field theory to make sense of  what the maths are suggesting that's what I have done and everyone seems to bebe discussing MATHS. I have even seen it said we are at a point where maths cannot go further we need to step more into philosophy (if I can find that quote I will paste it here). That's how I came at this... by visualisation, philosophy whatever term is preferred yet everyone still seems to be focusing on the maths. I think rigid thinking scientists are resistant because it suggests that there are realms that cannot be measured but are real. Traditional thinking is if there's no maths its not science its not real, this is clearly incorrect, For example love the most powerful thing ever cannot be measured but few serious people would deny its VERY REAL. scIentists may not like to face the fact that some dimensions cannot be measured but its clear what the DSE shows is the maths I provide will prove that there are dimensions but science cannot necessarily access them as it wishes. Again philosophy NOT maths is what is needed to break the quantum deadlock, I have done it now as you correctly say the burden is mine, finding someone able to think with an open non defensive, non resistant mind and able to grasp it is truly hard. This I know too well just as many others in history I mentioned did. 

 

 

Andrew Jaffe talks about time from 45 seconds and ends with saying that in order to understand it "..we step more into the realm of philosophy than physics"

[swansont]

1 minute ago, Oldand Dilis said:

No its you who claimed that this has been done before not me. You should provide evidence to back your claim or its obvious I am correct. It hasn't been analysed as I direct.

I never said your equation had been verified.

I said that the double slit/multi-slit experiment has been done countless times. It’s a standard university physics lab. The whole point of doing such labs is demonstration of known physics.

1 minute ago, Oldand Dilis said:

Au contraire, it is well known that the theory of gravity is NOT well known, how to measure it is fairly well known (still not exact).

WTF does gravity have to do with this? 

1 minute ago, Oldand Dilis said:

There is NO MODEL EXCEPT MINE which even attempts to provide an explanation of gravity mechanics, mine does. What scientists are repeatedly saying almost everywhere is that science needs an all encompassing field theory to make sense of  what the maths are suggesting that's what I have done and everyone seems to bebe discussing MATHS.

Having a model means maths, and is an absolute requirement for making specific and hopefully falsifiable predictions, which is a requirement for physics.

1 minute ago, Oldand Dilis said:

I have even seen it said we are at a point where maths cannot go further we need to step more into philosophy (if I can find that quote I will paste it here). That's how I came at this... by visualisation, philosophy whatever term is preferred yet everyone still seems to be focusing on the maths. I think rigid thinking scientists are resistant because it suggests that there are realms that cannot be measured but are real. Traditional thinking is if there's no maths its not science its not real, this is clearly incorrect, For example love the most powerful thing ever cannot be measured but few serious people would deny its VERY REAL. scIentists may not like to face the fact that some dimensions cannot be measured but its clear what the DSE shows is the maths I provide will prove that there are dimensions but science cannot necessarily access them as it wishes. Again philosophy NOT maths is what is needed to break the quantum deadlock, I have done it now as you correctly say the burden is mine, finding someone able to think with an open non defensive, non resistant mind and able to grasp it is truly hard. This I know too well just as many others in history I mentioned did. 

Those quotes tend to come from philosophers. 

Last I checked, love was not addressed by physics.

[Strange]

23 minutes ago, Oldand Dilis said:

Au contraire, it is well known that the theory of gravity is NOT well known, how to measure it is fairly well known (still not exact).

I think that, after 100 years, many people have heard of the theory of general relativity. This is one of our most accurate and well-tested theories.

Measurements of gravity can be very precise: they are used for surveying and, most recently, for the detection of the minute changes caused by gravitational waves.

 

Quote

There is NO MODEL EXCEPT MINE which even attempts to provide an explanation of gravity mechanics, mine does. 

If you are claiming that your model is more accurate than GR, I will need some serious evidence for that.

27 minutes ago, Oldand Dilis said:

That's how I came at this... by visualisation, philosophy whatever term is preferred yet everyone still seems to be focusing on the maths.

That is because we are talking about science. 

27 minutes ago, Oldand Dilis said:

it suggests that there are realms that cannot be measured but are real.

If they cannot be measured then they have nothing to do with physics, and probably no other branch of science.

28 minutes ago, Oldand Dilis said:

Traditional thinking is if there's no maths its not science its not real

With no math, it is not science. But it may still be real.

 

[Ghideon]

1 hour ago, Oldand Dilis said:

In the last two months NOT ONE PERSON has made any kind of discussion about the THEORY. NOT ONE. If it is wrong WHERE? WHY? 

You might want to reread the thread then. I gave you an opportunity to get you ideas analysed regardless of any kind of background. Your education (or possible lack of education) does not matter at all. You have got whatever (limited) scientific feedback I am capable of, questions are asked and issues are identified, that's all.
But: that also means you have to be willing to receive and analyse that feedback, answer the questions constructively and address the issues. It also means that since this is a science forum, for science discussion, lack of detail and rigorous explanations may be preventing the kind of feedback you seem to expect. 

 

1 hour ago, Oldand Dilis said:

No extra hits on the front wall signifies they are ALWAYS peaks of waves hitting the wall. For extra hits on the back wall they must have been coming from secondary waves passing on from after their crest hit the front wall. They arrive later so they are not recording in the first time dimension, not just mechanically but mentally also. MindsI are focusing on the first time dimension

Sorry, I am unable to follow that description of the experiment. I don't think the introduction of "mental" and "minds" helps in this case. 

[Eise]

11 hours ago, Oldand Dilis said:

It took Tim Berners Lee 3 years for someone to take a serious look at his design for the internet. It took Ada Lovelace 10 years for someone to take a serious look at the first computer algorhythm.

Point is, Lee and Lovelace thoroughly knew their stuff: their ideas were not based on meditation on a CONCEPT (btw, words starting with capitals, or completely written in capitals, are a clear sign of CRACKPOTISM ), but on the knowledge of what was possible and what wasn't. If you do not even have the smallest grasp of the mathematics of QM, then you cannot understand QM.  Taking your knowledge, obviously coming from popularising science books, in no way suffices to start a revolution in science.

11 hours ago, Oldand Dilis said:

I really don't understand why that is the main thing people criticise me for its not a failing on my behalf, there is no high level maths and physics needed to understand the theory.

Clear now? Really understanding QM implies knowing its mathematics. Not really understanding QM can lead to all kind of weird ideas, that are immediately recognised as wrong by those who know the mathematics of QM, so there is no reason to say immediately that your ideas simply do not work. 

[swansont]

13 hours ago, Oldand Dilis said:

 

 

Andrew Jaffe talks about time from 45 seconds and ends with saying that in order to understand it "..we step more into the realm of philosophy than physics"

 

When you ask a metaphysical question, you are going to be discussing philosophy. 

[Strange]

15 hours ago, Oldand Dilis said:

What I have been fortunate to have is plenty of time alone uninterrupted to meditate deep into the foundations of reality. You really have to think about the concept to grasp it. You really do and unfortunately no offence but I haven't seem to have found any great thinkers able to grasp THE CONCEPT yet.

Maybe your mistake is to think that your "concept" has anything to do with science. If you are talking about concepts you have come up with by meditating on reality, then this is philosophy and not physics. Try a non-science forum.

15 hours ago, Oldand Dilis said:

but to break new ground in history usually means fighting ridicule, set ways, complacency, anger, violence  etc.

And to break new ground in science, especially physics, means having a mathematical model that produces better results than existing models.

[Oldand Dilis]

16 hours ago, Ghideon said:

Sorry, I am unable to follow that description of the experiment. I don't think the introduction of "mental" and "minds" helps in this case. 

Maybe this might help

The hits on the front wall show the photons ALWAYS are the point of impact at the peak/crest of a wave, the wave continues after the initial impact, passes through the slits forming secondary waves which form the interferences and more waves, these are the extra photons (crests of secondary waves) arriving at the back wall in different time dimensions when not recording which slit the photon is passing through. 

[Strange]

14 minutes ago, Oldand Dilis said:

The hits on the front wall show the photons ALWAYS are the point of impact at the peak/crest of a wave, the wave continues after the initial impact, passes through the slits forming secondary waves which form the interferences and more waves, these are the extra photons (crests of secondary waves) arriving at the back wall

Could you provide a diagram. I have no idea what you mean by "front wall" and "back wall". 

Why would photons impact at the "crest of a wave"? Photons are not waves; you seem to be mixing up the quantum description and the classical (wave) description.

If the photon has hit a wall, then there will no longer be a wave to continue. The photon will be absorbed.

What evidence do you have that a wave passing through the slit produces "secondary waves"? What are "secondary waves"? We can observe this effect in, say, water and there is no evidence of new waves being created.

And how can "extra photons" be created? Photons have energy (and momentum) and so can't be created from nothing.

18 minutes ago, Oldand Dilis said:

arriving at the back wall in different time dimensions when not recording which slit the photon is passing through. 

I don't see how "extra time dimensions" helps explain this. For example, if you determine which slit the photon went through by observing an entangled photon (the normal way of doing this experiment) then this has no effect on the photon concerned.

There is a detailed explanation of how this works available (unfortunately for you, it is a mathematical description). I don't see what your vague handwavy claims about extra time dimensions are supposed to add.

[Bufofrog]

30 minutes ago, Oldand Dilis said:

The hits on the front wall show the photons ALWAYS are the point of impact at the peak/crest of a wave,

That doesn't even make any sense.

32 minutes ago, Oldand Dilis said:

the wave continues after the initial impact, passes through the slits forming secondary waves which form the interferences and more waves, these are the extra photons (crests of secondary waves) arriving at the back wall in different time dimensions when not recording which slit the photon is passing through.

So the photon is absorbed and then somehow is not really absorbed and then somehow 'makes' extra photons and then a magical new time dimension appears??

 

That is quite a peachy-keen hypothesis.  Absolutely no basis in reality, but peachy-keen.

[swansont]

2 hours ago, Oldand Dilis said:

Maybe this might help

The hits on the front wall show the photons ALWAYS are the point of impact at the peak/crest of a wave, the wave continues after the initial impact, passes through the slits forming secondary waves which form the interferences and more waves, these are the extra photons (crests of secondary waves) arriving at the back wall in different time dimensions when not recording which slit the photon is passing through. 

So if the surface roughness of the slit material exceeds half a wavelength, there would be no interference? Since the impact would not always be at a peak?

These are generally not polished materials. They will not be that smooth. 

[Oldand Dilis]

On 7/4/2019 at 8:55 AM, Strange said:

Why would photons impact at the "crest of a wave"? Photons are not waves; you seem to be mixing up the quantum description and the classical (wave) description.

If the photon has hit a wall, then there will no longer be a wave to continue. The photon will be absorbed.

What evidence do you have that a wave passing through the slit produces "secondary waves"? What are "secondary waves"? We can observe this effect in, say, water and there is no evidence of new waves being created.

And how can "extra photons" be created? Photons have energy (and momentum) and so can't be created from nothing.

That's where u are stuck mentally thinking "photons are not waves" that is a theory not a fact as you present it, and it is incorrect they are the visible point of the wave moving in the first time dimension. The secondary waves are those created by the interferences not from nothing but from the parts of the wave that passes through the slits. This is indeed science, it's science advancing to the next level and showing that there are dimensions that cannot always be measured but verified that they do exist. Like time dilation it takes a bit of thinking but some people will get it sooner or later just like it took many minds a long time to accept time dilation. The maths I have shown are primary school, you simply aren't grasping it, treating incorrect theories as facts won't help you unfortunately. Bufrog every bit as magical as the world being round or time dilation in the sense that nature is by it's nature magical yes, the extra time dimensions have always been here though and explain a lot that science can't but I'm not elaborating until everyone gets the basic concept first. There is no point until people do. 

On 7/4/2019 at 8:55 AM, Strange said:

Could you provide a diagram. I have no idea what you mean by "front wall" and "back wall". 

Why would photons impact at the "crest of a wave"? Photons are not waves; you seem to be mixing up the quantum description and the classical (wave) description.

The slits are where if not on the front wall? Photons like everything we perceive as matter are vibrations as Tesla predicted. Again a hard concept to grasp but it provides the solution to the double slit experiment and the Unified Field.

On 7/4/2019 at 8:55 AM, Strange said:

Could you provide a diagram. I have no idea what you mean by "front wall" and "back wall".

The diagrams are very clear on the website, why are you commenting if you haven't even read the papers to see what we are talking about. The basis of any scientific discussion is to read the subject matter first.... Please! In case you missed it,

url removed

[Ghideon]

1 hour ago, Oldand Dilis said:

the extra time dimensions have always been here though and explain a lot that science can't but I'm not elaborating until everyone gets the basic concept first. There is no point until people do. 

Ok, you want to overthrow every piece of physics ever discovered by mankind without even bothering to elaborate? That makes it kind of hard to contribute with analysis of the ideas you present. I don't think Einstein and the others you mention presented only part of an idea and hoped to gain support? Didn't they present enough to allow other scientists so see that they were right (or to allow other scientists to spot issues or ask for improvements / corrections). So far you have presented nothing that shows that your "concept" is an improvement over current models or theories, everything presented points at the opposite; the basic concept you try to describe is incorrect.

1 hour ago, Oldand Dilis said:

The diagrams are very clear on the website,

Then you should be able to present some of them here if that is required to follow your idea?

 

1 hour ago, Oldand Dilis said:

The basis of any scientific discussion is to read the subject matter first....

Yes. If you did you would see where your ideas have issues and where current models are applicable. 

 

1 hour ago, Oldand Dilis said:

The maths I have shown are primary school,

That is probably one of the main communication issues we have here! You are using words from mainstream science, words such as "photon", "wave" etc. Those words are backed up by some really detailed mathematical definitions, some of which may be above primary school level. When using the words without those mathematical models the words loose their scientific meaning. When you say "photon" and then reject the models and math for the mainstream science concept of a photon you have nothing left. I think you need to present a very detailed alternative model for light and probably invent new words that does not already have a very precise meaning. Or stick to, and try to improve upon, the current model that current experiments done with current equipment have confirmed to be valid. 

 

Edited July 6, 2019 by Ghideon
Last quote and communication issue text added.

[Strange]

1 hour ago, Oldand Dilis said:

That's where u are stuck mentally thinking "photons are not waves" that is a theory not a fact as you present it

As, of course, you know a "theory" is the best we get in science; a good theory is the closest science gets to a "fact". SO saying "just a theory" is a bit silly, it is like saying "is just almost certain".

1 hour ago, Oldand Dilis said:

Like time dilation it takes a bit of thinking but some people will get it sooner or later just like it took many minds a long time to accept time dilation.

It didn't really take any time. Time dilation was an obvious result of measurements, and once Einstein provided a sound theoretical basis it was generally accepted.

(Comparing yourself to Einstein is not a good look.)

1 hour ago, Oldand Dilis said:

The slits are where if not on the front wall?

I don't know. That is why I ask. Talking about "walls" is very unusual terminology. 

So, by "front wall" you mean the scene with the slits. And the "back wall" is the photon detector?

1 hour ago, Oldand Dilis said:

Photons like everything we perceive as matter are vibrations as Tesla predicted.

Photons are not matter. And the way we perceive matter has nothing to do with vibrations. And Tesla may have been a competent electrical engineer, but he also had a lot of crazy ideas which would never work.

1 hour ago, Oldand Dilis said:

The diagrams are very clear on the website, why are you commenting if you haven't even read the papers to see what we are talking about.

As you will know from the rules you read and agreed to when you joined, you need to present the necessary information on the forum. (If you haven't even read the rules ...)

[Oldand Dilis]

On 7/4/2019 at 4:55 PM, Strange said:

 

 

Another way to show it is the point of impact of a wave is to add more walls at angles for example 4 walls joined to the first wall facing the laser/photon gun one to the left one to the right one one on top one on the bottom all at angles for example135° between the wall directly facing the laser and the laser itself. A shape similar to reflectors on a photographic shoot lighting. After firing a number of photons each wall will have a pattern of hits around a general circular point. For every photon fired there will be a photon hitting each wall, 5 points of impact one on each wall for each photon fired. Showing it is a wave of vibration travelling out in all forward directions. If the scene with the slits is what you call the front wall then yes, if it is not made from photon sensing material try making it so. You don't even need slits to test using the extra walls at angles if they are all made from photon sensing material. 
 

59 minutes ago, Strange said:

Photons are not matter. And the way we perceive matter has nothing to do with vibrations. And Tesla may have been a competent electrical engineer, but he also had a lot of crazy ideas which would never work.

Thanks matter amended to light, regardless of what terminology you use it is vibration just like all matter as you will surely see when the experiment is set up with extra walls at angles. Time I am sure will show Tesla was much more correct than you thought and not at all the crazy history paints him as. Rather the opposite.

. First diagram shows blank wall with circular areas we would expect the photons to hit, for the back wall if there were no feont wall. The second shows the hits when recorded to see which slit the photon passes through. The third shows the pattern when not recorded.

A rough drawing of the extra walls and where I expect the wave to impact each, one hit on each wall for every photon fired. if you do it with 8 walls at angles to the full facing wall you will get 8 areas of points of impacts along with the main wall. If 16 extra walls 16 areas one on each etc.

A rough drawing of the extra walls and where I expect the wave to impact each, one hit on each wall for every photon fired. if you do it with 8 extra walls at angles to the full facing wall you will get 8 areas of points of impacts along with the main wall. If 16 extra walls 16 areas one on each etc.

Edited July 6, 2019 by Oldand Dilis
Unfinished sentence now finished

[swansont]

59 minutes ago, Oldand Dilis said:

 

Another way to show it is the point of impact of a wave is to add more walls at angles for example 4 walls joined to the first wall facing the laser/photon gun one to the left one to the right one one on top one on the bottom all at angles for example135° between the wall directly facing the laser and the laser itself. A shape similar to reflectors on a photographic shoot lighting. After firing a number of photons each wall will have a pattern of hits around a general circular point. For every photon fired there will be a photon hitting each wall, 5 points of impact one on each wall for each photon fired.

Why?

If the walls are mirrored, sure, but then you won’t see any spots. If you see spots or otherwise detect the photon, it won’t also hit another wall. It’s gone after that.

 

[Strange]

1 hour ago, Oldand Dilis said:

if you do it with 8 walls at angles to the full facing wall you will get 8 areas of points of impacts along with the main wall. If 16 extra walls 16 areas one on each etc.

As photons are indivisible (by definition) there can only be one point of impact per photon.

1 hour ago, Oldand Dilis said:

The second shows the hits when recorded to see which slit the photon passes through.

You have an interference pattern in the second image. That will not happen if you record "which slit" information.

[Oldand Dilis]

10 hours ago, swansont said:

Why?

If the walls are mirrored, sure, but then you won’t see any spots. If you see spots or otherwise detect the photon, it won’t also hit another wall. It’s gone after that.

To show the photon is a part of a wave, if each wall has a "photon" hit it it shows it is not a single particle but one point in a wave, not mirrors photon sensing material like used on the back wall in the original experiment. If there are no spaces like in the slits then yes the wave will be absorbed, if there are spaces the wave will pass through.

10 hours ago, Strange said:

As photons are indivisible (by definition) there can only be one point of impact per photon.

Thats exactly where traditional scientific thinking is wrong. If you can do the experiment go on try and prove me wrong that you will only get one point of impact, I guarantee you will get one on each extra wall. Go on try to prove me wrong. And to illustrate the point, we see light "photons" recorded at a trillion frames a second and more on youtube videos. If the photon is not a part of a wave and travelling forward only how can we see it from the side? Think about it..... 

[Sensei]

On 6/26/2019 at 11:56 AM, Oldand Dilis said:

Whichever accelerators are used to fire photons usually when performing the double slit experiment. 

None particle accelerators are used to fire photons while performing double slit experiment...

None particle accelerators are used to fire electrons while performing double slit experiment with electrons...

You have never seen a double slit experiment in your life, have you?

 

Edited July 7, 2019 by Sensei

[Strange]

16 minutes ago, Oldand Dilis said:

Thats exactly where traditional scientific thinking is wrong

The whole reason that the photon model was adopted was because the evidence forced it. This started with a solution to the black body problem, confirmed by Einstein's explanation of the photoelectric effect and many, many experiments since.

You can say "science is wrong" but without evidence, this has no value.

[Oldand Dilis]

3 minutes ago, Sensei said:

None particle accelerators are used to fire photons while performing double slit experiment...

None particle accelerators are used to fire electrons while performing double slit experiment with electrons...

You have never seen a double slit experiment in your life, have you?

 

As I clarified earlier in the thread whatever is used a laser or photon gun whatever. No I have never seen it done live in a lab what is you point? The fact I can understand it (and solve it though you guys cant grasp that yet) shows I don't need to see it live or be in the lab. Again what is your point? I cant understand it because I never studied science at University? You must be cleverer than me because you saw it done in a lab? Oh please... there really is too much academic snobbery, people stuck in outdated theory that doesnt make sense and not enough common sense going on in general. 

[Strange]

21 minutes ago, Oldand Dilis said:

If the photon is not a part of a wave and travelling forward only how can we see it from the side?

You can't.

[Oldand Dilis]

2 minutes ago, Strange said:

The whole reason that the photon model was adopted was because the evidence forced it. This started with a solution to the black body problem, confirmed by Einstein's explanation of the photoelectric effect and many, many experiments since.

You can say "science is wrong" but without evidence, this has no value.

Because it was the best model they could come up with at the time. They all still agree much of quamtum physics DOESN'T seem to make sense. Thats why they have been looking for a Unified FIELD Theory NOT a new mathematical model as someone suggested, a Field Theory that makes sense of the knwon mathematics. The extra wall method I explain will prove it. 

2 minutes ago, Strange said:

You can't.

Obviously we can!!! Lol. The videos are there on youtube.