The quantum object is in general considered as displaying both wave and particle nature. By particle is understood an item localized in a very small volume of the space, and which cannot be simultaneously in two disjoint regions of the space. By wave, to the contrary, is understood a distributed item, occupying in some cases two or more disjoint regions of the space. The quantum formalism did not explain until today the so-called “collapse” of the wave-function, i.e. the shrinking of the wave-function to one small region of the space, when a macroscopic object is encountered. This seems to happen in “which-way” experiments. A very appealing explanation for this behavior is the idea of a particle, localized in some limited part of the wave-function. The present article challenges the concept of particle. It proves in the base of a variant of the Tan, Walls and Collett experiment, that this concept leads to a situation in which the particle has to be simultaneously in two places distant from one another—situation that contradicts the very definition of a particle. Another argument is based on a modified version of the Afshar experiment, showing that the concept of particle is problematic. The concept of particle makes additional difficulties when the wave-function passes through fields. An unexpected possibility to solve these difficulties seems to arise from the cavity quantum electrodynamics studies done recently by S. Savasta and his collaborators. It involves virtual particles. One of these studies is briefly described here. Though, experimental results are needed, so that it is too soon to conclude whether it speaks in favor, or against the concept of particle.
The quantum object is in general considered as displaying both wave and particle nature. By particle is understood an item localized in a very small volume of the space, and which cannot be simultaneously in two disjoint regions of the space. By wave, to the contrary, is understood a distributed item, occupying in some cases two or more disjoint regions of the space. The quantum formalism did not explain until today the so-called “collapse” of the wave-function, i.e. the shrinking of the wave-function to one small region of the space, when a macroscopic object is encountered. This seems to happen in “which-way” experiments. A very appealing explanation for this behavior is the idea of a particle, localized in some limited part of the wave-function. The present article challenges the concept of particle. It proves in the base of a variant of the Tan, Walls and Collett experiment, that this concept leads to a situation in which the particle has to be simultaneously in two places distant from one another—situation that contradicts the very definition of a particle. Another argument is based on a modified version of the Afshar experiment, showing that the concept of particle is problematic. The concept of particle makes additional difficulties when the wave-function passes through fields. An unexpected possibility to solve these difficulties seems to arise from the cavity quantum electrodynamics studies done recently by S. Savasta and his collaborators. It involves virtual particles. One of these studies is briefly described here. Though, experimental results are needed, so that it is too soon to conclude whether it speaks in favor, or against the concept of particle.
In an interesting series of articles published few years ago Afshar and coworkers [1,2] reported an optical experiment in which they claimed to refute the well known N. Bohr principle of complementarity [3, 4]. Obviously this result, if justified, would constitute a serious attack against the orthodox interpretation of quantum mechanics (known as the Copenhagen interpretation). This work stirred much debate in different journals (see for examples references [5–12]). We think however that there are still some important misunderstandings concerning the interpretation of this experiment. In a preprint written originally in 2004 [5] (and following some early discussions with Afshar) we claimed already that the interpretation by Afshar et al. can be easily stated if we stay as close as possible from the texts written by Bohr. The aim of the present article (which was initially written in 2005 to precise a bit the thought developed in [5]) is to comment the interpretation discussed in [1]. We will in the following analyze the meaning of Bohr principle and show that far from disproving its content the experiment [1] is actually a complete confirmation of its general validity. The difficulties associated with the understanding of this principle are not new and actually complementarity created troubles even in Einstein mind [3] so that we are here in good company. To summarize a bit emphatically Bohr’s complementarity we here remind that this principle states that if one of a pair of non commuting observables of a quantum object is known for sure, then information about the second (complementary) is lost [3, 4, 15, 16]. This can be equivalently expressed as a kind of duality between different descriptions of the quantum system associated with different experimental arrangements which mutually exclude each other (read in particular [3,4]). Later in the discussion we will try to precise this definition but for the moment it is enough to illustrate the concepts by examples Consider for instance the well known Young double-pinholes interference experiment made with photons. The discrete nature of light precludes the simultaneous observation of a same photon in the aperture plane and in the interference pattern: the photon cannot be absorbed twice. This is already a trivial manifestation of the principle of Bohr. Here it implies that the two statistical patterns associated with the wave in the aperture plane and its Fourier (i. e., momentum) transform require necessarily different photons for their recording. It is in that sense that each experiment excludes and completes reciprocally the other. In the case considered before the photon is absorbed during the first detection (this clearly precludes any other detection). However even a non-destructive solution for detection implying entanglement with other quantum systems has a radical effect of the same nature: the complementarity principle is still valid. For example, during their debate Bohr and Einstein [3] discussed an ideal which-way experiment in which the recoil of the slits is correlated to the motion of the photon. Momentum conservation added to arguments based on the uncertainty relations are sufficient to explain how such entanglement photon-slits can erase fringes [15–19]. It is also important for the present discussion to remind that the principle of complementarity has a perfidious consequence on the experimental meaning of trajectory and path followed by a particle. Indeed the unavoidable interactions existing between photons and detectors imply that a trajectory existing independently of any measurement process cannot be unambiguously defined. This sounds even like a tragedy when we consider once again the two-holes experiment. Indeed for Bohr this kind of experiments shows definitely the essential element of ambiguity which is involved in ascribing conventional physical attributes to quantum systems. Intuitively (i. e., from the point of view of classical particle dynamic) one would expect that a photon detected in the focal plane of the lens must have crossed only one of the hole 1 or 2 before to reach its final destination. However, if this is true, one can not intuitively understand how the presence of the second hole (through which the photon evidently did not go) forces the photon to participate to an interference pattern (which obviously needs an influence coming from both holes). Explanations to solve this paradox have been proposed by de Broglie, Bohm, and others using concepts such as empty waves or quantum potentials [20, 21]. However all these explanations are in agreement with Bohr principle (since they fully reproduce quantum predictions) and can not be experimentally distinguished. Bohr and Heisenberg proposed for all needed purposes a much more pragmatic and simpler answer: don’t bother, the complementarity principle precludes the simultaneous observation of a photon trajectory and of an interference pattern. For Bohr [3]: This point is of great logical consequence, since it is only the circumstance that we are presented with a choice of either tracing the path
Field-Theoretic Explanation of Wave-Particle Duality—Unification of Particle Locality and the Wave Nature of the Perturbation Field This paper provides a physical explanation of the most central puzzle in quantum mechanics—wave-particle duality—without relying on "probability-amplitude collapse" or "nonlocal entanglement." This theory divides all matter in the universe into Nie-matter entities (massive, Staticity) and Ji-matter entities (massless, Dynamicity), and maintains that quantum objects (electrons, neutrons, etc.) are always localized Nie-matter entity particles. Their "wave behavior" originates from the particle's local perturbation of the Ji-matter field that already fills space during motion—the perturbation propagates in the form of a wave, produces an interference field when passing through the double slits, and the interference field in turn guides the particle's landing position. The particle always passes through only one slit, while the field passes through both slits simultaneously; interference is the behavior of the field, not the behavior of the particle. This mechanism naturally explains double-slit interference, the coexistence of neutron collisions and wave behavior, the disturbance of interference fringes by observation devices, and the variation of interference contrast with source offset and slit spacing. This paper further gives three falsifiable predictions: P6-1 (a decisive distinction between device field-strength disturbance and which-path information disturbance), P6-2A (the disturbance effect varies continuously with field strength), and P6-2B (an argument for the explanatory power of double-slit interference contrast—naturally derived from one mechanism vs. jointly explained by four independent concepts). Compared with mainstream theory, this theory does not need "wavefunction collapse," does not need "nonlocality," and does not need "many worlds"—it only needs to acknowledge: particles are localized, the field fills space, and the motion of particles is guided by the local field gradient.
Abstract Interference of more and more massive objects provides a spectacular confirmation of quantum theory. It is usually regarded as support for “wave–particle duality” and in an extension of this duality even as support for “complementarity”. We first give an outline of the historical development of these notions. Already here it becomes evident that they are hard to define rigorously, i.e. have mainly a heuristic function. Then we discuss recent interference experiments of large and complex molecules which seem to support this heuristic function of “duality”. However, we show that in these experiments the diffraction of a delocalized center-of-mass wave function depends on the interaction of the localized structure of the molecule with the diffraction element. Thus, the molecules display “dual features” at the same time, which contradicts the usual understanding of wave–particle duality. We conclude that the notion of “wave–particle duality” deserves no place in modern quantum physics.
The wave-particle duality is a fundamental property of the nature. At the same time, it is one of the greatest mysteries of modern physics. This gave rise to a whole direction in quantum physics - the interpretation of quantum mechanics. The Wiener experiments demonstrating the wave-particle duality of light are discussed. It is shown that almost all interpretations of quantum mechanics allow explaining the double-slit experiments, but are powerless to explain the Wiener experiments. The reason of the paradox, associated with the wave-particle duality is analyzed. The quantum theory consists of two independent parts: (i) the dynamic equations describing the behavior of a quantum object (for example, the Schrodinger or Maxwell equations), and (ii) the Born’s rule, the relation between the wave function and the probability of finding the particle at a given point. It is shown that precisely the Born’s rule results in paradox in explaining the wave-particle duality. In order to eliminate this paradox, we propose a new rational interpretation of the wave-particle duality and associated new rule, connecting the corpuscular and wave properties of quantum objects. It is shown that this new rational interpretation of the wave-particle duality allows using the classic images of particle and wave in explaining the quantum mechanical and optical phenomena, does not result in paradox in explaining the doubleslit experiments and Wiener experiments, and does not contradict to the modern quantum mechanical concepts. It is shown that the Born’s rule follows immediately from proposed new rules as an approximation.
Here, the concept of a wave-particle duality is questioned. First, the experimental proofs existing, respectively, for particles and waves are examined. In the case of particles, no experimental evidence can be found which establishes them; it seems that particles have always been taken for granted. In the case of waves, considerable evidence has accumulated with results on diffraction, interference, and self-interference of larger and larger objects. Then an important remark is made concerning the fact that unlike particles, waves are not observation-dependent: waves existed before observation otherwise the patterns of diffraction or interference would not have been appearing; the wave nature does not depend on the making of a measurement, there is no measurement problem for waves. Consequently, since waves are not observation-dependent, if the objects are demonstrated to be waves, they are only waves. This fact, along with some other evidence, disagrees with the current interpretation of the Wheeler-type delayed-choice experiments, where the absence of interference is interpreted as a particle behavior. Finally, recent works regarding the de Broglie‐Bohm theory are presented, which lead to suggest a new wave-only version of this theory. It is concluded that a wave-only view might be worth considering instead of the wave-particle duality view which has prevailed so far.
Is the wave-function a physical reality traveling through our apparatus? Is it a real wave, or it is only a mathematical tool for calculating probabilities of results of measurements? Different interpretations of the quantum mechanics (QM) assume different answers to this question. It is shown in this article that the assumption that the wave-function is a real wave entails a contradiction with the predictions of the QM, when the special relativity is invoked. Therefore, this text concentrates on interpretations that conjecture that the reality that moves in our apparatuses is particles, and they move under the constraints of the wave-function. The de Broglie-Bohm interpretation, which matches this picture, assumes that the particle travels along a continuous trajectory. However, the idea of continuous trajectories was proved to lead to a contradiction with the quantum predictions. Therefore this interpretation is not considered here. S. Gao conjectured that the particle is in a permanent random and discontinuous motion (RDM). As it jumps all the time from place to place, the total set of occupied positions at a certain time is given by the absolute square of the wave-function. As motivation for his idea, Gao argued that if a charged particle were simultaneously in two or more locations at the same time, the copies of the particle would repel one another, destroying the wave-function. It is proved here that the quantum formalism renders this motivation wrong. Although refuting this motivation, the RDM interpretation is examined here. A couple of problems of this interpretation are examined and it is proved that they don’t lead to any observable contradictions with the QM predictions, except one problem which seems to have no solution. In all, it appears that none of the wide-spread interpretations of the QM is free of contradictions.