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).
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 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 puzzles of quantum mechanics are: 1. what is the medium for the photon and for the electron wave? i.e. what is waving? 2. particle interference pattern 3. observer effect. 4. entanglement. In Quantum Erasure and Double-Slit experiments, how does the emitter know to direct the photon two both slits or only to one slit? And how does the detector know where to detect the photons to form an interference pattern and not a bell-shaped (Gaussian) pattern or vice versa? This paper proposes a few, closely related, simple and subtle laws of nature governing quantum phenomena. Some of the findings in this paper are: 1. A photon is emitted in two steps: the creation of photon path and the emission of the photon 2. Although (almost) all of the energy of the photon is localized in space, the photon extends to infinity. An extremely small energy of the photon, which we call the 'precursor wave' in this paper, extends to infinity. The instant the photon is emitted, its precursor wave creates a path to infinity; it appears instantaneously in all its path to infinity, with infinitely small energy density. The precursor wave serves as the 'highway' for the propagation of the main energy packet. However, to conserve the principle of causality, we assume that the tip of the photon propagates at a speed billions times the speed of light. Thus, there are two speeds associated with the photon: the speed we know as c and the speed at which the photon length increases. 2. A photon will be emitted only towards an absorber. A photon is emitted by the interaction of the emitter and a detector. It is obvious that a photon will not be emitted if there is no emitter. Nor will a photon be emitted if there is no detector . Once a photon is emitted, however, it exists objectively, autonomously. The photon is emitted only after its path is determined by the interaction of the emitter and the absorber, at the instant of emission. 3. The photon energy will be concentrated where there is higher wave amplitude, i.e higher intensity of oscillation of electric and magnetic fields. This results in 'dragging' of the electromagnetic energy by the wave, hence eliminating the need for any medium. It is also proposed that single photon interference is a quantum phenomenon whereas two photon interference is a classical phenomenon. Similar laws hold for the electron. The 'medium' for the electron wave is the electron (the electron mass density field) itself. Where there is higher intensity of electron wave/oscillation, there will be higher electron mass density. This means that the electron wave 'drags' the electron with itself. Therefore, no exotic 'medium' is required for the photon and for the electron wave.
During these three years we focused on several topics in quantum otpics and quantum electrodynamics. A central theme in our investigations is that of the photon wave function. Can quantum optics and quantum electrodynamics experiments be described simply, in position space, with the help of a wave function describing the photon(s) featured in the experiment ? The answer to that question is not quite obvious: the usual description of photons takes place in the reciprocal space of wave vectors. But these experiments call for a wave mechanical description in the position representation, as is done in quantum mechanics textbooks in situations featuring massive particles. Moreover, in a recent experiment [1], single photon trajectories through a Young two-slit setup have been observed. In order to try and describe these trajectories formally, it is natural to build a wave mechanical formalism for photons. We therefore studied in detail the formal construction of the photon wave function, an object which was little studied until the 1990s. We also studied the properties of the photon wave function in the presence of sources.To do that, we considered several open (interacting) quantum systems. We saw that there exists in principle an infinite number of possibilities when defining the photon wave function. We emphasised several criteria on the basis of which it appears that only three choices for the wave function are interesting. One of them coincides with an object introduced and used by Glauber [2] to study light detection andthe correlations of the electromagnetic field in the quantum regime. We also saw that, in the absence of sources, the propagation equation for a single photon is formally equivalent to Maxwell’s equations. At low photon numbers, the wave function formalism can be very useful. We adapted it to interacting systems,first, to cavity quantum electrodynamics (QED) [3], in particular to the experiments carried out by Serge Haroche’s group [4]. We proposed a simple model to describe photons in QED cavities. With this model, and with the helpof the photon wave function, we studied the propagation of photons escaping a cavity. We also constructed the Lindblad master equation without introducing nonunitary quantum jumps (also see [5]). We finally investigated the spacetime evolution of a photon which is emitted during the decay of an atomic electron. After having carefully studied the dynamics of the electronic decay, especially at very short times [6, 7], we set out to describe the emitted electromagnetic field as rigorously as possible. This emitted field, surprisingly, does not evolve causally. Though this is not entirely unexpected in view of Hegerfeldt’s theorem, which states [8] that causality is impossible for quantum systems which are described by a Hamiltonian with a spectrum which is bounded by below, we identified [9] two other sources of non causality. One of them was predicted qualitatively by Shirokov [10], while the other one, which is completely new as far as we can tell, is still to be better understood
Photons and electrons One of the great technical achievements of the second half of the 20th century was the invention of the laser. With its help extremely intense light could be produced. Furthermore, it even became posssible to excite a single resonator mode so that both the frequency and the propagation direction of the emitted radiation field are extraordinarily sharp. The mere existence of such high-intensity single-mode fields – the real problem that was ingeniously solved was to generate them – is no matter of surprise. We know from classical electromagnetic theory that the amplitude of a monochromatic electromagnetic field can take on arbitrarily large values. This is a direct consequence of the linearity of Maxwell's equations. What does this mean for quantized radiation fields? Certainly, the mentioned property of classical fields must also be retained in the quantum mechanical description. Since the electromagnetic energy is quantized in ‘packets’ of magnitude h ν (photons), the number of photons in a given mode must be unlimited, in principle. All this is very well known. However, it becomes noteworthy when we compare the behaviour of photons with that of electrons. Amazingly, it turns out that an electronic quantum state can be occupied by one electron, at maximum. (Strictly speaking, in the description of the electronic state the spin variable must be included.) This drastic difference in the collective behaviour of photons and electrons could, in fact, not be expected from what we know from single photons and electrons. Both of them have particle-like as well as wave-like properties. However, when many of them are present, they exhibit quite different a demeanour.
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.
In quantum mechanics, light cannot be described in terms of waves and particles at the same time. However, the question about light "as it really is" implies a description that is independent from the constraints of measurement. It is rather preferable to incorporate both aspects in a causal ontological theory, especially if it simplifies explanation and improves predictions. Hence, the photon can be described as an extended longitudinal association of discrete indivisible constituents, which are held together by the effect of their own waves on each other. The same waves can then be used to interpret the force of interactions between different pulses of light, or between light and matter. The concept of wavemediated interaction between sub-photonic entities is entirely consistent with the observations of quantum mechanics. The key is to assume that elementary sources of waves never collide, and that they have constant parameters. Novel experimental implications follow from this approach. For example, the speed of propagation of changes within magnetic or electrostatic fields may not be equal to the speed of light. Also, interference fringes should be detectable beyond the volume of overlap of two non-entangled beams, but only in special experimental settings.