Dear Ke Xiao
Be assured I have given all my ideas deep thought over many years. So don't assume otherwise. But you do have every right to make constructive arguments against my claims.
I argue, "The double-slit experiment is a puzzlement only if we assume light is made up of particle photons following a projectile trajectory from 'source' to 'sensor'."
This is obviously a true statement. If light were a wave, there will not be any puzzlement. Because light is also believed to be a particle, we have a paradox.
You write, "Wave-particle duality has been experimentally confirmed, the real question is how to deal with it."
That is the real question. Here is how I deal with it: "energy propagates continuously as a wave while it manifests discretely in interactions".
I argue, "The electron emitted at the 'source' may not be the same electron detected at the 'sensor' "
You argue, "... that is only your guess without any supporting experimental confirmation..."
What is your evidence to support the electron detected at the 'sensor' is the same electron emitted at the 'source'? I think both these views are plausible. Except, my view 'makes sense' while the 'particle projectile' view leads to contradictions and paradoxes.
In all of these experiments I believe a 'burst of energy' is emitted at the 'source' which propagates continuously as a wave and passing through both slits we get wave interference. I simply do not believe in the 'particle trajectory' view of these experiments. And no amount of arm twisting will make me change my mind! Just good common sense!
You write, "... your "Continuous derivation of Planck's Law" by replacing Planck constant h with your variable of the 'prime 'physis' quantity' \eta is wrong! Your formula simply can not restore the spectrum of Blackbody radiation if \eta is a variable, can you?"
I urge you to think more deeply! My continuous derivation of Planck's Formula results in Planck's Formula. With Planck's constant not changed as you believe. And this indeed will give rise to the same blackbody spectrum. Planck's constant h in my derivation is the same kind of quantity as eta. Both are in units of joule-sec. These are 'time-integrals of energy'. Planck's constant h is the minimal eta that can be manifested or measured. If you wish to have an in-depth discussion on this I'd be happy to elaborate.
You write, "... I do not know how you've proven that light is a wave but not a photon..."
By proving the following proposition: "If the speed of light is a constant, then light propagates as a wave".
In the proof I used eta and the definitions of energy and momentum in terms of eta. All consistent with the Basic Laws of Physics. Beyond that, some simple calculus.
I am happy for you that you have published peer-reviewed papers. I have tried but couldn't even get mine read, let alone reviewed! But peer review by 'true believers' is no more enlightening of the truth than the Pope's Vatican reviewing Galileo's theories.
Best wishes,
Constantinos
