Next Frontier in Physics—Space as a Complex Tension Field

doi:10.4236/jmp.2012.310173

Paper Menu >>

Journal Menu >>

Journal of Modern Physics, 2012, 3, 1357-1368

http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/jmp.2012.310173 Published Online October 2012 (http://www.SciRP.org/journal/jmp)

Next Frontier in Physics—Space as a Complex

Tension Field

Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri

Femto Macro Continuum & Physics Department, University of Connecticut, Storrs, USA

Email: chandra@phys.uconn.edu

Received July 26, 2012; revised September 3, 2012; accepted September 12, 2012

ABSTRACT

We hypothesize that 100% of the energy of our cosmic system is held by a physically real Complex Tension Field

(CTF). We are using an old methodology of thinking used by our forefather engineers long before the advent of modern

scientific thinking. We call it Interaction Process Mapping Epistemology or IPM-E. We apply this IPM-E on to the

prevailing Measurable Data Modeling Epistemology or MDM-E. This approach helped us analyze the “Measurement

Problem”, recognized during the rise of quantum mechanics (QM), and helped us recover a universal property of all

linear waves, that they do not interact, or interfere, with each other. This Non-Interaction of Waves, or the NIW-prop-

erty, should be obvious through daily observations and through the Huygens-Fresnel diffraction integral and through

critical evaluation of contradictory hypotheses we have been assigning to photons through ages. This implicates that the

time-frequency Fourier theorem, although mathematically correct, and is used universally in all branches of science;

does not map the real physical interaction processes for most optical phenomena. Accordingly, we present the necessary

modifications for a few selected phenomena in classical and quantum optics to validate the NIW-property. In the proc-

ess we find that accepting photons as non-interacting, but diffractively propagating linear wave packets crossing the

entire cosmic space, requires CTF as a physical medium. Then we develop logical arguments in support of stable ele-

mentary particles as nonlinear but resonant vortex-like undulations of this same CTF. These vortex-like particles im-

pose various secondary potential gradients around themselves giving rise to the four forces we know. Thus, CTF can

serve as the cosmic substrate to develop a unified field theory without the need of dark matter and dark energy. In the

process, we demonstrate a path to add ontologic thinking on our biologically successful epistemic thinking.

Keywords: Non-Interaction of Waves; Cosmic Tension Field; Dark Energy and Matter; Platform for Unified Field

Theory

1. Introduction

The paper establishes that photons are non-interacting

classical wave packets. This requires the cosmic vacuum

to be a real physical Complex Tension Field (CTF) to

sustain and facilitate such linear waves to propagate

across the entire cosmic volume. We then postulate that

CTF holds 100% of the cosmic energy. Then we ac-

commodate particles as vortex-like nonlinear space-finite

oscillations. The oscillations are self-resonant for their

stability giving rise to the quantumness in the micro uni-

verse. Our approach is to “stand on the shoulders of the

giants”, a la Newton, who is rightly considered as the

father of modern physics. However, our novel approach

helps remove a large number of ad hoc hypotheses from

many of the modern theories. That the foundational hy-

potheses behind the working theories of physics need to

be re-visited is obvious from a large number of recent

books and papers [1-13]. We hope our effort in this paper

will add further impetus to put vigorous efforts in devel-

oping unified field theories in many new ways by ques-

tioning the foundational hypotheses of the current work-

ing theories [8,9,12-14]. Accordingly, we have put ef-

forts to differentiate between epistemic and ontologic

thinking [13,15] by tracing back to our evolutionary suc-

cesses.

Sustainably evolving within the bounds of the laws of

nature is being successfully practiced by all single and

multi-cellular species, including humans, since ancient

times. We are the first species to accelerate our rate of

evolution, better than the others, by being able to articu-

late and pass on to the following generations such under-

standings in various forms, instead of relying only upon

genomic transfer and genetic mutations available to all

other species. Human ambitions have now been extended,

beyond survival, to understand meanings, purposes and

roles we can play in the vast cosmic system, beyond the

earthly biosphere. A critical review of the records of hu-

man understandings, validated through quantitative ex-

C. ROYCHOUDHURI

1358

perimentations, reveal that all the physical processes

behind cosmological and biospheric phenomena, can be

modeled (theorized) fairly closely as long as our funda-

mental assumption is that all the laws behind the cosmo-

logical evolution are perfectly logical, rather than or-

dained ad hoc by some spiritual force. Unfortunately, we

do not have direct access to the cosmic logics. So,

through ages, we have refined our theorizing approach as

an iteratively advancing process, which can continue

through ages. We have been first developing a set of hy-

pothesis logics to bring conceptual continuity among a

diverse set of related observations by imposing some

logical congruence; and then structure them into a rigor-

ous theory by imposing on them even more restrictive set

of human-invented mathematical logics [11] with the

explicit desire to capture the real set of operational cos-

mic logics. Even though microbes and ancient humans

did not understand the cosmic logics directly, they have

remained close to them by virtue of their intuitive capac-

ity (or, un-articulated biological intelligence) to emulate

the nature-allowed physical processes in modified forms

to better adapt to their environment. We humans have

identified this emulation of nature allowed physical

processes as technology invention, which is now accel-

erating at almost an exponential rate as we have entered

the Knowledge Age, leveraging the Internet empowered

communication technologies.

The point is that our primitive forefather human engi-

neers, inspite of not being scientists in the modern sense

of the word, have successfully assured our sustainable

evolution by emulating nature allowed processes. They

could not visualize the physical process of tilted earth

spinning on its axis and revolving around the Sun, yet

they succeeded in developing the fundamentals of sea-

sonally dependent agricultural technologies, critical for

us being here today in such large numbers. Life-long

meticulous recording of data on the positions of planets

and stars by Tyco Brahe and Johannes Kepler, followed

by empirical formulation of the planetary laws of motion

by Kepler, finally inspired Newton, the discoverer of

differential calculus, to enunciate the universal inverse

square law of gravitational attraction. Today, we can

mentally or digitally visualize the planetary motions,

even though the Voyager (now traveling beyond the solar

system) has not recorded and sent back time-lapsed vid-

eos of the planetary motions around the Sun!

But, today’s advanced technology behind precision

Doppler velocimetry shows that further the stars are from

the center of any galaxy, more their velocity deviate from

Newton’s law of gravity; so it cannot be all that universal!

Neither Newton’s law of gravity, nor Einstein’s General

Relativity (GR), models such velocity variation data

without ad hoc modifications [16]. Further, it is getting

closer to almost a century that we have been trying to

develop a unified field theory, first initiated by Einstein,

to understand and visualize the evolution of the entire

cosmic system; but we have not succeeded yet. We be-

lieve that this is because we are extremely reluctant to

accept space as a real physical field, even though most

of the successful working mathematical theories indicate

that space is full of physical properties. 1) Gravitational

law [17] requires that space has gravity related property

G as in G·mM/r2; 2) Maxwell’s wave equation demands

the same space to have electric and magnetic properties,



and 0



, because the velocity of light [18] in free

space is always 00

c; 3) General Relativity

defines gravitational force as a curvature of the space; 4)

all versions of quantum mechanics find space to be full

of “zero point energy”, “quantum foam”, “background

fluctuations”, etc. Further, the recent discovery of Higgs’

Boson has not really succeeded in bringing uniform con-

fidence that the prevailing epistemology of physics is in

the right direction [19]. Yet, we have been religiously

reluctant to renew our efforts to develop theories from

the new foundation that space constitutes a real physical

field! Instead, we have been successfully imposing

around the globe the view that the foundation of the edi-

fice of physics has already been laid and they must not be

challenged any further! This directly contradicts our long

trend of historical evolution of scientific theories. Clas-

sical theories were consecutively challenged by Relativ-

ity Theories (RT) and Quantum Mechanics (QM) and

they have eventually prevailed. Over almost a century,

these theories have provided us with enormously useful

and practical guidance. Today our knowledge behind the

workings of the micro and the macro universe is unde-

niably impressive. Yet, we have become collectively

reluctant to accept the fundamental tenet of scientific

thinking: We are not yet wise enough to ask the ultimate

questions about the universe and construct the final the-

ory! Hence, all theories must be iteratively corrected and

enhanced as our measurement technologies keep on ad-

vancing and makes us wiser. Any and all human organ-

ized bodies of knowledge are necessarily incomplete,

because they have been constructed based upon insuffi-

cient knowledge and understanding of the deeply inter-

related and inseparable cosmic system.



1/2







Serious human epistemology should be guided by the

enduring need for consciously constructing an evolving

path for our sustainable and collective evolution. So the

purpose of successful theory building should be explic-

itly directed towards visualizing the invisible interaction

processes behind all phenomena. This will facilitate all

engineers to become more inventive towards our contin-

ued future technological needs. Science cannot continue

to flourish without consciously being aware of its re-

sponsibility to directly facilitate our sustainable evolu-

tion, while working with the engineers hand in hand.

C. ROYCHOUDHURI 1359

Let us define the necessary approach [13] as the Inter-

action Process Mapping Epistemology (IPM-E), which

should be added on to our currently successful approach,

defined here as the Measurable Data Modeling Episte-

mology (MDM-E). Our biological brains have evolved as

epistemic thinking tools. So, forcing ourselves to con-

sciously visualize the invisible but ontological processes

should train us to become better ontologic thinkers. RT

and QM are enormously successful in validating wide

ranges of measurable data. But both fail to provide us

with visualizable maps for the interaction processes in

macro and micro domains [10,20], even though they are

successful in predicting the measurable data. In fact, the

Copenhagen Interpretation explicitly advices us not to

waste time in trying to visualize precise paths of elec-

trons in stable atoms [21,22]. As a result, more than a

century after indivisible photon hypothesis and more than

80 years of continued successes of QM, we are still liv-

ing with diverse and self-contradictory metaphysical ex-

planations for single photon and single particle interfer-

ence [22]. Yet, we still have not succeeded in mathe-

matically localizing indivisible photons. The photon as a

Fourier mode of the vacuum is inconsistent with our ob-

servations and classical model for ultra-short laser pulses

[23,24]. Besides, Fourier summation of wave amplitudes

is inconsistent with the universal property of waves in the

linear domain—they do not interact (or interfere) with

each other to create new field energy distribution in the

absence of some interacting medium. We call this Non-

Interaction of Waves as the NIW-property [25-27],

which we have been neglecting to explicitly recognize

for centuries because MDM-E has kept us satisfied

without enquiring any deeper about the invisible interac-

tion processes between the superposed waves and the

detector.

It is the recognition of this hitherto neglected NIW-

property that has inspired us to explore the shortcoming

of the prevailing scientific epistemology, which we have

characterized as MDM-E. Our attempts to map the po-

tential physical processes behind the NIW-property has

helped us to reduce the number of ad hoc hypotheses, a

la Occam’s razor, necessary to explain a wide range of

classical and quantum optical phenomena wherever the

superposition effects play key roles [27].

2. “Measurement Problem” as an

“Information Retrieval Problem”

Data we record through instruments are complex emer-

gent phenomena [8], essentially invisible to direct view-

ing. This is not a simple measurement problem to be

solved by elegant mathematical theorems [29-31].

1) Measurables as transformations: We can measure

only physical transformations in an instrument.

2) Preceded by energy exchange: There are no trans-

formations without energy exchange.

3) Guided by forces of interaction: Energy exchange,

and consequent transformations, must be guided by some

allowed force(s) of interaction.

4) Must experience physical superposition: Interac-

tants must be within each other’s sphere of physical in-

fluence to be able to interact under the guidance of an

allowed force to exchange energy and undergo transfor-

mations. Thus, all interaction produced transformations

must be local in the sense that the interactants must be

within each other’s sphere of physical influence.

5) Through some physical interaction process: Al-

though invisible, all transformations are preceded by

some real physical interaction process. Our conscious

and systematic attempts to understand & visualize these

invisible interaction processes provide us with some ex-

tra referent logical tools to explore cosmic logics (reality).

IPM-E is a key tool that can connect our biological epis-

temic thinking with the necessary ontologic thinking.

6) Always requires a finite duration: Transforma-

tions in the interactants from one specific state into an-

other requires a “compatibility sensing period” [32] be-

tween them before the interactants can acknowledge the

force of interaction and then exchange energy and then

undergo the measurable transformation (transition).

7) Perpetual information retrieval problem: How

do we gather quantitative and accurate information re-

garding the transformations experienced by our chosen

set of interactants in an experiment? We interpret. But,

there are four fundamental limitations that always de-

prive us from gathering complete information about any

entities we are studying. a) First, we have not succeeded

in constructing any data registering instrument that has

100% fidelity in acquiring all the quantitative data (in-

formation) it generates through secondary transforma-

tions induced by the primary transformations experi-

enced by our chosen interactants; b) Second, we have

never succeeded in setting up an experiment where the

interactants experience all the four forces that could in-

troduce various measurable transformations in them,

even though all material particles are subject to all of

them under different circumstances; c) All interactants

are incessantly perturbed by omnipresent cosmic rays

and background EM radiations of all frequencies. These

effects we usually burry under quantum statistics



.

d) Finally, it is the human mind that provides the inter-

pretations based upon whatever incomplete data we

gather. And, since human minds have evolved for inter-

preting information for biological and socio-cultural sur-

vival first, our interpretations are subjective and vary

from person to person and from culture to culture. Recall

that Bohr-Einstein debate lasted for decades without res-

olution. We still do not know what an elementary particle

C. ROYCHOUDHURI

1360

is made out of!

Physics has never formalized any force of interaction

between linear waves. It is the light-matter interaction

process that triggers the transformation we register as

interference fringes. So, interference of waves is a mis-

guided, yet well perpetuated concept, in most books and

literature. This Non-Interaction of Waves, or the NIW-

property is known [25-27] but we ignore it. We could not

be enjoying music or visual sights unless all the neces-

sary waves were reaching our sensors without being per-

turbed by other crossing waves.

3. Empowering Mathematical Logics [11]

Using IPM-E

It is instructive to find out why our MDM-E using cur-

rent representation of the superposition effects perfectly

validate the measured data and allows for diverse subjec-

tive interpretations like: photons and particles 1) display

wave-particle duality; 2) display self-interfere and 3) the

superposition effects are nonlocal phenomena; etc.

We never see light. We can interpret the presence of

EM wave only by inferring from electric current pulses

in our detector consisting of billions of electrons. A sili-

con-based visible light detector fails to alert us about the

presence of X-rays even though they possess more en-

ergy! It is the quantum mechanically allowed physical

transformation in a detector, which becomes our meas-

ured data. So the mathematical equation representing

light detection must first model the light-matter interac-

tion process. Material molecules are modeled as oscillat-

ing dipoles in the presence of EM waves by both classi-

cal physics and QM. If we superpose N coherent waves



2πtnexp i







n

with a periodic phase delay



on a detecting dipole, the total stimulated dipolar

undulations can be represented by, using



as the first

order polarizability:



















 (1)

When



is a constant for a narrow band of frequen-

cies, the mathematical rule allows us to take it out of the

sum-symbol as a common factor. Now the physical

meaning of the last two mathematical expressions in Eq-

uation (1) can be interpreted dramatically differently.

The expression in the second line of Equation (1) domi-

nates the prevailing physics: EM fields interact with each

other and sum themselves to create a new resultant field

distribution;



is no more than a mere detector con-

stant! However, the expression in the first line of Equa-

tion (1) tells us that the fields are non-interacting, but the

detecting dipole executes the joint stimulations imposed

on it by all the simultaneously present fields. Thus the

superposition effect is a local phenomenon [10,32] car-

ried out by localized detectors. The recipe for the energy

exchange has been given correctly by both the classical

and the quantum physics; it is the square modulus of the

total complex amplitudes. If we consider the special case

of a two-beam Michelson or Mach-Zehnder interferome-

ter, we get:

 



i2π

2i2π

22 2

12 12

2cos2π

21cos2π;for

aa aa

aaaa













 







(2)





Note that in the real world it is very difficult to ex-

perimentally arrange absolutely correctly 12



. So a

detector registers an oscillatory energy absorption

2cos2πaa





22 22





cos 2π

riding on a DC bias of 12

Our mathematics tells us that the detector absorbs energy

proportional to the product 12

to display fringe oscil-

lation. The hypothesis “photons interfere only with itself”,

prevails only because we stay focused exclusively on the

oscillatory parameter,





, while ignoring the

contribution of energy by both the beams indicated by

the factors and a.

1 2

We need to stay alert that the algebraic symbols rep-

resent actual physical parameters of the entities under

study and the operating symbols represent nature allowed

interaction process guided by an appropriate force. Con-

sider again Equation (1). nn





E represents n

induced physical dipole undulations allowed by the elec-

tromagnetic force of interaction between the EM wave

and the material dipole. So n



is not just an abstract

mathematical probability amplitude; it is the physical

dipolar undulation amplitude. We can eliminate Born’s

interpretation for



and make QM represent more

reality. Summing n



implies that we are visualizing a

critical physical process: First, the dipole executes a re-

sultant undulation by summing all the individual stimula-

tions and then executes the square-modulus recipe to

absorb energy from all the fields, proportional to the in-

dividual intensities n

a. All the prevailing non-causal

interpretations regarding superposition effects and ad hoc

hypotheses regarding photons, become unnecessary, in-

cluding wave-particle duality. Very similar logics apply

to superposition phenomena registered by using particle

beams [33].

Wave-particle duality implies lack of our knowledge

about both particles and waves. If we treat lack-of-

knowledge as an acceptable part of a working theory, we

are formalizing lack-of-knowledge as real-knowledge! In

the process, we are discouraging critical enquiry of na-

ture any further at the cost of imposing brakes on the

scientific evolution of our minds. Fortunately, no engi-

neers try to propagate indivisible photons, whether de-

signing a radio-telescopes or an X-ray telescope; they use

C. ROYCHOUDHURI 1361

century old Huygens-Fresnel (HF) diffraction integral.

We should not impose wave-particle duality interpreta-

tion on the highly successful HF integral. HF integral

tells us that the far-field divergence angle of all EM

waves reaches an asymptotic maximum and is inversely

proportional to the frequency of the wave. This accom-

modates why gamma-rays behave more like particles

than all the other lower frequency waves. Note that e



pair production can happen only when

e



interacts

with some nucleus. Direct





interaction in vacuum

has remained elusive even today.

4. Improving Classical & Qua n t um Optics

Using NIW-Property and IPM-E

Figure 1. Pulse replication by grating and their temporally

delayed superposition by a lens L in on a detector at the

measurement plane.

In this section we demonstrate that recognition of the

universal NIW-property of waves helps us remove sev-

eral more unnecessary ad hoc hypotheses to explain op-

tical phenomena, while bringing stringent causality back

within the framework of existing theories. We also pre-

sent causally valid and QM-transition consistent model

of photons as non-interacting classical wave packets and

hence the QM definition of photon as a Fourier mode of

the vacuum is unnecessary.

We integrate this for the entire duration of N-pulses

and get the registered fringe width centered on





4.1. Improving Classical Optics

1) Spectrometry: Classical theory of spectrometry has

been formulated based upon propagating a Fourier mo-

nochromatic frequency through passive linear spec-

trometer (grating, Fabry-Perot, etc.), which match up

with most observed data. Unfortunately, Fourier mono-

chromatic wave is a non-causal proposition as it exists in

all space and hence violates the principle of conservation

of energy. So, we have developed a causal theory by

propagating the carrier frequency of a time-finite pulse

[34].

Spectrometers functionally replicate an incident pulse

into a train of N-identical pulses, N being the grating slit

number (or the finesses number for a Fabry-Perot), with

a characteristic periodic temporal step delay c







mv; where is the physical step delay, and m is the

order of interference. So, all spectrometers have a char-

acteristics time constant 0









exp i

(Figure 1) is required

to generate the entire train of N pulses. This physical

property of spectrometers has not been formally recog-

nized by classical spectrometry [35]. The resultant time

varying dipolar stimulation of a detector placed at the

exit plane of the spectrometer due to an incident pulse



2πtat



is:

 

out 0exp i



2π

it Natntn











 (3)

The temporal rate of energy that can be absorbable is:

 

πtn









out 0exp i2

i tNatn









(4)





 

pls 21

,cos2π

where, dddd()d

pNppp

ptntmttt





  





 

 









(5)

Equation (5) yields the classical CW result for a long

pulse:







pls 2

., cos2π

sin π,

sin π

Lt INpp

















 





 

(6)

Application of Parseval’s energy conservation theorem

on the time integrated Equation (4) can also be expressed

as:

 

pls out

IittIA













(7)

The fringe broadening given by Equation (5) is not due

to the physical presence of the Fourier frequencies,

which is mathematically obtainable from the pulse enve-

lope. It is due to the partial superposition of the translated

stimulating pulses on the detector. Diffraction and reflec-

tions are almost instantaneous and linear response of

gratings and mirrors. They do not have the physical ca-

pacity to carry out Fourier algorithms and then respond

to the Fourier frequencies. Thus, we are proposing a

fundamentally important conceptual change in inter-

preting “what is a spectrum” due to a pulse.

Notice that our theory of spectrometry (Equations (3)-

(7)), has also derived the key classical results under spe-

cial conditions, which helps remove classical misconcep-

tions. In the limit of long pulse, 0





, Equation (5)

becomes Equation (6) that is equivalent to classical CW

C. ROYCHOUDHURI

1362

derivation. This is because the N-replicated pulses are

now effectively almost fully superposed giving

  











1



. Next, classical spectrometry assumes that the meas-

ured fringe broadening due to a pulse is the con-

volution between its Fourier intensity spectrum













and the CW response function cw





. We have derived

this in Equation (7). The concept of the physical reality of

Fourier frequency is a wrong hypothesis perpetuated due

to this a mathematical coincidence, supported by the

conservation of energy, but only when the entire pulse

train is integrated by the detector. The “spectral fringe”

due to a nano second pulse through a spectrometer regis-

tered by a pico second streak camera will show time va-

rying fringe broadening (Equation (4)). This also implies

that the Fourier indeterminacy relation 1vt



 is not a

real resolution limit in our physical world. During quan-

titative spectrometry, Equation (5) should be treated as

the pulse impulse function for the instrument and it

should be deconvolved from the recorded fringe function

to achieve super resolution. One can also use heterodyne

spectrometry [36] using a known reference frequency to

determine the unknown carrier frequency



2) Diffraction: Diffraction theory is a unique example

where it started with IPM-E in mind by Huygens, but

once mathematically formulated by Fresnel, the physical

model and its implications got lost. Propagation process

of waves imply as if every point on the wave front gen-

erates a new forward moving spherical wave front with a

cos



reduction in its amplitude from the forward direc-

tion. So the total field amplitude at a point 0

with a distance 01 due to a field distribution on an ap-

erture plane is the sum of all the secondary spherical wave

fronts arriving at .



UP P



0 d

UP s



1

exp





 cos (8)

The complex amplitude





UP at any near or any far

distance 01 is given by the same set of evolving spheri-

cal wave fronts. This clearly implies that the secondary

wavelets propagate through each other while evolving,

without interacting (or interfering) with each other. Thus

Huygens-Fresnel diffraction principle works because the

NIW-property is automatically built into it [37]. The in-

tegral allows one to find the sum of the resultant ampli-

tude and corresponding intensity but only at the plane of

observation by placing some suitable detector; in between

they are not interacting. It is a subtle but very important

point to recognize.

3) Coherence: Coherence theory is normally pre-

sented as normalized mathematical autocorrelation









between a pair of replicated and superposed pulses,

which also turn out to be equivalent to the measurable

fringe visibility [38]







 

12 12

tTT

ata tt

at tatt

ata tt

attatt







 





















(9)

By virtue of the NIW-property, fields cannot correlate

with each other. So, the first line in Equation (9) does not

represent any physical process. Yet, measured

















is well validated. MDM-E works, but why? The

second line has incorporated IPM-E by converting all the

field amplitudes into a detector’s dipolar amplitude sti-

mulations by inserting the multiplying factor χ, which is

behind the real measurable transformation. Since, ma-

thematical rule allows us to cancel the common factor χ

from the numerator and the denominator; the two expres-

sions in Equation (9) are mathematically identical, as far

as MDM-E is concerned. However, as per IPM-E, they

represent different physics. The first line represents

wrong physics since field-field correlation cannot exist.

The second line represents correct physics, because di-

pole-dipole correlation represents real detection process.

This correlation also depends upon the duration of inte-

gration (intrinsic and circuit imposed). If we can invent

an atto second detector with complementary time resolved

fringe registration system, any and all light will give very

high visibility fringes. So, light, by itself, is neither co-

herent nor incoherent. Note that even quantum coher-

ence theory is, unfortunately, built upon the assumption

of field-field correlation, rather than the correlation of the

same dipole stimulated by two different fields. So, we

have re-defined coherence as correlation properties of

detectors, albeit dictated by specific characteristics of

light [39] as follows: a) Spectral correlation (light with a

frequency variation); b) Temporal correlation (light with

temporal amplitude variation); c) Spatial correlation

(light with independent multiple emitters); And d) Com-

plex correlation (mixture of the above cases).

4) Polarization: Consider that we are working with a

two-beam Mach-Zehnder interferometer which can gen-

erate and combine two different coherent beams of dif-

ferent states of linear polarizations. Then the detector

will be simultaneously stimulated by two different

E-vectors at an angle



. Then the standard two-beam

cosine fringes cos 2π





cos

will be multiplied by a visibil-

ity degrading factor







i2π

22 2

21coscos2π; cos

Da a









 





 

χχ

(10)

For the case of



π2



, the fringe visibility will be

zero. This is well known in physics and we tend to explain

C. ROYCHOUDHURI 1363

it by using an ad hoc hypothesis that orthogonally polar-

ized light beams are incoherent to each other. IPM-E now

guides us to extract, so far, un-articulated physical proc-

ess—that detecting dipoles cannot simultaneously oscil-

late in two orthogonal directions and hence fails to absorb

energy from both the field simultaneously. Then, can it be

true that the introduction of a precise phase delay between

the two beams 290˚ will generate a circu-

larly rotating polarized light, even though light beams do

not interact with each other [40]?

π2π





5) Fourier transform spectrometry (FTS) and light

beating spectrometry (LBS): These two methods of

spectrometry experimentally give different information

about the frequency content of the light being analyzed in

different forms. Consider that we are analyzing the fre-

quency content of a He-Ne laser, running in two fre-

quencies, 1



and 2



, using a Michelson’s Fourier

transform spectrometer where the relative delay



be-

tween the two paths can be varied very slowly. If we use

a very fast modern detector at the output, the photo cur-

rent, normalized by the square of the detector polariza-

bility factor, can be given by Equation (11).





 









12 1

exp i2πexp i2π

42cos2π2cos2π

cos 2πcos 2π

2cos2πcos2π.





 







12 2

()



 





 











 

















 



(11)

This photo current appears quite complex because of

spatial and temporal beat signals between the modes and

their replicated beams. All the time-dependent factors in

Equation (11) will be reduced to zero if we use a very

slow time-integrating detector. We will be left with terms







242cos2πD12

cos 2π









 (12)

what a normal Fourier transform spectrometer will record,

as shown in Equation (12). Note that the original as-

sumption by Michelson was that different optical fre-

quencies are incoherent and hence they do not interf er e.

It is a wrong hypothesis because EM waves never inter-

fere. But his mathematical result was correct because he

used long time integrating photographic plate for his

quantitative work. Michelson recognized that the mathe-

matical Fourier transform of the oscillatory component of

the recorded fringes will give him the actual physical

spectrum of the original signal. Then, from Equation (12)

we have:





We have now eliminated another ad hoc hypothesis in

optics, non-interference of different frequencies, and ex-

plicitly recognize a more important experimental process,

the physical role of the integration time of detectors [32].

4.2. Improvements in Quantum Optics

In this paper, we will confine our discussions to those

that are directly relevant to the NIW-property.

1) Are photons indivisible quanta or classical wave

packets? One should note that Dirac’s formulation [41]

found photons as Fourier modes of the vacuum and they

do not interact. This means that Dirac actually discovered

the NIW-property; but to accommodate the mistaken

classical assumption that light interferes, he proposed an

un-necessary ad hoc hypothesis, “a photon interferes

only with itself”. We now know that it is the detector that

generates the superposition effect absorbing energy from

all the incident (superposed) waves. Regarding Dirac’s

“Fourier mode”, we believe that it is an unphysical and

non-causal assertion since a Fourier monochromatic

mode has to extend over all space and time and would

violate the principle of conservation of energy. Again,

Dirac was most likely trying to accommodate QM pre-

dicted single frequency emission mn



in an atomic tran-

sition mn mn







, with the classical assumption, that a

single frequency (monochromatic) radiation must be a

Fourier monochromatic mode.

We are proposing that the emission of the energy packet



by an atom, either through spontaneous or through

stimulated emission process, evolves into a semi-expo-

nential pulse [42] with the unique carrier frequency mn



(see Fi gure 2). Classical Lorentzian emission for a dipole

radiation was derived to be an exponential pulse. Preci-

sion spectrometric measurement also found natural line

width to be Lorentzian, which is a Fourier transform of

an exponential pulse (recall Equation (7) for sperctrome-

try). Quantum mechanics also derived natural line width

of atomic lines to be Lorentzian. Thus, our spectrometric

theory implies that photon wave packets should be very

much like an exponential pulse. But it should start from





cos 2π

osc

FT DFT



cos 2π





 











 



 (13)

Integranted energy

underthe envelopemn mn











Figure 2. Photons are classical wave packets with a unique

carrier frequency with a semi-exponentially decaying enve-

lope. The model supports classic a l and QM observations.

C. ROYCHOUDHURI

1364

zero value, and very quickly rise to its peak and then die

exponentially, while containing the total energy mn



satisfy the needs of QM.

The next question is whether we can replace the 107

years old hypothesis, indivisible quanta, proposed by

Einstein, by a better model based on interaction process.

Let us first underscore that QM does not demand that a

quantum entity can absorb the required quantum of en-

ergy only if it is delivered as a pre-quantized packet. In-

side He-Ne laser discharge tubes, Ne-atoms can undergo

transition to its upper lasing quantum level by accepting

the desired amount of energy either 1) from a resonantly

excited He-atom sharing an exact quantum of energy, or,

2) from an accelerated classical electron as the necessary

fraction out of its total kinetic energy.

Next we need to appreciate that photo electron stimu-

lation is a complex process. Einstein genius mind was the

first one to recognize that there definitely was some

quantumness behind the photoelectric data and the re-

lated interaction process. Being five years ahead of

Bohr’s heuristic quantum theory and 20 years ahead of

modern QM, Einstein imposed the quantumness on the

photon wave packets, instead of on the electrons. Other-

wise, he would have invented QM, most likely in a dif-

ferent format than what we have today! He assumed that

the quantum h



was directly absorbed to provide for the

binding energy



, and the rest went to provide the ki-

netic energy to the emitted electron:

 

1 2vwhm







ork function

n

(14)

Today we know that electrons in materials are bound

collectively to the matrix of atoms (molecules). Hence,

their excitation would require the induction of some form

of dipolar stimulations, whose allowed frequency band is

set by the quantum mechanics. Equation (14) can be

re-written in terms of dipolar stimulations induced si-

multaneously by many competing photon wave packets,

followed by absorption of energy by the material matrix

that facilitates the complete liberation of a photo electron,

or its transfer from the valence to the conduction band

(m) as photo electric current to be drawn by exter-

nal circuit:



exp i2πgives

qqqq q

qat mnmn



 



















(15)

This re-formulation helps us better appreciate and

model the dependence of photo electron counting statis-

tics on the fluctuating amplitudes and phases of simulta-

neously present multiple wave packets, besides the tem-

poral energy fluctuations due to beat between different

frequencies which fall within the allowed quantum band

of frequencies.

2) Relevancy of Bell’s inequality theorem: Bell’s

theorem assumes photons are indivisible quanta and that

single photons interfere by themselves. Since we have

more confidence on our causal NIW-property, we believe

that Bell’s no-go theorem is irrelevant in experimental

observation of superposition effects, which, in reality, is

functionally determined by the detectors and not by the

photons themselves!

3) Can photons be entangled? If an isolated quantum

entity emits a pair of photon wave packets, the quantum

nature of the light emitting process will clearly impose

all the necessary conservation laws and the emitted pho-

ton wave packets will acquire complementary properties

during the emission process. So, one can describe them

to be entang led during their birthing process as conjoined

twins due to having, say, orthogonal polarizations. These

two energy packets, after emission, keep on evolving as

diffractively propagating and spreading wave packets as

linear undulations of CTF. These spatially separated li-

nearly undulating wave packets neither can interact, nor

can influence each other [25-27]; even though they re-

main co-related as orthogonally polarized entities. In fact,

if one folds one of the wave packets back on to the other,

one using a mirror, they would not even perceive each

other’s presence because of the NIW-property. We be-

lieve that the use of the word entangled is unfortunate.

5. Space as a Complex Tension Field (CTF)

5.1. How Does EM Waves Move Perpetually

through Free Space?

We know that emitting atoms or molecules do not add

kinetic velocity to EM waves. To be self-consistent with

our model for photon as a 1) classical wave packet, 2)

which can traverse through the entire length and breadth

of the cosmic system, 3) with the same staggeringly high

velocity 12





00, 4) obeying HF integral and as a

solution of Maxwell’s wave equation, we need the space

to be a tension field with intrinsic EM properties 0



and



. This is similar to the ether of nineteenth century, but

conceptually modified to be a massless physical tension

filed, rather than some novel substance.

Let us very briefly review how waves propagate,

which was visualized by Huygens some 300 years earlier.

Sound waves are undulation of the pressure tension of air.

Water waves are undulations of the surface and gravita-

tional tensions of water. String waves are due to undula-

tion of a string under mechanical tension. Within the

linear domain, a perturbed point of a tension field tries to

come back to its original state of equilibrium by pushing

away the perturbation energy to its surroundings, which

is then repeated by the consecutive disturbed points. This

persistent restoration tendency of every point of the ten-

sion field is the root cause behind the perpetual sinusoi-

dal movement of a perturbation as a group of linear sim-

C. ROYCHOUDHURI 1365

ple harmonic wave. HF diffraction integral models this

physical process very well and hence it is so successful

in modeling diffractive propagation of all waves. One

should carefully note that waves do not really “carry”

energy. The group of propagating undulating waves

makes the energy of the local tension field available,

wherever the wave packets are, to be absorbed if a suit-

able absorber is present (resonance helps).

Let us now attempt to assign tension-field oriented

physical meaning on to 0



and 0



of CTF, beyond

just the traditional definition of dielectric permittivity

and magnetic permeability of the free space. We repro-

duce the wave equation for a stretched string [43] and

then rewrite Maxwell’s wave equation, but in terms of

the vector potential [44] A to accommodate both electric

and magnetic potential in the same equation, while emu-

lating the string equation and then compare the two.

 

yzt yzt







,yzt









(16)

 

ztA zt







A zt









(17)

We see that 0



 can be treated as the potential elec-

tric tension triggered in the CTF, which then generates



as the restoring magnetic resistance.

In this simple model of undulations of CTF, photon

wave packets, most likely, do not possess properties like

spin, angular momentum etc. It is the detecting mole-

cules while absorbing energy from one or more polarized

superposed waves, display modifications in their own

such properties that they possess. We should not assign

response characteristics of atoms and molecules on to

EM waves.

5.2. Accommodating Massless Localized

Particles in CTF

CTF to be a valid physical hypothesis, it must also ac-

commodate particles that form the material universe. So,

let us now assume that CTF also possess some intrinsic

dynamic properties that allows it to sustain localized

vortex-like nonlinear but harmonic spinning undulations,

some of which could acquire resonant stability within its

surroundings giving rise to all the stable and semi-stable

particles. We underscore this vortex motion as nonlinear,

which is beyond the linear restoration capability of CTF.

So, vortices are locally confined and cannot move auto-

matically like the EM waves. Further, the linear pertur-

bations, induced by dipoles, not only move perpetually

away from its location of generation, they also pass

through each other unperturbed as long as the sum total

perturbations at any local point do not exceed the linear

restoration capacity of CTF (the intrinsic NIW-property).

In contrast, vortices being nonlinear in origin, they can

neither move by themselves, nor can pass through each

other. This is the root of solidness in the material world.

One can hypothesize that the spin quantization is one

of the required properties to provide resonant stability to

the vortex that will always have a preferred axis within

the 3D CTF. Under the dynamic vortex-like motions of

CTF, its intrinsic properties, 0



 and 0



, possibly be-

come manifest as charge and magnetic moments, the

critical properties of all particles [1,45] The resonant

(long lived) and semi-resonant (short lived) particles

should possess a set of quantized energy values defined

by some of the intrinsic properties of CTF. In fact, the

energy values of most of the particles have recently been

actually found [46] to possess an integer relation Z which

equals to the product of



, the fine structure constant,

multiplied by two times the ratio of the particle-to-elec-

tron energy (not mass):



elctrn.0 0

2; 2mmZe h

 



(18)

This implies that the electronic charge e and the

Planck’s constant h are also two intrinsic properties of

CTF under vortex-like undulation, which play key roles

in bringing out the quantumness in the material universe.

The unit of quantum h being “erg.sec”, it supports the

hypothesis that the energy and the undulation periods of

vortex-like resonant oscillations are inseparably related

Our model of particles as vortex-like motion of the

field CTF automatically implies that they cannot possess

any Newtonian property like mass. Thus we do not need

to find how the particles acquire mass. They are stable in

the CTF as local vortices hence they should naturally

display inertia against any attempt to move them. In oth-

er words, we need to hypothesize the origin of the forces

between particles to move them.

We hypothesize that the nonlinear vortex-like motion

of CTF creates four different kinds of secondary poten-

tial gradients around themselves, so the stable vortices

naturally fall into (or pushed away by) each other due to

these potential gradients depending upon their mutual

manifest properties. Gravitational force can be visualized

as purely a mechanical depression, like negative poten-

tial gradient, imposed on the CTF around particles and

their assemblies. So gravitation is universally attractive;

where G is the intrinsic property of CTF that becomes

manifest as the potential gradient. In contrast, the elec-

tromagnetic force, originating out as positive or negative

potential gradients imposed on the CTF out of 0





and



properties. What kind of anti-symmetric motion in a

vortex give rise to positive and negative charge-like gra-

dients, still remains to be imagined and visualized. These

two forces are long range and hence the gradients extend

far out from the particle vortices. The two nuclear forces

have been found to be very short range and quite com-

C. ROYCHOUDHURI

1366

plex by Quantum Chromodynamics [1]. In this present

heuristic paper, we will not venture into presenting any

detailed map for these two forces. However, we think

these forces are also emergent properties onto CTF. They

are complex short range positive and negative gradients

generated out of vortex-like churning of some of the in-

trinsic properties of the stationary CTF.

5.3. Resolving Wave-Particle Duality for

Particles [33]

Albeit nonlinear, the harmonic undulation of the vortex

of energy E has been captured by Schrodinger for a free

particle as:



expi expiEt



2π; ftE hf 

(19)

If we assume the particle of energy E has vortex fre-

quency f, then we have particles as nonlinear harmonic

oscillators. We can now re-write the Equation (18), using

Equation (19), in terms of rest-frequency ratio of parti-

cles-to-electrons as:



0,p

0,el 2Z



 (20)

The rest frequency for an electron can be computed

from as

Ehf0,el . This also appears to

be in the range of highest frequency gamma rays that can

be converted into electron-positron pair while being

scattered by some nucleon. For CTF, this appears to be

the possible boundary between linearly push-able gam-

ma- wave-frequency and localized nonlinear resonant

vortex- like oscillations as electrons.

1.23 20f

The rest frequency 0,

for any particle will increase

to v,

as the standard rest-energy have been found to

follow when it is forced to move under some potential

gradient (force) with a velocity v:

v, v,

0,0, 0

fhfm

fhfm c





 















(21)

We measure this excess energy as kinetic energy of the

particle. One can now appreciate that the heuristic con-

cept of de Broglie wave or “pilot wave” is unnecessary.

But its internal vortex-like frequency has to increase to

achieve higher velocity to overcome the inertial resis-

tance due to 0



 and 0



of CTF. It is better to refer to

them rather than c to appreciate that we are dealing with

physical properties of free space and they can be changed

(as per General Relativity, through bending of star light

by the Sun’s gravity).

Since particle-particle interactions are also driven by

two steps, phase sensitive complex field-field stimula-

tions as



, followed by energy exchange through the

recipe



, we can now appreciate superposition ef-

fects due to particle beams as localized interactions be-

tween harmonically oscillating multiple particles simul-

taneously stimulating the same detecting molecule and

trying to transfer some of their kinetic energy, which

mathematically appear to be like wave-wave interactions

[33,47]. Thus by imposing IPM-E to visualize particles

as vortex-like undulations, we find that QM has more

realities built into it than the Copenhagen Interpretation

has allowed us to imagine [48]. Thus, our hypothesis,

particles as vortex-like localized oscillators, removes the

wave-particle duality for particles.

5.4. Time Dilatation and Ether (CTF) Drag

Does CTF need to be four dimensional? A deeper en-

quiry of the measurement process behind time [30,49-51]

reveals that there are no physical objects that have t as

one of its real physical parameters. What we really meas-

ure is the physical frequency f of some suitable oscillator.

Then invert it to define an element of time interval,

1tf tNt. We get longer measured duration









by counting N times the number of oscillations. We

should not assign any fundamental physical behavior on

nature what is not a valid physical parameter of some-

thing in nature. Let us recognize that one can success-

fully model a small subset of a very large complex sys-

tem by hypothesizing some rules, none of which may

precisely coincide with the original fundamental rules

behind the entire complex system.

What about observation of extended life time of

muons? It is safe to hypothesize that the life time of an

off-resonant vortex oscillation is enhanced due to its

higher kinetic velocity, somewhat like the extra stability

enjoyed by a speeding bike rider. Muon’s internal physi-

cal oscillation frequency may have altered, but its clock

has not changed, because it does not have one.

If CTF is a space filling 3D field, then the old “ether

drag” question is brought out again. To propagating EM

waves, CTF is stationary. Is it the same for vortex-like

particles, or their assembly (planets and stars)? A high

energy laser beams can be focused through a pinhole

without distorting any of the fundamental properties of

the beam. This implies that strong E-vector amplitude is

not physically extended in 3D space. Then a stronger

E-vector oscillation must be due to a stronger field gra-

dient oscillation, rather than a spatial size of oscillation.

If we extend this understanding to particles, vortex oscil-

lations may also be purely temporal oscillatory gradients

of different physical properties of CTF. Then the move-

ment of particles under the influence of secondary gra-

dients (forces) does not require dragging the CTF; only

the complex set of gradients moves spatially. This is

consistent with the following famous observations: 1)

Bradley telescope parallax for stars due to earth’s motion,

2) Michelson-Morley null experiments to detect earth’s

motion around the Sun. However, stationary CTF does

C. ROYCHOUDHURI 1367

not explain 3) positive and null [12] Fresnel drag ex-

periments for moving and non-moving medium, respec-

tively, within an interferometer. Some people believe that

Fresnel positive drag is an EM phenomenon within a

moving medium [52] and that it is not due to ether drag.

Hence, further research is called for and the author has

initiated a project to study this.

6. Conclusions

We believe that our proposition of space as a physical

Complex Tension Field (CTF), in some form or another,

does represent a potentially viable new approach to de-

velop a unified field theory, especially utilizing the pos-

tulate that all the four forces are different kinds of poten-

tial gradients imposed on the same CTF by the particles.

The strength of CTF comes from its capability to accept

most of the tenets of the existing theories, while at the

same time; it helps clean up much confusion in current

physics by simply eliminating the need for quite a few

self-contradictory hypotheses, wave-particle duality be-

ing the most important one.

Most of the cited papers by this author can be found at

this website [53].

7. Acknowledgements

The author would like to acknowledge the help of critical

reading of the manuscript by A. Ambroselli.

REFERENCES

[1] F. Wilczek, “The Lightness of Being: Mass, Ether, and

the Unification of Forces,” Basic Books, New York,

2010.

[2] T. Silverman, “Philosophical Solutions: In Physics, Ma-

thematics and the Science of Sentience,” International In-

stitute for Advanced Studies, Baden-Baden, 2010.

[3] L. Smolin, “Trouble with Physics,” Houghton Mifflin,

Boston, 2006.

[4] R. Laughlin, “A Different Universe: Reinventing Physics

from the Bottom Down,” Basic Books, New York, 2006.

[5] R. Penrose, “Road to Reality,” Alfred Knopf, New York,

2005.

[6] N. C. Panda, “Maya in Physics,” Motilal Banarsidass

Publishers, Delhi, 1999.

[7] L. Smolin, “A Real Ensemble Interpretation of Quantum

Mechanics,” Foundations of Physics, Vol. 42, No. 10,

2012, pp. 1239-1261. doi:10.1007/s10701-012-9666-4

[8] P. W. Anderson, “More and Different: Notes from A

Thoughtful Curmudgeon,” World Scientific, Singapore

City, 2011. doi:10.1142/8141

[9] L. Susskind, “String Theory,” Foundations of Physics,

2011. doi:10.1007/s10701-011-9620-x

[10] H. P. Stapp, “Quantum Locality?” Foundations of Phys-

ics, Vol. 42, No. 5, 2012, pp. 647-655.

doi:10.1007/s10701-012-9632-1

[11] R. Omnès, “Wigner’s ‘Unreasonable Effectiveness of

Mathematics’, Revisited,” Foundations of Physics, Vol.

41, 2011, pp. 1729-1739. doi:10.1007/s10701-011-9587-7

[12] C. Roychoudhuri, “The Constancy of ‘c’ Everywhere

Requires the Cosmic Space to Be a Stationary and Com-

plex Tension Field,” Proceedings of SPIE, Vol. 8121,

2011, p. 23.

[13] C. Roychoudhuri, “Appreciation of the Nature of Light

Demands Enhancement over the Prevailing Scientific

Epistemology,” Proceedings of SPIE, Vol. 8121, 2011, p.

58.

[14] G. S. Sandhu, “Fundamental Nature of Matter and

Fields,” 2009.

http://www.amazon.com/Fundamental-Nature-Matter-Fiel

ds-Sandhu/dp/1440136564/ref=sr_1_4?s=books&ie=UTF

8&qid=1316629764&sr=1-4

[15] M. Pauri, “Epistemic Primacy vs Ontological Elusiveness

of Spatial Extension: Is There an Evolutionary Role for

the Quantum?” Foundations of Physics, Vol. 41, No. 11,

2011, pp. 1677-1702. doi:10.1007/s10701-011-9581-0

[16] P. D. Mannheim, “Why Do We Believe in Dark Matter

and Dark Energy—And Do We Have to?” In: M.

D’Onofrio and C. Burigana, Eds., Questions of Modern

Cosmology—Galileo’s Legacy, Springer Publishing Com-

pany, Heidelberg, 2009.

[17] F. Lassiaille, “Gravitational Model of the Three Elements

Theory,” Journal of Modern Physics, Vol. 3, No. 5, 2012,

pp. 388-397. doi:10.4236/jmp.2012.35054

[18] P. Smeulders, “Why the Speed of Light Is Not a Con-

stant,” Journal of Modern Physics, Vol. 3, No. 4, 2012,

pp. 345-349. doi:10.4236/jmp.2012.34047

[19] Inside Science News Service, “Physicists Detect New

Heavy Particle,” 2012.

http://www.insidescience.org/?q=content/physicists-detec

t-new-heavy-particle/724&track=AW

[20] A. Kent, “Real World Interpretations of Quantum The-

ory,” Foundations of Physics, Vol. 42, 2012, pp. 421-435.

[21] P. Grujic and N. Simonovic, “Insights from the Classical

Atom,” Physics Today, Vol. 65, No. 5, 2012, pp. 41-46.

[22] G. Greenstein and A. G. Zajonc, “The Quantum Chal-

lenge,” Jones & Bartlett, Boston, 2006.

[23] C. Roychoudhuri and N. Prasad, “Discerning Comb and

Fourier Mean Frequency from a fs Laser, Based on the

Principle of Non-Interaction of Waves,” Proceedings of

SPIE, Vol. 8236, 2012.

[24] C. Roychoudhuri, “Various Ambiguities in Generating

and Reconstructing Laser Pulse Parameters,” In: F. J.

Duarte, Ed., Laser Pulse Phenomena and Applications,

InTech, Morn Hill, 2010.

[25] D. Lee and C. Roychoudhuri, “Measuring Properties of

Superposed Light Beams Carrying Different Frequen-

cies,” Optics Express, Vol. 11, No. 8, 2003, pp. 944-951

doi:10.1364/OE.11.000944

[26] C. Roychoudhuri, “Principle of Non-Interaction of

Waves,” Journal of Nanophotonics, Vol. 4, No. 1, 2010,

Article ID: 043512. doi:10.1117/1.3467504

C. ROYCHOUDHURI

1368

[27] C. Roychoudhuri, “Why We Need to Continue the ‘What

Is a Photon?’ Conference? To Re-Vitalize Classical and

Quantum Optics,” SPIE Proceedings, Vol. 7421, 2009, p.

28. doi:10.1117/12.828193

[28] J. Leibovitz, “Dark Energy as a Property of Dark Matter,”

Journal of Modern Physics, Vol. 2, No. 1, 2011, pp.

1470-1479. doi:10.4236/jmp.2011.212181

[29] B. Tamir and S. Masis, “Weak Measurement and Weak

Information,” Foundations of Physics, Vol. 42, 2012, pp.

531-543.

[30] C. Roychoudhuri, “Measurement Epistemology and Time-

Frequency Conjugate Spaces,” AIP Conference Proceed-

ings, Vol. 1232, 2009, pp. 143-152.

[31] C. Roychoudhuri, “Inevitable Incompleteness of All

Theories: An Epistemology to Continuously Refine Hu-

man Logics towards Cosmic Logics,” In: C. Roychoud-

huri, A. F. Kracklauer and K. Creath, Eds., The Nature of

Light: What Is a Photon? CRC/Taylor & Francis, Boca

Raton, 2008.

[32] C. Roychoudhuri, “Locality of Superposition Principle Is

Dictated by Detection Processesm,” Physics Essays, Vol.

19, No. 3, 2006, p. 333.

[33] C. Roychoudhuri and C. V. Seaver, “Are Dark Fringe

Locations Devoid of Energy of Superposed Fields?” SPIE

Proceedings, Vol. 6285, 2006.

doi:10.1117/12.684613

[34] C. Roychoudhuri, “Propagating Fourier Frequencies vs

Carrier Frequency of a Pulse through Spectrometers and

Other Media,” SPIE Proceedings, Vol. 5531, 2004, pp.

450-461. doi:10.1117/12.580700

[35] C. Roychoudhuri, “Response of Fabry-Perot Interferome-

ters to Light Pulses of Very Short Duration,” Journal of

Optical Society of America, Vol. 65, No. 12, 1975, p.

1418. doi:10.1364/JOSA.65.001418

[36] C. Roychoudhuri and M. Tayahi, “Spectral Super-Reso-

lution by Understanding Superposition Principle & De-

tection Processes,” International Journal of Microwave

and Optics Technology, July 2006.

[37] C. Roychoudhuri, “Exploring Light-Matter Interaction

Processes to Appreciate Various Successes behind the

Fourier Theorem!” SPIE Proceedings, Vol. 8122, 2011.

[38] M. Born and E. Wolf, “Principles of Optics,” Cambridge

University Press, Cambridge, 1980.

[39] C. Roychoudhuri, “Re-Interpreting Coherence in Light of

Non-Interaction of Waves, or the NIW-Principle,” SPIE

Proceedings, Vol. 8121, 2011, p. 44.

[40] C. Roychoudhuri and A. M. Barootkoob, “Generalized

Quantitative Approach to Two-Beam Fringe Visibility

(Coherence) with Different Polarizations and Frequen-

cies,” SPIE Proceedings, Vol. 7063, 2008.

doi:10.1117/12.793747

[41] P. A. M. Dirac, “The Principles of Quantum Mechanics,”

Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1974.

[42] N. Tirfessa and C. Roychoudhuri, “Analysis of Spectro-

metric Data and Detection Processes Corroborate Photons

as Diffractively Evolving Wave Packets,” SPIE Proceed-

ings, Vol. 8121, 2011, p. 33.

[43] D. H. Goldstein, “Polarized Light,” 3rd Edition, CRC

Press, Boca Raton, 2011.

[44] J. D. Jackson, “Classical Electromagnetism,” John Wiley,

Hoboken, 1999.

[45] R. T. Hammond, “Spin, the Classical Theory,” Journal of

Modern Physics, Vol. 3, No. 1, 2012, pp. 1-8.

doi:10.4236/jmp.2012.31001

[46] K. O. Greulich, “Calculation of the Masses of All Fun-

damental Elementary Particles with an Accuracy of Ap-

prox. 1%,” Journal of Modern Physics, Vol. 1, No. 5,

2010, pp. 300-302.

[47] V. Konushko, “Stability of Atoms, Causality in Elemen-

tary Processes and the Mystery of Interference and Hyro-

scope,” Journal of Modern Physics, Vol. 3, No. 3, 2012,

pp. 224-232. doi:10.4236/jmp.2012.33032

[48] A. I. Arbabl and F. A. Yassein, “A New Formulation of

Quantum Mechanics,” Journal of Modern Physics, Vol. 3,

No. 2, 2012, pp. 163-169. doi:10.4236/jmp.2012.32022

[49] V. Balasubramanian, “What We Don’t Know about

Time,” Foundations of Physics, 2011.

doi:10.1007/s10701-011-9591-y

[50] T. Filk, “Temporal Non-Locality,” Foundations of Phys-

ics, 2012. doi:10.1007/s10701-012-9671-7

[51] S. Gryb and K. Thébault, “The Role of Time in Relational

Quantum Theories, Foundations of Physics, Vol. 42, No.

9, 2012, pp. 1210-1238. doi:10.1007/s10701-012-9665-5

[52] R. T. Cahill and D. Brotherton, Progress in Physics, Vol.

1, No. 43, 2011.

[53] C. Roychoudhuri.

http://www.phys.uconn.edu/people/faculty/storrs/roychou

dhuri/