The dual-slit experiment is a fraud
Debate Rounds (3)
Then there's Srinivasa Roa Gonuguntia's science papers.
Have fun debunking that!
This doesn't seem to falsify the results of the experiment but to offer a different interpretation of those results.
R2. Wave-particle duality is also confirmed by other experiments.
While there are many non-classical attempts at explaining the results of the young experiment, those that accept the duality of light (and other particles) is consistent with other tests. Most famously the Davisson and Germer experiment  which confirmed the Louis de Broglie hypothesis. This experiment was the beginning of the electron microscope, it consisted of directing a beam of electrons at a nickel plate and observing the electrons as they bounced off.
R3. Other experiments show that observation or measurement affect the resulting pattern. The presence of the Detector is not important.
There are other variants of the Young experiment such as the Delayed choice quantum eraser  which shows that information about the detection of which slit is key to the appearance or disappearance of the interference pattern. In the video it is suggested that the detector is blocking the potential pathways of quanta and that this blocking is why the inference pattern disappears. This simply isn't the case with the quantum eraser experiment that uses entangled particles and splitters to allow for all paths to be taken. The interference pattern is created or null depending on what detectors are looked at. The detectors which allow discernment of which path was taken show a diffraction pattern. The detectors that don't allow knowing which path was taken result in the interference pattern.
Quote - The presence of the Detector is not important.
Reply - The detector is very important when dealing with weak forces. The weaker the light, the more influence the detector will have on the result. When a scientist says that they are observing an experiment, it usually means that there are very strong electromagnetic forces being applied to the experiment. Thus, in these cases, the result will be spoiled.
The detector does not block a potential pathway of split light. That is why it is not important. What is important is the amount of information detected. If the information is not enough to discern which path the photons went through then there will be an interference pattern.
As to why "observation" or "measurement" causes such a reaction, A recent Italian Experiment using a filter over one slit, suggests that measurement causes electrons to propagate inelastically. Which localizes the wave function. 
I think the main point is that there are many experiments that confirm the wave properties of quantum entities. Currently there is no way we can really know what particles look like. But what Science does is it creates models. And the accurate models of quantum particles utilize the idealization of them being wave-like. It is these models which have led to the development of the electron microscope.
The wave-particle duality of matter is not just confined to subatomic particles. An Experiment carried out by Brezger Et al, Showed an interference pattern with C70 fullerene molecules.
And now you jump into talking about the Aether. It makes a debate with you difficult. What I find interesting is in history when new aspects of nature are trying to be understood the default route to go is a liquid like medium. Understandable the movement of water is still quite hard to predict. Heat was thought to flow like a liquid medium. And then light through the Aether, a liquid like medium.
And all these interpretations have eventually lost favor. Because they failed to adequately account for experimental results.
I hope I have upheld that the results from Young's Double Slit experiment as indeed accurate. And more importantly to the point I think my opponent was arguing is that the wave-particle duality interpretation of those results is the most accurate of all competing models.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.