It is the purpose of this paper to explain the fact that in the inter-atomic transfer of energy, whilst the quantitative aspect of the transfer seems to demand a corpuscular theory of energy, the qualitative aspect, (i.e. the path traken by the energy) seems to demand a wave theory. The suggested explanation may be summarised thus: hypothesis (i) During the transfer process corpuscles and electromagnetic waves both exist, but the energy resides solely in the corpuscles. Hypothesis (ii) The presence of the electromagnetic fieldinvolves a distortion of space-time, and the patbstaken by the corpuscles are determined by the condition that they must correspond to geodesics in this distorted spacetime. [...]
It is the purpose of this paper to explain the fact that in the inter-atomic transfer of energy, whilst the quantitative aspect of the transfer seems to demand a corpuscular theory of energy, the qualitative aspect, (i.e. the path traken by the energy) seems to demand a wave theory. The suggested explanation may be summarised thus: hypothesis (i) During the transfer process corpuscles and electromagnetic waves both exist, but the energy resides solely in the corpuscles. Hypothesis (ii) The presence of the electromagnetic fieldinvolves a distortion of space-time, and the patbstaken by the corpuscles are determined by the condition that they must correspond to geodesics in this distorted spacetime. [...]
Light quanta The history of the corpuscular and wave controversy in optical theory is well known. At the end of the last century physicists had no doubt as to the wave character of light, and the acceptance of the wave theory meant the rejection of the corpuscular theory. The possibility of both being correct and helpful to one another had not been much thought about and still less explored. At about this time Planck's quantum theory appeared and was soon followed in 1905 by Einstein's theory of ‘light quanta’ to explain the photo-electric effect, for which the wave theory alone had utterly failed to account. Einstein assumed that radiation exists in discrete ‘quanta’ of energy hν , where ν is the frequency; thus a quantum is a separate thing, like a corpuscle, and has a frequency associated with it, like a wave. There was a blend of the two older theories involved. This idea has been generalised by the speculations of Louis de Broglie, who pointed out the important clue given by the theory of relativity, namely, that of the identity of mass and energy, so that the conservation of mass is therefore also the conservation of energy. This suggested to him that all forms of energy (including radiation) should have an atomic structure, like matter; and that the atoms of energy are grouped round certain singular points, forming electrons, light quanta, and the like.
The physical principle at the beginning of electromagnetic waves is different from that of light. In fact electromagnetic waves are produced by modulation of current intensity of conduction electrons in metals that generates an electromagnetic field in the space. Light instead is made up of energy corpuscles, named photons, that are produced by electron quantum jumps among energy different levels of atom. In this paper a transition frequency from the wave nature of electromagnetism to the corpuscular nature of light is defined. We prove further that diffraction isn't an exclusive property of waves and an original interpretation of diffraction according to the corpuscular theory is furnished utilizing the Fourier integral. A theoretical explanation on propagation of photon is finally given through the new concept of electromagnetic nanofield.
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.
Be this as it may, it seems worth our while to try to examine the matter from various angles. A point of view that I have previously touched on in these lectures and that does suggest itself is this, that our present difficulties in physical science are bound up with the notorious conceptional intricacy inherent in the idea of the continuum. But this does not tell you much. How are they bound up? What precisely is the mutual relationship? If you envisage the development of physics in the last half-century, you get the impression that the discontinuous aspect of nature has been forced upon us very much against our will. We seemed to feel quite happy with the continuum. Max Planck was seriously frightened by the idea of a discontinuous exchange of energy, which he had introduced (1900) in order to explain the distribution of energy in black-body-radiation. He made strong efforts to weaken the hypothesis, and, if possible, to get away from it, but in vain. Twenty-five years later the inventors of wave mechanics indulged for some time in the fond hope that they had paved the way of return to a classical continuous description, but again the hope was deceptive.
At the beginning of the century doubts were growing about the whole edifice of classical physics, including the laws of mechanics in their Lagrangian and Hamiltonian forms, of statistical thermodynamics, as formulated by Boltzmann and Gibbs, and of optics, namely Maxwell’s and Fresnel’s theory. Einstein proposed that electromagnetic radiation exists in discrete quanta whilst propagating in space as well as during the emission or absorption processes. Scattering by free electrons is a common interaction connected with the absorption of electromagnetic radiation. If the electromagnetic energy is large compared with the ionization energy, the atomic electron can be treated as free. The characteristic features of the scattered radiation have been explained by Compton, on the basis of an elastic collision of a photon with a free electron, where both energy and momentum are conserved. The concept of the matter wavelength holds for both relativistic and non-relativistic particles, provided that the appropriate form of momentum is used.
Einstein, in his later years, expressed deep dissatisfaction with the concept of ‘light quanta’, questioning whether the wave-particle duality, could be more fundamentally understood. In response to this fundamental legacy, we propose “Einsmax Theory of Light Quanta and Massless Particles”, which treats light as comprising two separable, yet interdependent components each component fulfilling separate roles in physical interaction: a light wave is responsible for carrying energy, while massless glittering particles (corpuscles) responsible only for intensity of brightness. ‘Einsmax theory’ retains all Maxwellian and quantum mechanical formalism. This theory adds an additional highlight to the amplitude of the light wave of the photon to be vested with the quantum levels as 1,2,3,4… n, acting as energy storage tanks for emission and absorption of light energy. The implications span quantum optics, photodetection and foundational interpretations of light matter interaction. We present, thought experiments and observational set ups, inspired by macroscopic imaging phenomena, such as long-distance photography in darkness (as well as ‘Camera Obscura’) to illustrate this conceptual separation. The clarity of images formed in dark regions, despite an apparent absence of visual corpuscular brightness, suggests the independent role of the wave component in transmission of the image to the camera, while the object being glittered by the corpuscular component, affirming the Truth: “The Light shines in the darkness and the darkness has never put it out”.