The photoelectric effect, the Compton effects, and now anticorrelation experiments have been claimed to prove that light consists of particles flying through a void. However the particle model is decisively falsified by the known wave qualities of electromagnetic radiation. Quantum Electrodynamics also uses spreading wave amplitudes; not flying particles. The evidence indicates that light is a wave and electrons are electromagnetic wave-structures that absorb and emit light in discrete wave-packets. These wave-quanta are emitted directionally and then spread in space in proportion to their wavelength. Their waves superposition with all other waves in space. In low intensity experiments, the waves that an electron in a photodetector absorbs come from the superpositioning of the source wave-quanta and background radiation. The importance of background radiation is evidenced by "dark counts". Treating electrons and the quanta they absorb and emit as particles when they are composed of waves is the source of all the paradoxes, unreality and confusion in Quantum Mechanics. The word "photon" should be replaced by "quantum" in the description of this particular electronic process. The conceptual model presented here explains the known phenomena without producing paradoxes and unifies quantum and classical electromagnetics.
The photoelectric effect, the Compton effects, and now anticorrelation experiments have been claimed to prove that light consists of particles flying through a void. However the particle model is decisively falsified by the known wave qualities of electromagnetic radiation. Quantum Electrodynamics also uses spreading wave amplitudes; not flying particles. The evidence indicates that light is a wave and electrons are electromagnetic wave-structures that absorb and emit light in discrete wave-packets. These wave-quanta are emitted directionally and then spread in space in proportion to their wavelength. Their waves superposition with all other waves in space. In low intensity experiments, the waves that an electron in a photodetector absorbs come from the superpositioning of the source wave-quanta and background radiation. The importance of background radiation is evidenced by "dark counts". Treating electrons and the quanta they absorb and emit as particles when they are composed of waves is the source of all the paradoxes, unreality and confusion in Quantum Mechanics. The word "photon" should be replaced by "quantum" in the description of this particular electronic process. The conceptual model presented here explains the known phenomena without producing paradoxes and unifies quantum and classical electromagnetics.
Quantum field theory describes the particle nature of electromagnetic radiation using the "photon," but has never explained why a fundamental particle exhibits such perfect wave behavior. This paper provides a complete alternative explanation: the photoelectric effect, Compton scattering, and antibunching experiments — landmark experiments considered proof of photon particle nature — require no photon concept. Quantization is not a property of light itself, but of the discrete energy level structure governing how bound electrons emit and absorb energy. Light remains a continuous transverse wave; discreteness results from electrons as "prisoners" in atomic "cages" that can only transition between specific energy steps. Waves propagate continuously and are emitted and absorbed in quantized form — the photon is not a particle, but the name of an energy-exchange event.
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 idea of the photon has stirred the imaginations of physicists ever since 1905 when Einstein originally proposed the use of light quanta to explain the photoelectric effect. This concept is formalized in the quantum theory of radiation, which has had unfailing success in explaining the interaction of electromagnetic radiation with matter, seemingly limited only by the ability of physicists to perform the indicated calculations. Nevertheless, it has its conceptual problems—various infinities and frequent misinterpretations. Consequently an increasing number of workers are asking, “to what extent is the quantized field really necessary and useful?” In fact the experimental results of the photoelectric effect were explained by G. Wentzel in 1927 without the quantum theory of radiation. Similarly most electro-optic phenomena such as stimulated emission, reaction of the emitted field on the emitting atom, resonance fluorescence, and so on, do not require the quantization of the field for their explanation. As we will see, these processes can all be quantitatively explained and physically understood in terms of the semiclassical theory of the matter–field interaction in which the electric field is treated classically while the atoms obey the laws of quantum mechanics. The quantized field is fundamentally required for accurate descriptions of certain processes involving fluctuations in the electromagnetic field: for example, spontaneous emission, the Lamb shift, the anomalous magnetic moment of the electron, and certain aspects of blackbody radiation. (The Compton effect also fits here, but see later under references 8b and c.) Here we will outline how the photon concept originated and developed, where it is not required and is often misused, and finally where it plays an essential role in the understanding of physical phenomena. In our discussion we will attempt to give a logically consistent definition of the word “photon”—a statement far more necessary than one might think, for so many contradictory uses exist of this elusive beast. In particular consider the original coining of the word by G. N. Lewis: “[because it appears to spend] only a minute fraction of its existence as a carrier of radiant energy, while the rest of the time it remains an important structural element within the atom…, I therefore take the liberty of proposing for this hypothetical new atom which is not light but plays an essential part in every process of radiation, the name photon!” (our exclamation point). Clearly the present usage of the word is very different.
It has been over 150 years since light was first considered a form of electromagnetic radiation. There is substantial evidence that the current well-established theory, that light quanta (photons) are a form of electromagnetic radiation, is incorrect. This is largely because the theory was first introduced based on assumptions not evidence. The experimental evidence, and the requirements of quantum mechanics, are largely incompatible with the existing theory and the conceptual models regarding the nature of light quanta. Several inconsistencies associated with the current belief and the associated conceptual model are identified. An entirely new and radically different conceptual model is proposed. A conceptual model that embraces what is currently known about light quanta, from both a classical and quantum-mechanical perspective. The proposed conceptual model strongly supports the Information Interpretation of quantum mechanics; a growing belief that information is a fundamental aspect of nature. Several examples of common phenomena, such as the double-slit experiment, are discussed to show how the proposed model of light quanta provides a simpler and more consistent explanation of experimental results and removes many of the apparent mysteries.
There are two opposing points of view on the nature of light: the first one manifests the wave-particle duality as a fundamental property of the nature; the second one claims that photons do not exist and the light is a continuous classical wave, while the so-called “quantum” properties of this field appear only as a result of its interaction with matter. In this paper we show that many quantum phenomena which are traditionally described by quantum electrodynamics can be described if light is considered within the limits of classical electrodynamics without quantization of radiation. These phenomena include the double-slit experiment, the photoelectric effect, the Compton effect, the Hanbury Brown and Twiss effect, the so-called multiphoton ionisation of atoms, etc. We show that this point of view allows also explaining the “wave-particle duality” of light in Wiener experiments with standing waves. We show that the Born rule for light can easily be derived from Fermi’s golden rule as an approximation for low-intense light or for short exposure time. We show that the Heisenberg uncertainty principle for “photons” has a simple classical sense and cannot be considered as a fundamental limitation of accuracy of simultaneous measurements of position and momentum or time and energy. We conclude that the concept of a “photon” is superfluous in explanation of light-matter interactions.