Particle/wave duality: physical reality? Or really physical crackpottery?

[Glen Bartusch]

I, as with Albert Einstein, shall always side with Issac Newton; that is to say, that light is corpuscular. There is no such thing as a light 'wave'.
Sure, Thomas Young threw the world of physics a curveball in 1802, backed by Huygens and his somewhat sound reasoning (for the time). But who would have thought that this curveball would have flown this far, and for so long! So long, in fact, that there are crackpots by the minions concocting all kinds of silly and absurd ideas to try to explain away simple, everyday phonomena such as diffraction.
What absurd ideas are the crackpots concocting as a result of sustaining severe blows to the head as a result of Young's curveballs? Look to Scientific American Magazine and other related media for your answer: Branes. Superstrings. Articles on "multiple worlds" and the like. All these "concepts", backed by their physical "mechanisms", attempt to answer the simple question: what causes light and sub-atomic substance to diffract? A non-local realist even suggested a few years back that there are superluminal speeds--speeds in excess of 10,000x the speed of light--which convey the information between two correlated photons!

Indeed, it's not branes, superstrings or superluminal velocities and their teachings that are at fault; what's at fault here is StarTrek: The Next Generation and all the crackpot physicists that follow it.

I, like Issac Newton, propose that light consists of photons; photons which are corpuscular and non-wave in nature. Crackpots will have a hard time with the proposition, since diffraction of light initially appears as a wave-like phonomenon. What the crackpots ignore is that each wave needs a medium for which to travel in. Whether that medium be air for acoustic waves, water for water waves or two terminii for the wave along a rope, there needs to be a medium for a wave.

 

[Academic]

So do you have a question, or do you just want to rant by calling mainstream scientists crackpots?

 

[Glen Bartusch]

So do you have a question, or do you just want to rant by calling mainstream scientists crackpots?

My question is the longstanding question of all rational people: why does light form light and dark bands on a nearby screen after having exited a small aperture?

I am not ranting. I am not calling names. And most importantly, I believe it's a sad state of affairs in our history of physics when guys who write articles are claiming branes, superstrings, and wavepackets are what's behind diffraction.

Indeed, with all such crackpottery, physics is indeed well-immersed in a sort of 'dark age'.

 

[Academic]

What you deem to be 'reality' or not is your prerogative. In any case, the models created in this 'dark age' have the most powerful descriptive and predictive power of any ever invented before. And in the end, that's all that really matters.

 

[Glen Bartusch]

What you deem to be 'reality' or not is your prerogative. In any case, the models created in this 'dark age' have the most powerful descriptive and predictive power of any ever invented before. And in the end, that's all that really matters.

OK, then, since waves need a medium to propogate in, then what is the medium the photon propogates in?

When the photon's in superposition, what is it propogating into make a diffraction pattern?
When light is not being observed what medium is it propogating in to make its diffraction pattern? Well?

Again. The crackpots say light is a wave when it's not being observed. What medium, may I ask, is the 'unobserved' light propogating in that gives it its wavelike characteristic?

...the crackpots are silent...