The wave model of light was born in the 17th Century and was quickly abandoned in favor of the old Corpuscular Hypothesis on the strength of Newton’s authority. It flourished again in the 19th Century only to be eclipsed once again by the Corpuscular Hypothesis at the turn of the century. The participants at the 5th Solvay Conference reached a compromise in 1926 and finally merged the wave and the corpuscle into an unfathomable concoction known as ‘wave-packet’. This is the official model today, but now it rests on the authority of Niels Bohr. However, the Wave-Packet Hypothesis is not about architecture. The mathematical establishment has turned the argument upside down and incongruously states that light ‘behaves’ as a wave or as a particle depending on the circumstances. There is, therefore, no formal physical configuration of light in Mathematical Physics that a theorist can challenge. Many in the establishment even argue that a mediator is unnecessary and dispose of one entirely in their talks. We compare the wave, particle, field, and wave-packet models championed by Classical Mechanics, Quantum Mechanics, and General Relativity against the Rope Hypothesis to underscore that a new paradigm has emerged in the centuries-old debate.
The wave model of light was born in the 17th Century and was quickly abandoned in favor of the old Corpuscular Hypothesis on the strength of Newton’s authority. It flourished again in the 19th Century only to be eclipsed once again by the Corpuscular Hypothesis at the turn of the century. The participants at the 5th Solvay Conference reached a compromise in 1926 and finally merged the wave and the corpuscle into an unfathomable concoction known as ‘wave-packet’. This is the official model today, but now it rests on the authority of Niels Bohr. However, the Wave-Packet Hypothesis is not about architecture. The mathematical establishment has turned the argument upside down and incongruously states that light ‘behaves’ as a wave or as a particle depending on the circumstances. There is, therefore, no formal physical configuration of light in Mathematical Physics that a theorist can challenge. Many in the establishment even argue that a mediator is unnecessary and dispose of one entirely in their talks. We compare the wave, particle, field, and wave-packet models championed by Classical Mechanics, Quantum Mechanics, and General Relativity against the Rope Hypothesis to underscore that a new paradigm has emerged in the centuries-old debate.
Classical and Quantum Mechanics invoke waves, wave-packets and particles to provide physical interpretations to electromagnetic phenomena.However, these illustrations are neither supposed to be taken literally nor are they advertised as genuinely depicting the real world.Their sole purpose is to represent invisible interactions classically in order to provide a measure of physicality to the mathematical descriptions.It is thus that certain experiments are simulated with extended waves and others with discrete wave-packets.Duality raises questions as to the ad hoc nature of the representation and to the usefulness of abstractions as didactic and explanatory tools.Here we suggest that light has been misdiagnosed.We propose an alternative model that provides a faithful physical interpretation to the fundamental properties of light.We replace the electromagnetic wave with a two-strand rope and simulate the wave-packet as a torsion propagating from atom to atom along this twined entity.The fundamental assumption is that all atoms in the Universe are interconnected.The rope hypothesis justifies and simulates basic features and behaviors of light such as straightness, speed, and orthogonality, and merges light with gravity into a single mechanism.
Have you ever tried to define light? If so, your definition is probably related to vision, the ability to see things. The Merriam-Webster English dictionary defines light as “something that makes vision possible”. However, the definition of the “nature of light” is a complex term already discussed by philosophers of Ancient Greece. In the 17th century, the debate on the matter focused on whether light was a particle or a wave, based on the different properties of light that had been gradually discovered over time. Isaac Newton (1642−1727) was a defender of the corpuscular theory of light, which considered light to be formed by particles, i.e., small pieces of matter, like dust or grains of sand. He was the author of Opticks (1706), the front cover of which appears in Fig. 1.1. Christian Huygens (1629–1695), on the other hand, supported the theory that light is a wave. These are two completely different definitions of the same physical concept. A range of experiments were developed to attempt to clarify this dilemma, but it was only until 1900 when Max Planck (1858-1947) introduced the basis of a theory that would go on to revolutionize scientific thinking, marking the beginning of modern physics: quantum theory. Developed during the 20th century thanks to advances made by scientists such as Niels Bohr, Born, Heisenberg, Schrödinger, Pauli, Dirac, Einstein or de Broglie, quantum theory clarified that light is neither a particle nor a wave, but that it has a dual nature: it behaves like a wave as it spreads but like a particle in its interactions with matter. In this book, we will specify where necessary whether light behaves as a particle or as a wave, although in most cases we refer to rays of light, which always represent the direction of propagation of light.
The long history of the dispute among physicists as to whether matter is composed of particles or waves is reviewed. A turning point came at the dawn of the 20th century in the form of the de Broglie momentum-wavelength and Bohr/Planck energy frequency relations. It was on this basis that Schrödinger developed a quantum mechanical differential equation whose solution came to be known as a wave function. The Born Interpretation of these functions holds that their absolute square constitutes a probability distribution which has been used successfully to make predictions of the properties of the system under discussion. It is pointed out that the phenomenon of light refraction played a key role in the development of both Newton’s corpuscular theory of light and the competing theory of Huygens which looks upon light as consisting exclusively of waves. It is shown that Newton’s failure to predict the decrease in the speed of light as it passes from air into water was not because of his belief in the particle composition of light, but rather because he not did anticipate that the mass of a photon changes upon entering a medium of higher index of refraction n. By assuming that the energy E of light is equal pc/n, where p is the momentum of the photons and c is the speed of light in free space, it is shown that the experimental dependence of the speed the light on its wavelength as it passes through a transparent medium is derived successfully through the use of Hamilton’s Canonical Equations and Newton’s Second Law of Kinetics. It is suggested that the relationship between particles and waves can be understood by noting that the localized properties of matter exhibit themselves in experiments such as the photoelectric effect where attention can be concentrated on the behavior of a single particle. The corresponding wave properties occur when large numbers of particles are observed under exactly similar circumstances, as for example in electron diffraction. ...........
Modern attempts to understand light go back to Newton who considered light to be particles, the so called corpuscular theory, and the other school of Huygens, Young and others. Huygens and Young viewpoint emphasised the wave property. This difference of opinions persisted for close to two centuries till Maxwell theory solidly established light as a wave phenomenon associated with Electromagnetism. A serious schism so to speak was introduced into the theory of light with the understanding of "Light gas", the so called Black Body radiation. Einstein's photon hypothesis and Bose's successful derivation of the Planck spectrum put the corpuscular theory back in place, while classical description continues to be used as well. One may then wonder if this being a classical limit may have to be corrected when dealing with quantum phenomena. To most people's surprise, the classical description was in fact a subset of the full quantum description, and the classical states of light could be shown to be subsumed within the fully quantum description without having to take the limit of Planck's constant h going to zero. This was the resolution provided by E. C. G. Sudarshan's Diagonal representation as the most general formalism for dealing with light.
The contents of the article is mirrored in its title. In science the fact is well-known, that often opposite notions about that or diverse phenomenon result in identical end results, that produces bitter controversies of the opponents. The example can be served by century dispute between the supporters of the wave and corpuscular nature of light, dispute between a system of Ptolemy and Copernicus and many other conflictings in the most miscellaneous areas of science. The wave description of physical phenomena cannot be executed without of elastic medium (ether) in which one there is a wave process and is diffused by means of this elastic medium. Therefore description of wave phenomena in a solid, liquid and gas adequately mirrors the test datas and problems here does not arise. There, where the elastic medium misses, it is necessary to invent miscellaneous ruses to distribute the wave description and to these objects: empty world space (world ether in the miscellaneous fancy forms), internal space of atoms (wave functions of probability), fields (short-range interaction of fields by means of transfer of a disturbance from one point to other), electromagnetic radiation of the Maxwell (simultaneous oscillation magnetic and electrical field in an elastic medium). The wave description of world is fine is designed, since above it many generations of the known scientists worked, but main brake here it is necessary to have in stock an elastic medium. There, where it no or there are doubts in its existence, a field for critics there is opened. In the formal-mathematical description of the world the elastic medium is not necessary any more. Record a wave equation and decide it for the diversified cases. Though in mathematical relation such description of the world perfectly, but the physical sense of mathematical manipulations is lost. Specially it notably in a quantum mechanics. As a consequence, the similar description it is easy to subject a severe critic. To be salvaged from of intrusive critics, it is necessary to invent completely fancy notions about a microcosmos, which one do not have conformity in a macroworld. Thus, the unity of the world is upset, that directly contradicts fundamental laws of universe. The absence of physical sense is the main unremovable brake of the formal-mathematical description of the world. The corpuscular description of the world, basically, is a merit of Newton. Because of small number of the supporters of such description «have defeated» wave notions. The main brake for of corpuscular world was established by Newton, by formulating the law even and rectilinear motion of free bodies. This law has become force majeure for explanation of an interference, polarization and some other properties of light. Attempts to mate the wave description with corpuscular (wave-corpuscle dualism of microparticles [1]) are originally doomed on a fall because of a principled difference between a wave and particle. The ether is not necessary for the corpuscular description of the world in any to the form, therefore photon, for example, billions of years not «being spread» can move in space, that is impossible from the point of view of the wave description of its motion. The main lack of the corpuscular description of the world consists in incompletness of official toolkit for such description. Only new corpuscular quantum physics has entered notion about originating of a gravidynamic field at motion of gravitational charges and bound with this fact by screw motion of free bodies. It has allowed to revise many fundamental rules of classic physics and quantum mechanicses and to realise a capability of the corpuscular description of the world to the full. Unfortunately, it has taken place after in heads of the scientists strongly was fixed paradigm, designed Einstein and fathers of a quantum mechanics. This paradigm had time knock home in heads of millions students and even of the homemakers. In outcome new scientific paradigm on the basis of new physics meets aggressive hostility. It, certainly, temporary phenomenon and the victory new paradigm in science is foregone, as was already repeatedly. It is a pity, that this the temporary interval, usually, exceeds temporary existence of the person in the land of the living, and orthodoxes permanently self-reproduction by conservative science.
The famous 1927 Solvay Conference was considered a turning point in the world of Physics. The scientific realists like Albert Einstein had lost and the instrumentalists like Niels Bohr had won the fundamental conflict. Since then Physics has followed the path of the instrumentalists in which Quantum Physics has been determined by the concept of Elementary Particles and Probability Waves. Until May 2013, when for the first time a photo had been made of the Probability Waves Inside the Hydrogen Atom . It should be impossible to make a photo of a non-existing complex probability wave with mass zero But the fact could not be denied anymore that scientists had succeeded to make the “complex” and the “non-existing” quantum mechanical “Probability Wave” visible. New discoveries like “Photonic Molecules” and “Photon-Photon Interaction” require a new interpretation of the Copenhagen Interpretation . Since the Copenhagen Interpretation there is still no clarity about the physical interpretation of the Quantum Mechanical “Probability Wave Function”This Manuscript describes a third unknown interpretation of the Quantum Mechanical “Probability Wave Function”. A fundamental physical interpretation that will change the generally accepted Copenhagen Interpretation. This Manuscript will answer the fundamental question: Does an alternative theory exist in which the existence of this particular photo, of the Quantum Mechanical Probability Wave within the Hydrogen Atom, could be explained. And that the famous photo of the Hydrogen Atom can be explained in a logical and a simple way. To find the answer, we have to go back in time. Back 300 years in time to the moment when Isaac Newton discovered the beauty and one of the many secrets of the light. The moment when science walked away from light. And we return to the fundamental question: “Is it possible to build Matter out of Light (confined electromagnetic waves)?” To answer this question if it is possible to build Matter out of Light, we first have to answer the question how we have come to this world of Probability Waves and Elementary Particles and Quantum Physics.Louis de Broglie described in 1924 in his PhD thesis the wave properties of matter. Erwin Schrödinger published in 1926 the well-known Schrödinger wave equation with the characteristic spherical and elliptical wave solutions. To describe these material waves, the immediately and first explanation was: “There is only one possibility. These are “Electromagnetic Waves”. De Broglie Waves are ” Light Waves”. Because these were the only waves, known in the world of Physics, that could travel through vacuum. But there was a fundamental problem. These material waves, discovered by Louis de Broglie and mathematically described by Erwin Schrödinger could never be solutions of the well-known 4 linear equations of James Clerk Maxwell. The material waves were spherical and elliptical solutions of confinement and that was impossible for the solutions of the linear Maxwell Equations. According to the linear Maxwell Equations, superposition is possible but Electromagnetic Interaction and Electromagnetic Confinement can only be described by a set of non-linear differential equations. To solve this fundamental problem a new set of 3 non-linear Electromagnetic Equations (Equation 5 in this manuscript) has been developed which replaces the well-known 4 linear Maxwell Equations and the possible solutions of Equation (5) are also Spherical and Elliptical solutions of confinement. Table 1 in this manuscript presents a number of Electromagnetic Spherical Confinements as solutions of Equation 5a .A second problem was that the model of the atom of Bohr could not hold. How could an electron be everywhere at the same time in a kind of a spherical shell surrounding the nucleus. And be a particle at the same time. And Bohr found a compromise to declare the “De Broglie” waves to be the probability waves. Two problems were solved. Bohr’s planetary model could hold. And there was a name for the unknown material waves, discovered by Louis de Broglie and mathematically described by Erwin Schrödinger. The theory of “Probability Waves, Elementary Particles and Quantum Physics” had been created.