Journal of Modern Physics, 2012, 3, 1357-1368 Published Online October 2012 (
Next Frontier in Physics—Space as a Complex
Tension Field
Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri
Femto Macro Continuum & Physics Department, University of Connecticut, Storrs, USA
Received July 26, 2012; revised September 3, 2012; accepted September 12, 2012
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
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-
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-
opyright © 2012 SciRes. JMP
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.
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.
Copyright © 2012 SciRes. JMP
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
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
Copyright © 2012 SciRes. JMP
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
with a periodic phase delay
on a detecting dipole, the total stimulated dipolar
undulations can be represented by, using
as the first
order polarizability:
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
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:
 
22 2
12 12
aa aa
 
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
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 Borns
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
Copyright © 2012 SciRes. JMP
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
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
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
 
out 0exp i
it Natntn
The temporal rate of energy that can be absorbable is:
 
out 0exp i2
i tNatn
 
pls 21
where, dddd()d
  
 
 
Equation (5) yields the classical CW result for a long
pls 2
., cos2π
sin π,
sin π
Lt INpp
 
 
Application of Parseval’s energy conservation theorem
on the time integrated Equation (4) can also be expressed
 
pls out
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
Copyright © 2012 SciRes. JMP
derivation. This is because the N-replicated pulses are
now effectively almost fully superposed giving
  
. 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
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 .
0 d
UP s
 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
12 12
ata tt
at tatt
ata tt
 
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
will be multiplied by a visibil-
ity degrading factor
22 2
21coscos2π; cos
Da a
 
 
For the case of
, the fringe visibility will be
zero. This is well known in physics and we tend to explain
Copyright © 2012 SciRes. JMP
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]?
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
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
exp i2πexp i2π
cos 2πcos 2π
 
12 2
 
 
 
 
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
cos 2π
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
cos 2π
 
 
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.
Copyright © 2012 SciRes. JMP
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
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
 
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
. 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-
Copyright © 2012 SciRes. JMP
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
 
ztA zt
A zt
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
 
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
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-
Copyright © 2012 SciRes. JMP
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 
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,el 2Z
The rest frequency for an electron can be computed
from as
Ehf0,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 20f
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 c
 
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
, 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
Copyright © 2012 SciRes. JMP
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.
[1] F. Wilczek, “The Lightness of Being: Mass, Ether, and
the Unification of Forces,” Basic Books, New York,
[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,
[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.
[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.
[14] G. S. Sandhu, “Fundamental Nature of Matter and
Fields,” 2009.
[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 EnergyAnd Do We Have to?” In: M.
D’Onofrio and C. Burigana, Eds., Questions of Modern
Cosmology—Galileos 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.
[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
[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
Copyright © 2012 SciRes. JMP
Copyright © 2012 SciRes. JMP
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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.