Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Log inSign up
Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Blog
Job Board
Q3AS

© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

TermsPrivacyLegal Notice

arXiv:1804.00496 · Journal of Modern Physics

Quantum Interference without Quantum Mechanics

Arend Niehaus

Published Jan 1, 2019• 3 citations
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

A recently proposed model of the Dirac electron, which has been shown to describe several observed properties of the particle correctly, is in the present paper shown to be also able to explain quantum interference by classical probabilities. According to this model, the electron is not point-like, but rather an “entity with structure”, formed by a fast periodic motion of a “light-like object”, whose momentum (p) causes the angular momentum responsible for the spin, and whose energy (E = pc) is equal to the energy of the electron, mc2. A qualitative description of the model is given, together with the quantitative formulae that allow to discuss interference. Applied to the experimental situation of the “two-slit” experiment, the formulae yield the same time dependence of the detection probability as the quantum mechanical treatment, and hence the same interference pattern. In contrast to quantum mechanics, the pattern is due to “particle interference” rather than to “wave interference”. No wave-particle paradox arises. The merits of the model are summarized, and its physical content discussed.

DOI
10.4236/jmp.2019.104027

Related papers

On the Single Electron Double Slit Experiment – A Randomly-Jumping Electron Approach

Lizhi Xin, Kevin Xin

Abstract One of the greatest mysteries that has puzzled and seemingly hoodwinked our very understanding of nature is the single electron double slit experiment – one that Feynman termed the central mystery of quantum mechanics. At the heart of this mystery is how can an electron that is a physical particle exhibit a wave-like property? We’ve proposed a non-counterintuitive way to explain this phenomenon called the randomly-jumping electron hypothesis, in which the electron randomly “jumps” in discrete succession to specific points only and not others which is what causes the electron to indeed be a classical particle only but is able to produce a wave-like interference pattern. To provide supporting evidence for our hypothesis, we’ve developed a computer program to simulate the single electron double slit experiment by treating the electron as a classical particle while still exhibiting wave-like fringes in agreement with real-world observed data of the single electron double slit experiment performed. Our interpretation does not set out to “solve” the mystery of why an electron can produce a wave-like interference pattern once and for all, however our hypothesis is a monism ontological interpretation that does address some of the crucial debates that have remained unsolved for 100 years since the formulation of quantum mechanics.

•May 5, 2026•0 citations

Complete Explanation for the Double-Slit Interference-Experiments

Hasmukh K. Tank

The particle- interference-experiments, with the photons and electrons have clearly shown that they are always detected as localized „particles‟; and the density of their detections exhibit a pattern similar to the interference of waves. This experimental-observation is now explained here, making the current, „probabilistic interpretation‟, a past history. The „particle ‟ is first mathematically characterized as an „impulse function ‟ in space; and then Fourier-transformed into the wave-number-domain, as a wide band of constituent-waves as shown in the fig. 1&2. The „particle ‟ is explained as an „event ‟ of constructive-superimposition of a wide band of „pre-quantum-waves‟. This „event ‟ occurs in space at regular distances; and at regular instances in time. We know that even the purest monochromatic laser source has a „line-width ‟ of a few Giga-Hertz, or at least a few kilo-Hertz. So in the particle-interference-experiments, they are these wide bands of waves which pass through both the slits, even in the case of single photon states, and interfere physically. This physical interference of the wide bands of pre-quantum-waves determines the position and time of emergence of the „particle‟. Thus, form the theoretical view-point, there are only the waves, and waves alone; and the „particle ‟ is a specific situation of constructive-superimposition of all the spectral-components of pre-quantum-waves; so there is no wave-particle-duality.

•Mar 1, 2014•1 citation

Summarizing what we know about the photon

Harry Paul

How can we construct a picture of the photon from the wealth of observation material available to us? The photon appears to have a split personality: it is neither a wave nor a particle but something else which, depending on the experimental situation, exhibits a wave- or a particle-like behavior. In other words, in the photon (as in material particles such as the electron) the particle–wave dualism becomes manifest. Whereas classically the wave and the particle pictures are separate, quantum mechanics accomplishes a formal synthesis through a unified mathematical treatment. Let us look first at the wave aspect familiar from classical electrodynamics, which seems to be the most natural description. It makes all the different interference phenomena understandable, such as the “interference of the photon with itself” on the one hand and the appearance of spatial and temporal intensity correlations in a thermal radiation field on the other (which are obviously brought about by superposition of elementary waves emitted independently from different atoms). It might come as a surprise (at least for those having quantum mechanical preconceptions) that the classical theory is valid down to arbitrarily small intensities: the visibility of the interference pattern does not deteriorate even for very small intensities – the zero point fluctuations of the electromagnetic field advocated by quantum mechanics do not have a disturbing effect – and is valid not only for conventional interference experiments but also for interference between independently generated light beams (in the form of laser light).

Cambridge University Press eBooks•May 20, 2004•0 citations

Some Insight Into the Outcome of Double-Slit-Experiments

Hasmukh K. Tank

The particle-interference-experiments, with the photons and electrons have clearly shown that they are always detected as localized ‘particles’; and the density of their detections exhibit a pattern similar to the interference of waves. This experimental-observation is alternatively interpreted here, different from the current, ‘probabilistic interpretation’. The ‘particle’ is first mathematically characterized as an ‘impulse function’ in space; and then Fourier-transformed into the wave-number-domain, as a wide band of constituent-waves as shown in the fig. 1&2. The ‘particle’ is an ‘event’ of constructive-superimposition of a wide band of ‘pre-quantum-waves’. This ‘event’ occurs in space at regular distances; and at regular instances in time. In the particle-interference-experiments, they are the wide band of ‘pre-quantum-waves which interfere physically. This physical interference of the pre-quantum-waves determines the position and time of emergence of the ‘impulse in space’ detectable as the ‘particle’. In the real-world-situation, the ‘pre-quantum-waves of a wide bandwidth arrive from all the directions, so the amplitude and phase of every constituent wave keep changing; so the place of constructive superimposition of all the spectral-components, keep varying unpredictably; and only the ‘probability’ of detection in a given volume is possible in practice. Thus, form the theoretical view-point, there are only the pre-quantum-waves; and ‘particle’ is a specific situation of constructive-superimposition of all the spectral-components of pre-quantum-waves; so there is no wave-particle-duality. The ‘probabilistic-interpretation’ is only a ‘practical-limitation’, detector being able to detect only the ‘particle’, and not the spectrum of constituent waves.

•Jan 1, 2014•0 citations

Quantum Mechanics: reality or an illusion of the detector? Paper I: Interference with non-interacting photons and a special type of detector

Ioannis Contopoulos

We present a statistical model of non-interacting individual classical particles that may lead to a microscopic implementation of quantum mechanics. The model requires the action of a special type of detector that detects and records individual particles. According to our model, microscopic particles are classical entities that follow classical trajectories without nonlocal interactions between them. As long as they remain undetected, particles carry the information of a phase equal to an action integral along their trajectory. At the point of their detection, our special type of detector collects the phases from all particles reaching it, adds them up over time as complex numbers, and divides them by the square root of their number. The detector records a detection each time the square of the magnitude of the ensuing vector crosses an integer value. We test our model with numerical simulations of a double-slit experiment, and obtain an interference pattern analogous to the one observed in an actual physical experiment.

arXiv:2203.10942•Feb 25, 2022•0 citations

Central concepts in quantum mechanics

M. Kira, S. W. Koch

In the early 1900s more and more experimental evidence was accumulated indicating that microscopic particles show wave-like properties in certain situations. These particle-wave features are very evident, e.g., in measurements where electrons are diffracted from a double slit to propagate toward a screen where they are detected. Based on the classical averaging of particles discussed in Section 1.2.2, one expects that the double slit only modulates the overall intensity, not the spatial distribution. Experimentally, however, one observes a nearly perfect interference pattern at the screen implying that the electrons exhibit wave averaging features such as discussed in Section 2.1.2. This behavior, originally unexpected for particle beams, persists even if the experiment is repeated such that only one electron at a time passes the double slit before it propagates to the detection screen. Thus, the wave aspect must be an inherent property of individual electrons and not an ensemble effect. Another, independent argument for the failure of classical physics is that the electromagnetic analysis of atoms leads to the conclusion that the negatively charged electron(s) should collapse into the positively charged ion because the electron–ion system loses its energy due to the emission of radiation. As we will see, this problem can be solved by including the wave aspects of particles into the analysis. In particular, as discussed in Section 2.3.3, waves can never be localized to a point without increasing their momentum and energy beyond bounds.

Cambridge University Press eBooks•Nov 17, 2011•0 citations
A recently proposed model of the Dirac electron, which has been shown to describe several observed properties of the particle correctly, is in the present paper shown to be also able to explain quantum interference by classical probabilities. According to this model, the electron is not point-like, but rather an “entity with structure”, formed by a fast periodic motion of a “light-like object”, whose momentum (p) causes the angular momentum responsible for the spin, and whose energy (E = pc) is equal to the energy of the electron, mc2. A qualitative description of the model is given, together with the quantitative formulae that allow to discuss interference. Applied to the experimental situation of the “two-slit” experiment, the formulae yield the same time dependence of the detection probability as the quantum mechanical treatment, and hence the same interference pattern. In contrast to quantum mechanics, the pattern is due to “particle interference” rather than to “wave interference”. No wave-particle paradox arises. The merits of the model are summarized, and its physical content discussed.
Abstract One of the greatest mysteries that has puzzled and seemingly hoodwinked our very understanding of nature is the single electron double slit experiment – one that Feynman termed the central mystery of quantum mechanics. At the heart of this mystery is how can an electron that is a physical particle exhibit a wave-like property? We’ve proposed a non-counterintuitive way to explain this phenomenon called the randomly-jumping electron hypothesis, in which the electron randomly “jumps” in discrete succession to specific points only and not others which is what causes the electron to indeed be a classical particle only but is able to produce a wave-like interference pattern. To provide supporting evidence for our hypothesis, we’ve developed a computer program to simulate the single electron double slit experiment by treating the electron as a classical particle while still exhibiting wave-like fringes in agreement with real-world observed data of the single electron double slit experiment performed. Our interpretation does not set out to “solve” the mystery of why an electron can produce a wave-like interference pattern once and for all, however our hypothesis is a monism ontological interpretation that does address some of the crucial debates that have remained unsolved for 100 years since the formulation of quantum mechanics.
The particle- interference-experiments, with the photons and electrons have clearly shown that they are always detected as localized „particles‟; and the density of their detections exhibit a pattern similar to the interference of waves. This experimental-observation is now explained here, making the current, „probabilistic interpretation‟, a past history. The „particle ‟ is first mathematically characterized as an „impulse function ‟ in space; and then Fourier-transformed into the wave-number-domain, as a wide band of constituent-waves as shown in the fig. 1&2. The „particle ‟ is explained as an „event ‟ of constructive-superimposition of a wide band of „pre-quantum-waves‟. This „event ‟ occurs in space at regular distances; and at regular instances in time. We know that even the purest monochromatic laser source has a „line-width ‟ of a few Giga-Hertz, or at least a few kilo-Hertz. So in the particle-interference-experiments, they are these wide bands of waves which pass through both the slits, even in the case of single photon states, and interfere physically. This physical interference of the wide bands of pre-quantum-waves determines the position and time of emergence of the „particle‟. Thus, form the theoretical view-point, there are only the waves, and waves alone; and the „particle ‟ is a specific situation of constructive-superimposition of all the spectral-components of pre-quantum-waves; so there is no wave-particle-duality.
How can we construct a picture of the photon from the wealth of observation material available to us? The photon appears to have a split personality: it is neither a wave nor a particle but something else which, depending on the experimental situation, exhibits a wave- or a particle-like behavior. In other words, in the photon (as in material particles such as the electron) the particle–wave dualism becomes manifest. Whereas classically the wave and the particle pictures are separate, quantum mechanics accomplishes a formal synthesis through a unified mathematical treatment. Let us look first at the wave aspect familiar from classical electrodynamics, which seems to be the most natural description. It makes all the different interference phenomena understandable, such as the “interference of the photon with itself” on the one hand and the appearance of spatial and temporal intensity correlations in a thermal radiation field on the other (which are obviously brought about by superposition of elementary waves emitted independently from different atoms). It might come as a surprise (at least for those having quantum mechanical preconceptions) that the classical theory is valid down to arbitrarily small intensities: the visibility of the interference pattern does not deteriorate even for very small intensities – the zero point fluctuations of the electromagnetic field advocated by quantum mechanics do not have a disturbing effect – and is valid not only for conventional interference experiments but also for interference between independently generated light beams (in the form of laser light).
The particle-interference-experiments, with the photons and electrons have clearly shown that they are always detected as localized ‘particles’; and the density of their detections exhibit a pattern similar to the interference of waves. This experimental-observation is alternatively interpreted here, different from the current, ‘probabilistic interpretation’. The ‘particle’ is first mathematically characterized as an ‘impulse function’ in space; and then Fourier-transformed into the wave-number-domain, as a wide band of constituent-waves as shown in the fig. 1&2. The ‘particle’ is an ‘event’ of constructive-superimposition of a wide band of ‘pre-quantum-waves’. This ‘event’ occurs in space at regular distances; and at regular instances in time. In the particle-interference-experiments, they are the wide band of ‘pre-quantum-waves which interfere physically. This physical interference of the pre-quantum-waves determines the position and time of emergence of the ‘impulse in space’ detectable as the ‘particle’. In the real-world-situation, the ‘pre-quantum-waves of a wide bandwidth arrive from all the directions, so the amplitude and phase of every constituent wave keep changing; so the place of constructive superimposition of all the spectral-components, keep varying unpredictably; and only the ‘probability’ of detection in a given volume is possible in practice. Thus, form the theoretical view-point, there are only the pre-quantum-waves; and ‘particle’ is a specific situation of constructive-superimposition of all the spectral-components of pre-quantum-waves; so there is no wave-particle-duality. The ‘probabilistic-interpretation’ is only a ‘practical-limitation’, detector being able to detect only the ‘particle’, and not the spectrum of constituent waves.
We present a statistical model of non-interacting individual classical particles that may lead to a microscopic implementation of quantum mechanics. The model requires the action of a special type of detector that detects and records individual particles. According to our model, microscopic particles are classical entities that follow classical trajectories without nonlocal interactions between them. As long as they remain undetected, particles carry the information of a phase equal to an action integral along their trajectory. At the point of their detection, our special type of detector collects the phases from all particles reaching it, adds them up over time as complex numbers, and divides them by the square root of their number. The detector records a detection each time the square of the magnitude of the ensuing vector crosses an integer value. We test our model with numerical simulations of a double-slit experiment, and obtain an interference pattern analogous to the one observed in an actual physical experiment.
In the early 1900s more and more experimental evidence was accumulated indicating that microscopic particles show wave-like properties in certain situations. These particle-wave features are very evident, e.g., in measurements where electrons are diffracted from a double slit to propagate toward a screen where they are detected. Based on the classical averaging of particles discussed in Section 1.2.2, one expects that the double slit only modulates the overall intensity, not the spatial distribution. Experimentally, however, one observes a nearly perfect interference pattern at the screen implying that the electrons exhibit wave averaging features such as discussed in Section 2.1.2. This behavior, originally unexpected for particle beams, persists even if the experiment is repeated such that only one electron at a time passes the double slit before it propagates to the detection screen. Thus, the wave aspect must be an inherent property of individual electrons and not an ensemble effect. Another, independent argument for the failure of classical physics is that the electromagnetic analysis of atoms leads to the conclusion that the negatively charged electron(s) should collapse into the positively charged ion because the electron–ion system loses its energy due to the emission of radiation. As we will see, this problem can be solved by including the wave aspects of particles into the analysis. In particular, as discussed in Section 2.3.3, waves can never be localized to a point without increasing their momentum and energy beyond bounds.