Quantum computers, hypothesized in 1980s, use concepts of superposition and entanglement phenomena. Although theoretical propositions and associated search algorithms for accurate measurements are being generated, the development of practical quantum computers themselves are advancing very slowly requiring enormous time and investments. The underlying concepts of a quantum computer are not new to the optical domain. However, the crucial enabling concepts of Entanglement and Superposition Principle are remaining clouded under the unresolved postulates, Wave-Particle Duality (WPD), and Wave Packet Reduction (WPR), implicating incompleteness in the interpretations of the mathematical formalism behind Quantum Mechanics. The WPD debate started during late1600 between Newton and Huygens. Young’s resolution of WPD through his double-slit experiment in 1802 was effectively overturned by Einstein’s interpretation of photoelectric effect as due to “indivisible light quanta”. However, Einstein disowned his “light quanta” postulate shortly before his death in1955, even though it had earned him the Nobel Prize. We resolve WPD by synthesizing Newton’s and Maxwell’s concepts and assume atoms do emit quanta but propagate as time-finite exponential pulses. This assumption also resolves WPR for light-matter interaction with the assumption that Schrodinger’s ψ represents atom’s internal dipolar amplitude stimulations. This over-turns Born’s interpretation that ψ only represents the abstract mathematical probability amplitude, rather than the physical “internal amplitude stimulation” of the quantum entity. However, our concept of atomic pulse emission forces us to re-derive the expression for the N-slit grating-spectrometer response since the classical derivation uses CW light, which does not exist. This pulsespectrometric response function strengthens our postulate since the grating response to the exponential pulse appears to be the convolution of a Lorentzian spectrum with the classical CW response function of the grating. The Fourier Transform of an exponential function is Lorentzian and QM predicts spontaneous emission line width to be Lorentzian. Then, conceptually one can extend the grating-expression (with N=2) to get the double-slit pattern. This approach preserves the classical causality that each of the two slits, like the N-signals out of a grating, are physically real and jointly stimulate the quantum detector array at the far field to generate the “Local” cosine fringes. The detector array executes the square modulus operation on its imposed dipolar amplitude stimulation and absorbs the necessary energy to fill up their quantum cups. Hence the double-slit pattern must also be “Local”, just as the N-slit grating spectrum is generated locally at the exit spectral-plane of the spectrometer. This removes the need to believe that “single photons” mysteriously generate the double slit pattern.
Quantum computers, hypothesized in 1980s, use concepts of superposition and entanglement phenomena. Although theoretical propositions and associated search algorithms for accurate measurements are being generated, the development of practical quantum computers themselves are advancing very slowly requiring enormous time and investments. The underlying concepts of a quantum computer are not new to the optical domain. However, the crucial enabling concepts of Entanglement and Superposition Principle are remaining clouded under the unresolved postulates, Wave-Particle Duality (WPD), and Wave Packet Reduction (WPR), implicating incompleteness in the interpretations of the mathematical formalism behind Quantum Mechanics. The WPD debate started during late1600 between Newton and Huygens. Young’s resolution of WPD through his double-slit experiment in 1802 was effectively overturned by Einstein’s interpretation of photoelectric effect as due to “indivisible light quanta”. However, Einstein disowned his “light quanta” postulate shortly before his death in1955, even though it had earned him the Nobel Prize. We resolve WPD by synthesizing Newton’s and Maxwell’s concepts and assume atoms do emit quanta but propagate as time-finite exponential pulses. This assumption also resolves WPR for light-matter interaction with the assumption that Schrodinger’s ψ represents atom’s internal dipolar amplitude stimulations. This over-turns Born’s interpretation that ψ only represents the abstract mathematical probability amplitude, rather than the physical “internal amplitude stimulation” of the quantum entity. However, our concept of atomic pulse emission forces us to re-derive the expression for the N-slit grating-spectrometer response since the classical derivation uses CW light, which does not exist. This pulsespectrometric response function strengthens our postulate since the grating response to the exponential pulse appears to be the convolution of a Lorentzian spectrum with the classical CW response function of the grating. The Fourier Transform of an exponential function is Lorentzian and QM predicts spontaneous emission line width to be Lorentzian. Then, conceptually one can extend the grating-expression (with N=2) to get the double-slit pattern. This approach preserves the classical causality that each of the two slits, like the N-signals out of a grating, are physically real and jointly stimulate the quantum detector array at the far field to generate the “Local” cosine fringes. The detector array executes the square modulus operation on its imposed dipolar amplitude stimulation and absorbs the necessary energy to fill up their quantum cups. Hence the double-slit pattern must also be “Local”, just as the N-slit grating spectrum is generated locally at the exit spectral-plane of the spectrometer. This removes the need to believe that “single photons” mysteriously generate the double slit pattern.
Einstein’s 1905 paper on the photoelectric effect successfully modeled the published data while explicitly defining light as “indivisible light quanta”. One of the key successes of Quantum Mechanics (QM) of 1925-26, is the release of discrete packet of energy hv during any quantum level transitions in atoms and molecules. These two modern successes have overturned the mathematical and experimental knowledge developed over several centuries behind the optical science and engineering, without successfully bridging the knowledge gap epitomized by the still unresolved “wave-particle-duality” (WPD). Note that, optical science and engineering fields are still thriving using Huygens-Fresnel diffraction integral (HF-DI) of 1817 and Maxwell’s wave equations of 1876, without any controversy. This chapter resolves this dichotomy by eliminating the need for WPD. We provide a model for the atomic emission as a discrete packet of energy hv, as required by QM, but which evolves and propagates out as a Maxwellian classical exponential wave packet, while diffractively spreading out obeying the HF-DI. The continuing need to accept the magical WPD arises because we have not been systematically and explicitly exploring the two-step physical processes which take place during light-detector interaction before the photoelectric data is generated by our apparatus. The two steps are: (i) Linear amplitude-amplitude stimulation induced on the detecting dipoles by the light wave vector; (ii) which is then followed by the quadratic energy absorption step by the detector. If the detector is an LCR oscillator (for radio waves), or an old fashioned Bolometer (for higher frequencies), we would not observe any quantumness in the data. But, when we use a modern quantum photodetector using higher frequency EM waves, we can count highly amplified current pulses of electrons, generated out of each one of the released electron, bound quantum mechanically inside the detector.
This letter proposes an explanation for the century-old puzzle of the wave-particle-duality of light, which thousands of physicists, including Einstein, Plank, Feynman …, have been trying to resolve. Since a ‘particle ’ is localized in space, it is mathematically characterized here as an impulse-function in space. Then it is argued that if this ‘particle’ has anything to do with waves then we can know it by taking Fourier-transform of the impulse-function in space. When Fourier-transformed into wave-number-domain; we find that a ‘particle ’ should contain a wide ‘set ’ of waves, and not just a single frequency. Then we show that in the experiments performed so far [1] the red lasers had significantly wide line-width, means the sources have been producing a wide set of waves, and not just a pure single frequency. Similarly, in the single-particle interference-experiments incandescent filament-lamps were used with green filters inserted to isolate single photons; but it is obvious that at the frequencies of light very narrow-band-filters are not yet technically feasible, so the green filters used allowed significantly wide band of waves. So in the experiments performed so far we got ‘particles ’ localized in space. And in the double-slit-interference-experiments this wide band of waves passed from both the slits, interfered like waves, and whenever and wherever they got coherently added, a ‘particle ’ called ‘photon ’ got detected. Atoms emit short-duration pulses of radiation, so their Fourier transform contains a wide band of frequencies. And at the time of detection, an atom needs only a small piece of continuous ‘wave’, of a suitable duration, amplitude and frequency, for ejection of an electron. So it is concluded here that: emission and detection of light is in the form of ‘photons’; whereas its propagation in space is in the form of a wide band of ‘waves’. 2
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 Young’s double-slit experiment played a crucial role in establishing the wave nature of light. In this chapter, the shocking result that incident electrons yield a similar interference pattern as that formed by light waves is described. It is shown that the only way the experimental results could be explained is via a wavefunction description of electrons. It is also shown that the interference fringes disappear if the which-path information becomes available. This is the essence of wave–particle duality. The first of the Einstein–Bohr debates on wave–particle duality and Bohr’s principle of complementarity in the double-slit experiment are also discussed. The counterintuitive notions of delayed choice and quantum eraser effects showing how the availability or erasure of information generated in the future can affect how the data in the present can be interpreted are presented. Quantum interference is responsible for novel phenomena like interaction-free measurement and counterfactual communication.
The Einstein’s program enables a theoretical economy for quantum double slit experiment, in its wave-particle duality behavior, with the unification of first and second quantifications for light and matter. It introduces a space-like amplitude function u(r,t), which completes the usual time-like functions ψ(r,t) of quantum mechanics and quantum fields. The Einstein’s program is founded upon a scalar field propagating at speed of light c. It forms a common relativist framework, for classical and quantum properties of matter and interactions. Matter properties derive from standing waves, and interactions from progressive waves. The classical domain arises in the geometrical optics approximation, when frequencies are infinitely high, and then hidden. The quantum domain corresponds to wave optics approximation. Adiabatic variations of frequencies yield electromagnetic interaction and dynamical laws of energy-momentum conservation and least action principle.
There are several integration problems of fundamental physics that still lack coherent solutions, the case in point being wave-particle duality. While empiricism and mathematical modelling have served physics well, they have not yet been able to achieve integrated causal models. Conventional theories and approaches have only provided partial solutions, and it is possible that a more radical reconceptualisation of fundamental physics may be required. This work comes at the issue from a totally different approach: it applies design thinking to the problem. The result is the cordus conjecture, which proposes that the photon, and indeed every matter ‘particle’, has an internal structure comprising a 'cordus': two reactive ends that each behave like a particle, with a fibril joining them. The reactive ends are proposed to be a small finite distance apart, and energised [typically in turn] at a frequency. When energised they emit a transient force pulse along a line called a hyperfine fibril [hyff], and this makes up the field. This concept is used to explain the path dilemmas of the single photon in the double-slit device, and the wave behaviour of light including the formation of fringes by single photons and beams of light. In addition it provides a tangible explanation for frequency. It also yields new quantitative derivations for several basic optical effects: critical angle, Snell’s law, and Brewster’s angle. Thus the cordus structure offers an alternative conceptual explanation for wave-particle duality.