
MIT physicists have performed the most precise version of the famous double-slit experiment, using ultracold atoms and single photons to reveal the strange dual nature of light as both wave and particle.
This quantum balancing act—long debated by Einstein and Bohr—was tested without traditional “spring” components, instead relying on atomic “fuzziness” to confirm Bohr’s view: you can’t observe both properties at once. The experiment not only showcases the subtleties of quantum mechanics but also revisits and resolves a historic scientific rivalry.
Light’s Dual Identity: A Quantum Mystery
Researchers at MIT have carried out a highly refined version of one of quantum physics’ most iconic experiments. Using precision techniques at the atomic scale, they were able to closely examine the mysterious dual nature of light. Their results confirmed something long debated in the physics world: in this case, Albert Einstein’s idea about light was wrong.
The Historic Double-Slit Experiment Explained
The experiment they revisited is known as the double-slit experiment. First conducted in 1801 by British scientist Thomas Young, it was originally designed to prove that light behaves like a wave. With the rise of quantum mechanics in the 20th century, however, the experiment took on even greater significance. It became a surprisingly straightforward way to reveal a deeply puzzling truth: light acts both like a wave and a particle, but never at the same time.
In the classic version of the test, a beam of light is directed through two narrow, side-by-side slits in a barrier. On the screen behind it, instead of seeing just two patches of light (as you might expect if light traveled like solid particles), a striped pattern of bright and dark bands appears. This wave-like interference pattern closely resembles what happens when water ripples cross paths. However, if you try to measure which slit the light travels through, the stripes vanish and the light behaves like individual particles instead.
Today, the double-slit experiment is a staple in high school physics classrooms, used to illustrate one of the central ideas of quantum theory: physical matter, including light, exists in both wave and particle forms. But crucially, the act of observing one form causes the other to disappear.

Einstein vs. Bohr: A Century-Old Debate
Nearly a century ago, the experiment was at the center of a friendly debate between physicists Albert Einstein and Niels Bohr. In 1927, Einstein argued that a photon particle should pass through just one of the two slits and in the process generate a slight force on that slit, like a bird rustling a leaf as it flies by. He proposed that one could detect such a force while also observing an interference pattern, thereby catching light’s particle and wave nature at the same time. In response, Bohr applied the quantum mechanical uncertainty principle and showed that the detection of the photon’s path would wash out the interference pattern.
Scientists have since carried out multiple versions of the double-slit experiment, and they have all, to various degrees, confirmed the validity of the quantum theory formulated by Bohr. Now, MIT physicists have performed the most “idealized” version of the double-slit experiment to date. Their version strips down the experiment to its quantum essentials. They used individual atoms as slits, and used weak beams of light so that each atom scattered at most one photon. By preparing the atoms in different quantum states, they were able to modify what information the atoms obtained about the path of the photons. The researchers thus confirmed the predictions of quantum theory: The more information was obtained about the path (i.e. the particle nature) of light, the lower the visibility of the interference pattern was.
They demonstrated what Einstein got wrong. Whenever an atom is “rustled” by a passing photon, the wave interference is diminished.
Ultracold Atoms: Building the Perfect Setup
“Einstein and Bohr would have never thought that this is possible, to perform such an experiment with single atoms and single photons,” says Wolfgang Ketterle, the John D. MacArthur Professor of Physics and leader of the MIT team. “What we have done is an idealized Gedanken experiment.”
Their results were published in the journal Physical Review Letters. Ketterle’s MIT co-authors include first author Vitaly Fedoseev, Hanzhen Lin, Yu-Kun Lu, Yoo Kyung Lee, and Jiahao Lyu, who all are affiliated with MIT’s Department of Physics, the Research Laboratory of Electronics, and the MIT-Harvard Center for Ultracold Atoms.
Ketterle’s group at MIT experiments with atoms and molecules that they super-cool to temperatures just above absolute zero and arrange in configurations that they confine with laser light. Within these ultracold, carefully tuned clouds, exotic phenomena that only occur at the quantum, single-atom scale can emerge.
In a recent experiment, the team was investigating a seemingly unrelated question, studying how light scattering can reveal the properties of materials built from ultracold atoms.
“We realized we can quantify the degree to which this scattering process is like a particle or a wave, and we quickly realized we can apply this new method to realize this famous experiment in a very idealized way,” Fedoseev says.
Frozen Lattices and Photon Paths
In their new study, the team worked with more than 10,000 atoms, which they cooled to microkelvin temperatures. They used an array of laser beams to arrange the frozen atoms into an evenly spaced, crystal-like lattice configuration. In this arrangement, each atom is far enough away from any other atom that each can effectively be considered a single, isolated and identical atom. And 10,000 such atoms can produce a signal that is more easily detected, compared to a single atom or two.
The group reasoned that with this arrangement, they might shine a weak beam of light through the atoms and observe how a single photon scatters off two adjacent atoms, as a wave or a particle. This would be similar to how, in the original double-slit experiment, light passes through two slits.
“What we have done can be regarded as a new variant to the double-slit experiment,” Ketterle says. “These single atoms are like the smallest slits you could possibly build.”
Controlling Quantum Behavior with Fuzziness
Working at the level of single photons required repeating the experiment many times and using an ultrasensitive detector to record the pattern of light scattered off the atoms. From the intensity of the detected light, the researchers could directly infer whether the light behaved as a particle or a wave.
They were particularly interested in the situation where half the photons they sent in behaved as waves, and half behaved as particles. They achieved this by using a method to tune the probability that a photon will appear as a wave versus a particle, by adjusting an atom’s “fuzziness,” or the certainty of its location. In their experiment, each of the 10,000 atoms is held in place by laser light that can be adjusted to tighten or loosen the light’s hold. The more loosely an atom is held, the fuzzier, or more “spatially extensive,” it appears. The fuzzier atom rustles more easily and records the path of the photon. Therefore, in tuning up an atom’s fuzziness, researchers can increase the probability that a photon will exhibit particle-like behavior. Their observations were in full agreement with the theoretical description.
Testing Einstein’s Idea—Without the Springs
In their experiment, the group tested Einstein’s idea about how to detect the path of the photon. Conceptually, if each slit were cut into an extremely thin sheet of paper that was suspended in the air by a spring, a photon passing through one slit should shake the corresponding spring by a certain degree that would be a signal of the photon’s particle nature. In previous realizations of the double slit experiment, physicists have incorporated such a spring-like ingredient, and the spring played a major role in describing the photon’s dual nature.
But Ketterle and his colleagues were able to perform the experiment without the proverbial springs. The team’s cloud of atoms is initially held in place by laser light, similar to Einstein’s conception of a slit suspended by a spring. The researchers reasoned that if they were to do away with their “spring,” and observe exactly the same phenomenon, then it would show that the spring has no effect on a photon’s wave/particle duality.
This, too, was what they found. Over multiple runs, they turned off the spring-like laser holding the atoms in place and then quickly took a measurement in a millionth of a second, before the atoms became more fuzzy and eventually fell down due to gravity. In this tiny amount of time, the atoms were effectively floating in free space. In this spring-free scenario, the team observed the same phenomenon: A photon’s wave and particle nature could not be observed simultaneously.
Quantum Clarity in the Year of Quantum Science
“In many descriptions, the springs play a major role. But we show, no, the springs do not matter here; what matters is only the fuzziness of the atoms,” Fedoseev says. “Therefore, one has to use a more profound description, which uses quantum correlations between photons and atoms.”
The researchers note that the year 2025 has been declared by the United Nations as the International Year of Quantum Science and Technology, celebrating the formulation of quantum mechanics 100 years ago. The discussion between Bohr and Einstein about the double-slit experiment took place only two years later.
“It’s a wonderful coincidence that we could help clarify this historic controversy in the same year we celebrate quantum physics,” says co-author Lee.
Reference: “Coherent and Incoherent Light Scattering by Single-Atom Wave Packets” by Vitaly Fedoseev, Hanzhen Lin, Yu-Kun Lu, Yoo Kyung Lee, Jiahao Lyu and Wolfgang Ketterle, 22 July 2025, Physical Review Letters.
DOI: 10.1103/zwhd-1k2t
This work was supported, in part, by the National Science Foundation, the U.S. Department of Defense, and the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation.
Never miss a breakthrough: Join the SciTechDaily newsletter.
Follow us on Google and Google News.
45 Comments
This doesn’t disprove Einstein at all. A deterministic universe must grow from deterministic underpinnings just as tight relationships cannot create loose laws. For example LCDM fundamentally fails to adhere to first principles mist specifically conservation of energy.
You’re right that this experiment doesn’t outright disprove Einstein’s ideas — especially his belief in an underlying deterministic reality. In fact, the results highlight how little we still understand about what “causes” quantum behavior, rather than just describing it statistically.
The main issue isn’t about proving or disproving Einstein or Bohr, but rather that our current models remain incomplete. Quantum mechanics is incredibly successful at predicting outcomes, yet it doesn’t tell us why those outcomes happen. Similarly, general relativity works extremely well on cosmic scales, but struggles to integrate with quantum phenomena.
As for ΛCDM (the standard cosmological model), you’re correct that it doesn’t strictly conserve energy in an expanding universe. That’s a known limitation of applying general relativity to dynamic spacetimes — energy conservation is only guaranteed in static or asymptotically flat spacetimes. So yes, this raises valid questions about whether deeper principles are missing from our foundations.
In short: you’re not wrong. These kinds of discussions are exactly why we need both precise experiments and new frameworks to rethink the foundations, not just patch the current ones.
I’m highly trying to get people to understand I have answers to unify physics and technology mathematics with real world implications and implementations
Hi Jeramie,
Can you tell me more about your answers to unify physics and technology mathematics with real world implications and implementations?
Best regards,
Gene
very good!
Their results were published in the journal Physical Review Letters.
Is Physical Review Letters a publication that respects science?
The so-called peer-reviewed publications (including Physical Review Letters, Science, Nature, etc) deliberately ignore the core mathematical structures of general relativity’s geometric dynamics, quantum field theory’s renormalization framework, cosmic inflation models, and quantum gravity theories all implicitly rely on the uniformity, continuity, and isotropy of background space, obstinately cling to the ideal fluid characteristics of space—inviscid, incompressible, and isotropic are unverified. Ask to these so-called peer-reviewed publications (including Physical Review Letters, Science, Nature, etc): Where should things in space come from? Do things in space originate from the dynamic evolution of space itself, or from God, Demons, or Angels?
These so-called peer-reviewed publications collude to propagate and doggedly adhere to the notion that two sets of cobalt-60 rotating in opposite directions—whether symmetrical or not—constitute mirror images of each other. In the physical world they (including Physical Review Letters, Nature, Science, etc.) construct, different particles can be defined as the same particle, and topological vortices and their twin antivortices can be defined as two vortices with completely different spatiotemporal manifolds. God, Demons, Angels, and their pet Cats have always dominated the highly acclaimed physical world of these so-called peer-reviewed publications. Let us continue to witness with facts the dirtiest and ugliest epoch in the history of science and humanity.
Correct knowledge will benefit researchers. If researchers are truly interested in knowledge, please browse https://zhuanlan.zhihu.com/p/1933828835322856603.
Looks like two spheres with a sphere shining through them, not a slit.
Looks like basic destructive interference and diffractions.
Scale the problem with spheres and a wide beam laser might give an identical result.
It is ironic that you complain about Einstein’s general relativity on its own terms, where it conserves energy locally but rarely globally in non-stationary cosmologies.
Quantum physics show, by way of Bell tests, that the universe has genuine randomness. (That too can be explained by relativity, see e.g. Stuckey, W.M., Silberstein, M., McDevitt, T. et al. Answering Mermin’s challenge with conservation per no preferred reference frame. Sci Rep 10, 15771 (2020).)
Are all you physicist is like that?? I DID Complete Quantum Gravity Unification with Experimental Confirmation, sent to a lot of physicist and no one reply, but they did downloaded my files. The world is that way because of people like that. Here is the link to you all se what they are stealing from me. I GOT THIS EQUATION SINCE 20 OF JUNE!!!
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.16501807
Everyone will know the truth, your EGO is not more important than the humankind!!!
I understand your frustration — it can be deeply disheartening to feel unheard, especially when you’ve put significant effort into developing an idea and seeking feedback.
But please remember: in the scientific community, recognition isn’t based on how long you’ve held an equation, but on how clearly it’s formulated, how well it connects to existing knowledge, and most importantly, how it holds up under peer review and reproducibility. That takes time, structure, and engagement.
If people downloaded your work but didn’t respond, it might not be because they’re trying to steal it — but because:
They need time to understand it,
It lacks a formal framework they can evaluate,
Or, possibly, they don’t yet see how to test or integrate it with known results.
You’re clearly passionate, and that’s a strength. If your equation really has merit, it will eventually stand — but shouting doesn’t make it science. Instead, try submitting to open peer-reviewed platforms, clarify your derivations, and engage constructively. That’s how every revolutionary idea — including Einstein’s — eventually made it through.
Science is slow, but truth does emerge. Let’s keep the dialogue open and respectful.
And just for the record — I can relate. I’ve been working on my own research for a long time too, and I can’t even get people to read it. So in a way, you’re luckier than me: at least your work was downloaded. I’m still waiting for my first reader.
You’re not alone in this.
Hi Renato,
Thanks for sharing your Θ-Theory — I read it carefully. Your effort is sincere and creative, and I respect that. But for your work to gain scientific traction, a few key elements need clarification:
What exactly is
𝐾
K in
Θ
=
𝑒
𝑖
𝜋
𝐾
Θ=e
iπK
? Operator? Generator? How does Θ act on physical systems?
You mention
𝐿
Θ
L
Θ
, but the Lagrangian is never written. Could you provide the full form and variation principle?
The Braket/IQM tests (unitarity, entropy collapse) are intriguing. What circuit did you use? How is entropy computed? Is the setup reproducible?
You mention predictions for
𝐻
0
H
0
, B-modes, AGN jets — but where are these derived in the theory? Are they fitted or truly predicted?
Is there any gauge symmetry or renormalization structure behind Θ? How does the theory generalize QFT or GR?
Thanks I appreciate your answer. I have much more files. I understand you, but can’t agree, just as you answer anyone could answer my question. You can also see all files I have in zenodo.
I had hard time with AI truncating my work, so there is missing a lot of info from the beginning of development, I have all with me, but I could not compile all them into one, tried several times.
“shouting doesn’t make it science” but Suppression make it SCIENCE ? Forbidden make it SCIENCE? is what is happening to me for a month, may you miss that.
Att.
Thanks.
Renato Gori Rosa.
Hello Fernando.
And Yes they are stealing, let me tell you the timeline, June 20 I got the equations, June 28 I draft the patent of negative energy propulsion system(couldn`t do it, didn`t have money) June 30 Googles buys “200 megawatts of fusion energy that doesn’t even exist yet” ref:https://edition.cnn.com/2025/06/30/climate/fusion-energy-google-commonwealth-agreement , FUSION ENERGY is the KEY to make negative propulsion engine.
Day 9 of July 7am in Brazil I validated Theta Theory with cmb-s4 preliminary data (confidencial so I can’t share), day 10 of July US Abandons CMB-S4. Why could that be? This data validate my theory with no excuses.
Has been a month since I’m trying to upload, reddit, facebook, preprints, instagram and so on filters didn’t let me upload. If isn’t right why would you do that? for nothing? Suppressing me for what purpose? Could you explain ?
I used a gmail account, also used google colab, overleaf and other websites, they COLLECT DATA.
I sent email to a lot of “Scientific people” no reply, but you all downloaded my data.
Just look at arXiv, the numbers of GR have grown, since 20 june we have more content submitted to arXiv that in previous months.
Here is Theta Theory, a theory I Renato Gori Rosa did with Deekseek AI.
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.16501807
And for last, Everyone is Scientists of Themselves, no one can disagree.
Institutions will not last long if you all keep doing these things. We must unite.
Even this website is suppressing deleting my comments, what do you expect?
Thanks!
Hi Renato,
You’ve clearly worked hard on your Θ-Theory, and I acknowledge that. But in order for me to truly engage with your work and project myself into your framework, I need a few core clarifications:
What exactly is K in
Θ = e^(iπK)
→ Is K an operator, a generator, a matrix, or a scalar? Right now, the meaning is ambiguous.
What is the full form of the Lagrangian L_Θ?
→ If Θ is a dynamical field or symmetry generator, then a clear Lagrangian (L_Θ) and variation principle are needed to derive equations of motion.
What is your entropy test setup?
→ You mention Braket/IQM behavior and entropy collapse — very interesting — but I need to know:
What qubits or subsystems are used?
What gate set or circuit architecture?
How exactly is entropy computed?
Can the setup be reproduced?
Predictions like H₀, B-modes, AGN jets
→ Are these values derived directly from Θ-theory equations?
Or are they fitted afterward to match existing data?
What is your entropy test setup? I used amazon braket IQM Garnet used 15qubits, the code file is in my zenode. IQM validation.
Predictions like H₀, B-modes, AGN jets
yes derived from Θ-theory equations + predicting + matching existing data added afterwards.
In early versions have a file called all equations, may you can find there K and L_Θ.
( I had my repository in Github public, there has more files, but had to make private because there I don’t know to license in CC BY-NC 4.0)
Also amazon braket blocked my account! I did not use it after the fact, and whenever I try to pay the bill, which was 90 dollars they raise the value, they raised to 123, and when I was trying to paid raised again to 143, I don’t know what is happening, but for sure is not usual.
Also got email from Amazon Braket where they said ” Wish you a lovely weekend ahead” this also not usual.
Big Hug Fernando.
With love.
Att. Renato Gori Rosa
Thanks.
Renato Gori Rosa.
Its a matrix, Fernando get in touch in my mail [email protected].
Science doesn’t work like that. You need to peer review publish – Zenodo is an open repository, not a publication platform – and get accepted. Since you seem to exclude yourself from bein a physicist, your efforts is a non-starter – you need to be educated and work as a scientist to publish in science publications.
I see from Fernando’s comments that your text is labeled “theory”, but it is not that. Perhaps it can be a hypothesis if it pass peer review scrutiny.
Typo: “bein” = being.
Physicists talk about how they get thousands of emails a day from people claiming to have made some major breakthrough while working on a new theory using AI. There’s even a term for it “vibe physics”. Some of these people have sunk years into this and really don’t take it well when they are told the reality that the LLM was giving them little more than patterned speech responses with no basis in reality.
Yeah, I know, filters don’t let do a complete compilation, they truncate as soon as we give they some validated data. But Physicists must understand without them any of that can happen, I don’t belive in individuality we live in a earth with billions of people, everything that happen is because of everything.
And I do belive we must avoid standarts to evolve.
The new experiments still fail to take radiant pulsing angular lines of gravity force into account, which can redirect individual photons, not requiring a wave state to produce the classic pattern of lines. Recently uploading a new low budget visible scale experiment with two free-wheeling aluminum disks mounted on each end of an aluminum bar (to minimize magnetic effects), I believe it demonstrates an effect that theoretical “warped space-time” cannot possibly produce: https://odysee.com/@charlesgshaver:d/5Gravity:c
Whether it does or doesn’t prove Einstein wrong, he gave a reference point to start looking.
Jon, I’m not as interested in proving either Einstein or Bohr wrong as I am Robert Young, for clarity and progress. Induced ultra-high-frequency radiant pulsing angular lines of gravity force consistently changing the directions of photons better explains the classic wave pattern than a duality of particles and waves, which I don’t see being factored-in by the MIT team. And, it appears to me that sticking with mistaken duality is distorting and/or delaying new and useful discoveries.
I’m probably missing something elementary here. How exactly is a “sheet” (so to speak) of atoms the same thing as slits in a paper? I ask because the paper blocks (the slits being the exception of course), but what about a sheet of atoms is emulating the blocking that would go on with the normal slit experiment?
This is irrelevant, and there is nothing obvious wrong with their experiment.
Failed to post on 8/3/25 about 5:20 PM CST: “Obvious” is the key word, Professor Larsson; my discovery, in 2009. If radiant pulsing angular lines of gravity force had been obvious in 1801 there probably wouldn’t be any such discussion in 2025.
The MIT experiment validates the contextuality of Bohr,
but invalidates the wave/particle disjunction.
It requires a unified geometric theory such as that of Real Mathematics (RM).
Fernando, as much better versed in these matters than I as you appear to be, perhaps if you’d think, and do, in terms of Reproducible Experiments (RE), instead of RM, you too would find the consistency at the subatomic level that I find. Imagine a line of gravity force radiating at a particular angle every Planck unit of length, based upon the inverse square law of attraction could your RM help you calculate that angle? If so, then how would you demonstrate it here on earth?
Thank you, Charles, for your question.
Yes, it is possible to calculate the emission angle of a gravitational force at each Planck-length unit within my theoretical framework.
And yes, this can be demonstrated experimentally, here on Earth, through a gravitational diffraction setup using coherent beams.
I’m currently developing a reproducible verification protocol based on interferometry.
Best regards,
Fernando
Thanks back, Fernando. Your experiment sounds interesting but well beyond my current capabilities. I think, as circumstances permit, I’ll just additionally investigate a subtle suggestion of anti-gravity from my aluminum disk demonstration. Good luck with your efforts.
No, modern quantum field physics suffice (see my own response to the article).
I thought Einstein was never considered to be on the leading edge of quantum theory. Didn’t he have a somewhat disparaging view of that field as a whole?
Einstein did win the Nobel Prize due to his contributions to Quantum Physics 🙂 So, he understood the ideas of Quantum Physics quite well. But, yes, you are right too – he had a disparaging view of the field as a whole. The disagreement he had with other physicists was about the interpretation of Quantum Physics. The equations said that the quantum reality is inherently probabilistic, he thought it is deterministic in a way that we do not yet understand.
It just proves we live in a lare language model in universe created by ai….
I think Einstein couldn’t care less…
For those of us who didn’t study quantum mechanics, it would be helpful if this article printed a clear and concise conclusion of the information revealed from this experiment. Am I understanding this correctly in understanding that light can only be observed as either a particle or as energy and never seen as both at the same time.
Yes, the article should have explained the context. This my attempt at it. See Wikipedia article on Double slit experiment for details.
Experiment 1: Setup: Monochromatic light source – then a barrier that blocks light – then a light detection screen. The barrier has two slits through which light can pass through. Then instead of seeing two blobs of light corresponding to the two slits, you see an interference pattern (see Wikipedia for the picture). Why? Because any one point on the screen has two possible paths (through the two slits) for light to reach it. Since light is a wave, it travels through both paths. But since the path lengths are slightly different, the light intensities cancel in some locations on the detection screen, and in some locations they add up. Hence the interference pattern of “bars”. The math to calculate where the paths will cancel and were they will not is quite simple.
Experiment 2: Same setup as before, except use electrons instead of light. You get a similar interference pattern. This is where the electrons must have been behaving as a wave – and each electron is travelling through both the slits. Otherwise, you wouldn’t get an interference pattern.
Experiment 3: Ok, so we want to catch the electron splitting itself up and going through both slits. For that add an electron detector at both the slits. Now, this is when the interference pattern disappears and the electron starts to behave as particle. We get two blobs of electron-smudges on the detection screen.
Summary: Electron behaves like a wave, unless you start watching what it does, when it behaves like a particle.
Press releases doesn’t work like that, they mostly announce the work on its own terms. If you want (an easily misinterpreted) simpler versions you have to search the web for more popular descriptions.
No, lights are photons which has a definite energy and some but not all particle (or wave) traits. But the experiment doesn’t probe that. It is probing the wavefunction interferences, which is something else entirely according to modern quantum field physics where “dualities” do not fit the observations. To cite Matt Strassler, a particle physicist:
“This quantum field theory viewpoint didn’t really fit with Bohr’s vision. But it’s quantum field theory that agrees with experiment, not the quantum physics of Bohr’s era. Nevertheless, Bohr’s interpretation persisted (and still persists) in many textbooks and philosophy books.”
“Photons” are Lewis’ name for Einstein’s “Energy packets” – which are numbers derived from multiplying a wave-length in nm by the Planck Constant. This is numbers x numbers to find more numbers PLUS the illusion being taught to young, inquiring minds that this represents reality. It enslaves the minds of the unsuspecting into the belief that particles are real, – because math mechanics always seems to come out.
Human beings invented math with the same spirit as Chimps get ants with the deft use of twigs. At least the ants are real.
Realty are not your mental pictures – your mind creates the pictures and (generally) you are trying to prove past notions that are utterly wrong. You gotta come up with something ‘new.’ You’ll have to violate what you believe.
More experiments confirm my deepest understanding of the Double-slit experiment–amateurs need to ignore the experiment because it if far more complicated that one would suppose.
I came across a work to suppress the center fringe involving in the topic. The prediction how the center energy distributing to the side fringes came out with the resonance being involved, It could be not wrong but not complete yet.
All this and the real answer lies in one word…”observation.”
This experiment underscores the indeterminate feature of quantum theory and the role of uncertainty on wave-particle duality. It is groundbreaking. Yes, it buries Einstein and EPR.
yes thanks Physics Pundit , here it is doi-org/10-5281/zenodo-16501807
No, it does not probe “wave-particle duality” but wavefunction interference. Using modern quantum field physics this is more clearly seen.
[To cite Matt Strassler, a particle physicist:
“This quantum field theory viewpoint didn’t really fit with Bohr’s vision. But it’s quantum field theory that agrees with experiment, not the quantum physics of Bohr’s era. Nevertheless, Bohr’s interpretation persisted (and still persists) in many textbooks and philosophy books.”
Most here are discussing something that does not exist, according to experiments.]
In modern quantum field physics there is no “duality” and the situation more clearly separates into possible wavefunction interference (which the experiment probes) and quantum particle perturbations of a field nature.
To cite particle physicists Matt Strassler: “From the perspective of quantum field theory, as I’ve outlined here, a wavicle does have features of both waves and particles, but it also lacks features of both waves and particles. For this reason, I would personally prefer to say that it is neither one. I don’t think it’s useful to say that it is both wave and particle, or to say that it is sometimes wave and sometimes particle. It’s simply something else.”