Within the framework of the ‘Pairwise Interference Model’ of light–matter interaction, it is postulated that light particles follow definite trajectories, and thus, for example, in the double-slit experiment, a particle can pass through only one of the two slits. On this premise, the interference of two photons is examined in greater detail. It is hypothesized that the interference of a photon pair requires the involvement of matter and, initially, that both molecular excitations and photons oscillate at the same frequency and that the continuity of the oscillation is not disrupted by absorption and emission. The molecular excitations in the light source are supposed to oscillate synchronously. Both photons arrive at the same point on the detector but may travel along different paths and therefore arrive at different times. Under these conditions, their phase difference, φ(2) – φ(1), is always zero. Consequently, no interference pattern can form on the detector screen and therefore the assumptions made are incorrect. Alternatively, one may assume that only the photon oscillates, whereas the excitation stores the phase, φ, possessed by the photon at the instant of absorption. In this case, φ(2) – φ(1) corresponds to the difference in travel times modulo the oscillation period, and an interference pattern can form. However, this assumption is problematic for some reasons: the nature of the matter-based memory remains unclear; according to the special theory of relativity, no time elapses for a particle travelling at the speed of light, meaning that it cannot oscillate; and the assumption contradicts Bohr’s correspondence principle. In a classical wave, the phase information propagates away from the source at the wave velocity without changing. This leads to the alternative possibility that the excitations oscillate, whereas the photons do not. Instead, the photons transport information about the phase of the excitation at the instant of emission. As can be shown, in this case, φ(2) – φ(1) likewise corresponds to the difference in travel times modulo the oscillation period. However, this hypothesis contradicts the de Broglie postulate, according to which all particles exhibit wave properties, and the relation ε = hν must therefore be interpreted differently. It also raises the question of how the dimensions of a laser, specifically the mirror separation, can influence the wavelength of the amplified light if a photon has no wavelength. Using replicator dynamics and the ‘Pairwise Interference Model’ of light–matter interaction, a simulation demonstrates that, in a simplified laser model, assuming that photons do not oscillate whereas excitations do, self-organisation gives rise to a phase pattern in the sequence of photons within the emitted light beam that corresponds to the pattern obtained by discretising a classical wave. Thus, coherent light can exhibit wave properties even if photons themselves do not. Finally, the possibility of how incoherent light acquires wave properties is briefly discussed.
Within the framework of the ‘Pairwise Interference Model’ of light–matter interaction, it is postulated that light particles follow definite trajectories, and thus, for example, in the double-slit experiment, a particle can pass through only one of the two slits. On this premise, the interference of two photons is examined in greater detail. It is hypothesized that the interference of a photon pair requires the involvement of matter and, initially, that both molecular excitations and photons oscillate at the same frequency and that the continuity of the oscillation is not disrupted by absorption and emission. The molecular excitations in the light source are supposed to oscillate synchronously. Both photons arrive at the same point on the detector but may travel along different paths and therefore arrive at different times. Under these conditions, their phase difference, φ(2) – φ(1), is always zero. Consequently, no interference pattern can form on the detector screen and therefore the assumptions made are incorrect. Alternatively, one may assume that only the photon oscillates, whereas the excitation stores the phase, φ, possessed by the photon at the instant of absorption. In this case, φ(2) – φ(1) corresponds to the difference in travel times modulo the oscillation period, and an interference pattern can form. However, this assumption is problematic for some reasons: the nature of the matter-based memory remains unclear; according to the special theory of relativity, no time elapses for a particle travelling at the speed of light, meaning that it cannot oscillate; and the assumption contradicts Bohr’s correspondence principle. In a classical wave, the phase information propagates away from the source at the wave velocity without changing. This leads to the alternative possibility that the excitations oscillate, whereas the photons do not. Instead, the photons transport information about the phase of the excitation at the instant of emission. As can be shown, in this case, φ(2) – φ(1) likewise corresponds to the difference in travel times modulo the oscillation period. However, this hypothesis contradicts the de Broglie postulate, according to which all particles exhibit wave properties, and the relation ε = hν must therefore be interpreted differently. It also raises the question of how the dimensions of a laser, specifically the mirror separation, can influence the wavelength of the amplified light if a photon has no wavelength. Using replicator dynamics and the ‘Pairwise Interference Model’ of light–matter interaction, a simulation demonstrates that, in a simplified laser model, assuming that photons do not oscillate whereas excitations do, self-organisation gives rise to a phase pattern in the sequence of photons within the emitted light beam that corresponds to the pattern obtained by discretising a classical wave. Thus, coherent light can exhibit wave properties even if photons themselves do not. Finally, the possibility of how incoherent light acquires wave properties is briefly discussed.
Light can interfere like a wave in a multi-path experiment, but it also has particle properties when interacting with matter. In a closer look, the interference pattern is created by many individual detections ("clicks"), which do not all occur simultaneously. An established assumption is therefore that a single light particle is capable of interfering with itself by superimposing all possibilities to get from the source to the detector. This is in stark contrast to our experience with macroscopic objects, which always "decide" in favour of only one of the alternative paths.In 2010, Jin et al. (Ref. 15) described an event-based model which allowed the authors to show that an interference pattern consisting of clicks can arise in a multi-path experiment even if photons, like macroscopic objects, only follow one path. To do this, photons must be able to transmit the information about their travelling duration to the detector and the detector must have a basic memory. A threshold function uses the message of several light quanta to decide whether a single detection is initiated, which is not the evidence for a single photon. In this "proof of principle", the authors do not claim that the detector function is a realistic one.In the present paper, this detector is replaced by a material consisting of ionizable molecules whose interaction with light takes place according to a modified version of Einstein's radiation laws. Based on this, a photon pair interaction mediated by matter takes place, which in a multi-path experiment generates an interference pattern of clicks at the detector, even if an arbitrary amount of time elapses between the individual detections. In the present model an interference pattern with minima that have less than half the intensity of the maxima is the result of a peculiar behaviour of the detector: In this case, the entirety of its electrons must be described as a unit (a “field”) with many equidistant energy levels. The results of a simulation are presented which enable the model to be tested in experiments.
According to R. Feynman 1963-1965 [10], the interference pattern that appears on the observation screen in the double-slit experiment with light cannot be explained by classical physics. The detection probability is supposed to result from the superposition of all paths that the photon can take from the source to the detector, the light quantum is self-interfering. However, Jin et al. 2010 [11] showed that this is not necessarily the case. In their computer simulation, they assumed that the trajectory of a photon corresponds to that of a classical particle. Thus, the interference only occurs at the detector with the participation of several photons. Not every photon causes a detection.Tiefenbrunner 2024 [17] investigated the detector further and recognized that particle interference under this and some other conditions presupposes a monochromatic resonator (all permissible energy levels are integer (ℕ0) multiples of a basal energy unit ε, where ε is also referred to as the ‘colour’ of the resonator). A monochromatic two-state system, e.g. a molecule that can only exist in two energetic states (ground and excited) and can only absorb one quantum (with respect to one ‘colour’), is, however, not sufficient for this. This prompted an evaluation of the significance of the monochromatic resonator for the Boltzmann-factor and Planck's radiation law. It turns out that the Boltzmann-factor and thus also the radiation law require resonators and hence are incompatible with two-state systems. The radiation law is derived using a kinetic model for the interaction of light with matter and without a priori use of the Boltzmann-factor, whereby it is also assumed that photons follow classical trajectories.
Light can interfere like a wave in a multi-path experiment, but it also has particle properties when interacting with matter. In a closer look, the interference pattern is created by many individual detections ("clicks"), which do not all occur simultaneously. An established assumption is therefore that a single light particle is capable of interfering with itself by superimposing all possibilities to get from the source to the detector. This is in stark contrast to our experience with macroscopic objects, which always "decide" in favour of only one of the alternative paths.In 2010, Jin et al. (Ref. 15) described an event-based model which allowed the authors to show that an interference pattern consisting of clicks can arise in a multi-path experiment even if photons, like macroscopic objects, only follow one path. To do this, photons must be able to transmit the information about their travelling duration to the detector and the detector must have a basic memory. A threshold function uses the message of several light quanta to decide whether a single detection is initiated, which is not the evidence for a single photon. In this "proof of principle", the authors do not claim that the detector function is a realistic one.In the present paper, this detector is replaced by a material consisting of ionizable molecules whose interaction with light takes place according to a modified version of Einstein's radiation laws. Based on this, a photon pair interaction mediated by matter takes place, which in a multi-path experiment generates an interference pattern of clicks at the detector, even if an arbitrary amount of time elapses between the individual detections. In the present model an interference pattern with minima that have less than half the intensity of the maxima is the result of a peculiar behaviour of the detector: In this case, the entirety of its electrons must be described as a unit (a “field”) with many equidistant energy levels. The results of a simulation are presented which enable the model to be tested in experiments.
3.1 Interference of a Single Photon The kinds of study originally conducted by Thomas Young - in particular, the celebrated "double slit" experiment that we briefly examined in Chapter 1 (see Fig. 1) - provide a capacity to reveal far more than the wave nature of light, important as that is. True enough, the observed characteristic fringe pattern, when monochromatic light passes through two closely spaced slits onto a screen, appears to be simply explicable on the basis of waves from each slit undergoing constructive and destructive interference at different positions on the screen. Yet, astonishingly, these patterns of interference are still exhibited when individual photons of a low-intensity input beam reach the screen one at a time, showing that it cannot in fact be a matter of different photons having to interfere with each other. Indeed, Dirac enunciated the general principle that photons can never directly interact with each other. The double slit and other such experiments indicate that each photon interacts in a delocalized, wave-like manner with both slits at the same time. Successive experiments build interference patterns that conform to an exact mathematical distribution formula, but the position at which an individual photon is detected in any particular instance cannot be predicted; this is a quintessential illustration of quantum uncertainty. Using the path integral approach of quantum theory, the phenomenon is more accurately represented by introducing a summation over all possible routes between the source and the screen on which the pattern appears, signifying an entire "lifetime" for each photon involved in the experiment. This relates to the fact that the actual trajectory is unknown without an observation, and thus we only obtain the probabilities of the photon striking the screen at different positions and times; all trajectories (potentialities) must be considered in a superposition. Each route is considered equally probable, and the variation in phase produces quantum interference. The differences in phase of each trajectory, at varying positions on the screen, generates the fringe pattern. An intriguing variation on this experiment involves "marking" the photons so that the actual route of each photon to the screen is known. Remarkably, in such a case, the fringe patterns do not appear because quantum interference cannot occur. A consequence of the observation of the photon route is an effect that, in other quantum mechanical connections, is known as a collapse of the wavefunction. However, it is possible for the fringe patterns to reappear when information on the route of the photons is lost; this is known as a quantum eraser.
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.
If we turn down our light source from 100 million whatever photons a second to, say, just ten a second, we see the problem, if not the screen, very clearly. These last few photons of light head off, one by one, for the screen, some of them hitting the piece of card but the odd one going through a slit. Now, according to common sense, each should be able to land on the screen unaffected by whether the other slit is there-or not. But none of them, no matter how long we wait, will try to land on the dark areas seen in the interference pattern with lots of light. After all, if an individual photon could behave in this way, it might take a long time but, eventually, the screen would record a picture more like the one-slit experiment with the light diffusing evenly, than the interference one. And the individual photons recognise the contradiction. They continue to behave individually as ‘waves’ all on their own. Points where the light particle could go when just one slit is open become unavailable when the other slit is open. (Incidentally, the same thing, scientists have observed, will happen with any small particle-electrons, whole atoms or even molecules will do just as well.) In experiments, the individual particles of light seem to know about the other slit on the piece of card, indeed what is going on elsewhere in the universe. For, in principle at least, the distance between the slits can be any size, and the same interference effect will apply. (Although if the slits were even a metre apart, the screen might need to be on the moon before the deflected light begins to converge.) Suppose we asked our neighbour if we could borrow their particle detector to check whether the light energy is still travelling in ‘whole photons’, rather than splitting into two and going through both slits and thereby getting in and out of phase with each other. We would find, indeed, that it was still travelling as a whole photon, and that this attempted explanation does not fit with observation. But we would find something else too. The mere act of putting the particle detector next to one slit causes the wavy pattern, the ‘interference’ effect, to disappear!