@Charles/Raman

Interference only suggests we are not seeing a particle but a wave- not the randomness of position.

So Feynman was only using this to support his own point of view, rather than emphasizing the wave nature of particles.

But that is what science  and scientists do.

It is easy to be blinkered by scientific dogma.

"We never see a wave" = we never see light . Not even wrong

If it is a wave, position is not defined.  Or, every definition of position we can think of is probabilistic.  Experimentally, it is possible to measure a position, then the only concept of wave can't account for reality.  That's not a point of view, that's a fact.

I think our eyes are constructed to be a detector system for photons. Which is able to operate close to the quantum limit. I.e., in a dark environment it is able to detect single photons. That is for the sensors in the retina, not for the subsequent neural processing.

I have read something similar, within a time interval of order 100 ms. (That is what I referred to as neural processing.) But my main point was that when we see light we actually detect its particle nature, not its wave nature. Or, can we sometimes detect the wave property of light directly with our eyes?

But when I look at the sea during a winter storm at the coast of the Barents sea, I am accustomed to say that I see the waves. And in a boat  I feel the waves too --- ouch...

The way photons interact is always one photon at a time, and it is absorbed in the process.  But that isn't necessarily localized, it depends on the make of the detector.  We often speak of the particle nature when that is localized, but that's not quite correct.  Both corpuscle and wave nature are present at the same time, like in the two slits experiment.  The corpuscle one is manifested by "one at a time" and the wave one by interference.

That's why we say corpuscle or wave "nature", that is, experimental features that are exhibited by classical (theoretical) corpuscles or waves.  But that is a different object, called a particle.  (corpuscle = little body, particle = little part). A classical wave is a propagating, local excitation of some medium, while a particle has a non local behavior. Natures speculatively are different linear facets of the same non linear entity.

Its pointless answering above conn-vention, you will always get a negative

verschteinsie sie. comprenez- vous

From a transactionnist point of view, all this discussion is silly and obsolete. So is the heritage. A very heavy heritage of silly believings, we do not more share.

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_it_pure_fiction_or_not_to_delimit_and_isolate_a_quantic_system

http://jacques.lavau.perso.sfr.fr/Physique/postulates.html

@ Remi

Not complicated. They are not bullets

But waves with a particulate nature which are far  far far smaller,  based on the true Planck mass which is 42 magnitudes smaller than the conventional  Planck  mass, specifically h/c^2, with a frequency.

That is quantum physics  far smaller than we can imagine. In effect all the  oceans compared to a tiny droplet 

Go figure

 Feynman thought corpuscular. Of course it does not work. It has never worked in microphysics.

Remi,    You mentioned:   “So, tell me how in principle, bullets ricocheting off the slits in a classical manner could give an interference pattern?”   Bullets cannot give an interference pattern because they are inert objects.  If a photon is a dynamic particle,  then an interference pattern is possible.  For example,  our work shows that a photon is an oscillating fiber.  Such fiber oscillates about its origin, which is at the mid-range of its oscillation stroke;  the photon’s oscillation strokes occur perpendicular to its translation.  Thus, a waveform is traced (per Maxwell’s differential wave equation) as the photon translates. 

In the slit experiment,  the wave-like motion (perpendicular to the slit) of the photon gives the interference pattern of multiple photon hits on the detection screen,  as each photon fiber collapses to its origin as a single point on the screen.  Electrons,  which consist of such photons in our work,  also display an interference pattern in the slit experiment for the same reason that photons do.

@ Dan: I guess a rather crucial point is the following: at given positions on the screen, it happens tht the probability of a particle being detected there is considerably smaller when both slits are open than when slit 1 is open and slit 2 closed, or viceversa. Hiw can that be explained with (classical) particles, even having internal structure?

Similarly, though that is strictly speaking off-thread, it is essentially impossible, in my opinion, to give a reasonable account of entangled systems and their vipolations of locality.

I do not understand the question:

This experiment is NOT a THOUGHT  idea It has been performed over and over again. You could have googled for it and you would have found the references already dating back to the seventies?!

Electron diffraction in a crystal is an example of a multi-slit and was known in Feynman's time and later criticists wondered why he did not use the example already

The diffraction but with is most easily explained with a wave-like description of the electrons

F. Leyvraz,    As we had mentioned earlier, the photon fiber traces a waveform as it oscillates perpendicular to its translation direction.  Therefore,  such photons will interfere in the double slit experiment the same way that real waves would interfere. 

In response to your last comment,  It is possible to show how unusual phenomena,  understood in QM,  can also be understood classically if the makeup and dynamic structures of fermions and photons are understood.  These include entanglement,  double slit phenomenon,  particles occurring in two states at the same time,  why bulk matter doesn’t collapse under the electric force alone,  wave characteristics of particles,  the violation of the Bell inequality equation, tunneling, etc.

@ Dan Correnti: We must beware of using unclear concepts. If a ``photon fiber'' is in any sense an object, how can it interfere? An oscillating string, for example, may or not go through a slit. But no matter how it oscillates, there will always be more going to any definite point on the screen when both slits are open, than when only one is.

F. Leyvraz,    Although oscillating photon fibers trace waveforms as they translate and are not real waves,  they still interfere with each other similar to real waves from two sources.

Diffraction with dark and light bands also occurs in the single slit experiment, although the bands are not very pronounced.  A light wave cannot interfere with itself,  therefore, development of the bands on the detection screen is not due to interference,  but is attributed to the oscillation of each photon fiber perpendicular to its line of travel and their deflections off the edges of the slit at multiple unique angles.

The distribution of the hits is perpendicular to the long dimension of the slit. The narrower the slit is,  the greater is the angle of spread (distribution of hits).  No diffraction pattern occurs parallel to the slit because the length of the slit allows the photon fibers to pass through unimpeded in this direction.  For a lengthier discussion on the slit experiment, see Wikipedia’s “Double-slit experiment”

In the double-slit experiment, a diffraction pattern, with bands, develops on the detection screen in a manner similar to the single slit experiment. This distribution of the photon fiber hits (diffraction) is also perpendicular to the length of the slits. The bands in the diffraction are more pronounced in the double-slit experiment due to interference (or interaction) between the photons emerging from the two slits.  

For example,  neighbor photons are attracted to each other when they are adequately synchronized,  and they do not group together when not synchronized.  Such interference leads to more pronounced diffraction bands than in the single slit experiment.  This “clumping effect” (resulting in diffraction bands) was found in the Hanbury-Brown & Twist experiment using their stellar interferometer.  The tendency of synchronized bosons to assemble also gives rise to Bose-Einstein correlations and the increased coherency of EM radiation waveforms from lasers as the rate of emitted photons increase.

 @Dan S. Correnti : "A light wave cannot interfere with itself" ? ? ?

Better to read that than to be blind.

F. Leyvraz,  Please consider a few more comments regarding our discussion.  You mentioned:  “An oscillating string [oscillating photon fibers],  for example,  may or not go through a slit.”    Of course,  only the photons that pass through the slit are relevant to the experiment.  We know that a cylindrical B-field,  which is carried by a translating electron,  passes through slits also, as part of the electron, in such experiments.  As such, a majority,  if not all,  of the photons that occurr in line with a slit would pass through in a similar manner.

Some information about single slit experiments is quoted below in italics from the following site: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment.

“If light consisted strictly of ordinary or classical particles, and these particles were fired in a straight line through a slit and allowed to strike a screen on the other side, we would expect to see a pattern corresponding to the size and shape of the slit. However, when this "single-slit experiment" is actually performed, the pattern on the screen is a diffraction pattern in which the light is spread out. The smaller the slit, the greater the angle of spread. The top portion of the image on the right shows the central portion of the pattern formed when a red laser illuminates a slit and, if one looks carefully, two faint side bands. More bands can be seen with a more highly refined apparatus. Diffraction explains the pattern as being the result of the interference of light waves from the slit.”

 If photons were ordinary inert particles,  then the distribution of photon hits on the detection screen would be in accordance with the first sentence of the quote.  Instead,  a diffraction pattern with bands occurs on the detection screen.  Such distribution of photon hits is attributed to interference of light waves with the single slit, as indicated in the last sentence of the quote.  Instead of light wave interference with the slit,  it is interference of oscillating photon fibers with the slit that gives the observed distribution,  as proposed previously.

Jacques,   I already know that you believe Dirac waves are real waves.  In our opinion,  Dirac waves are probability waves.

@Dan S. Correnti : "Jacques, I already know that you believe Dirac waves are real waves. In our opinion, Dirac waves are probability waves."

Pff ! You are still engulfed in the inherited confusion ! Real waves in real world have a destination. You do not send a wagon of phenol cruising everywhere on the rails in the search of an eventual customer. You send it with a destination, because a client have ordered it, and has engaged to pay it. The causality is shared between the vendor and the buyer.

For eighty eight years, the Göttingen-København sect had replaced real waves of the real world by their artifact : ficticious and mathematical "wave functions", representing the half-ignorance-and-half-knowledge of a human physicist, who considers the origin, but denies the destination.

We do not more accept this fiction. We do not more look at the same things, and now we have new tools you do not have.

Everything at the quantum level has frequency and has a wave function,  There is a group wave velocity and a phase wave velocity and if you get that you can begin to understand QM. These waves can be treated as real

@ Charles Francis. The wave equation for the electron is the Dirac's one, with four components. See Dirac at § 69 of The Principles of Quantum Mechanics.

The wave function is not real in the meaning that it can't be measured because of the projection postulate.

 @Charles Francis. So it has spin, and both retrochronous and orthochronous abilities. And you pretended it cannot have spin.

 What do you call "particle" ?

What have you against the wave equation of the electron ?

Charles Francis wrote : "How can you treat as real the wave function ...".

There is no way to make real such a mathematical fiction. Waves are waves, and "wave function" is quite another thing, a fictional thing. Sure they may share the same equations of evolution, but that is all.

@ Charles

Have sussed the spin 1/2 particle , and will publish the four wave projection  soon. 

Jacques,   I know that you rely on the work of the Huygens–Fresnel principle that mathematically describes the self-interference pattern of a single light wave in a single slit experiment.  For example,  the work is based on small imaginary apertures closely spaced within a large real aperture.  Due to this imaginary aperture configuration,  an interference pattern emerging from a single wave is possible.  The premise for this construction is that from every point on the main circular wave emerging at the aperture,  secondary circular waves emerge,  and from every point on the secondary waves,  additional circular waves emerge, etc and etc.

Please keep in mind that the mathematical formulation in the Huygens–Fresnel principle was based on matching experimental results,  not on any physical mechanism that gives the experimental results.  For example,  see the following quote in italics from this site:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huygens%E2%80%93Fresnel_principle.

“The Huygens–Fresnel principle provides a good basis for understanding and predicting the wave propagation of light. However, there are limitations to the principle and differing views as to whether it is an accurate representation of reality or whether Huygens' principle actually does give the right answer but for the wrong reasons."

Based on our work,  the Huygens’ principle gives the right answer but for the wrong reasons as mentioned in the quote.  As previously described on this thread,  our work  shows that the interference pattern of light “waves” emerging from a single aperture is due to the interference between the aperture and oscillating photon fibers that oscillate perpendicular to their translation direction;  such photons,  while translating,  trace a waveform but are not waves. 

Due to such oscillating motion of the photon,  an interference pattern of individual photon hits on the detection screen emerges.  If photons were inert classical particles,  and these particles were fired in a straight line through a slit and allowed to strike a screen on the other side,  we would expect to see a pattern corresponding to the size and shape of the slit.  But,  this is not the case;  instead a diffraction pattern with bands appear.  Such pattern is described by the Huygens–Fresnel principle.

The reasons are right, it is a straigtforward consequence of linearity, and it is the basis of Feynman's paths integral.

Claude,   A quote in italics is given below.  It is taken from the following site:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment

“To summarize, the probability distribution of the outcome is the normalized square of the norm of the superposition, over all paths from the point of origin to the final point, of waves propagating proportionally to the action along each path. The differences in the cumulative action along the different paths (and thus the relative phases of the contributions) produces the interference pattern observed by the double-slit experiment. Feynman stressed that his formulation is merely a mathematical description, not an attempt to describe a real process that we can measure.”

Although, the above quote is in regards to the double slit experiment,  it would be applicable to the single slit experiment if small imaginary apertures closely spaced within the large real aperture are used,  as assumed in the derivation of the Huygens–Fresnel principle.

Dan, I don't understand what you mean. That it be a real process or not has no bearing. The Huygens principle is a mathematical recipe to get the solution of a mathematical wave equation.  The paths integral is precisely the transcription of the Huygens principle, since the action is a fancy name for the phase.  For a wave travelling at constant velocity, the action is just proportional to the time, in other cases it provides a generalization. 

Claude, Both the Huygens method and the paths integral method are based on the interference of waves,  although in both cases,  it has been cautioned by Feynman and others not to assume that wave interference is the cause for the diffracted interference pattern in either the single or double slit experiment.  Instead,  both methods are fitted or probabilistic,  mainly interested in matching experimental results.  This is useful,  but there is a motivation for understanding the underlying mechanism of the process that gives the diffracted interference patterns.  Many of our earlier posts are geared toward this purpose,  and they have proposed how this is possible.

Feynman, like many physicists, pointed out that the wave function is only a calculational device.  That doesn't give wrong reasons to the Huygens principle, which stays at the calculational level.

Again i would think an electron as an EM  wave  with a spherical internal structure with spin etc. Its diffraction pattern is that of a wave

Claude,   Nobody is questioning the efficiency in the use of the Huygens–Fresnel principle and Feynman’s method in the calculation of diffraction patterns with bands in the single and double slit experiments,  respectively.  What is questioned is the reasoning as to why diffraction patterns with bands occur.  For example,  the reasoning that Huygens and Fresnel used in their work is reproduced below in italics,  which is from an earlier post.

“For example,  the [Huygens–Fresnel principle]  is based on small imaginary apertures closely spaced within a large real aperture.  Due to this imaginary aperture configuration,  an interference pattern emerging from a single wave is possible.  The premise for this construction is that from every point on the main circular wave emerging at the aperture,  secondary circular waves emerge,  and from every point on the secondary waves,  additional circular waves emerge, etc and etc.”

As mentioned before,  the following site gave an opinion on this reasoning,  which is reproduced below in italics again.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huygens%E2%80%93Fresnel_principle

“The Huygens–Fresnel principle provides a good basis for understanding and predicting the wave propagation of light.  However, there are limitations to the principle and differing views as to whether it is an accurate representation of reality or whether Huygens' principle actually does give the right answer but for the wrong reasons."

All we are saying,  is the Huygens' principle actually does give the right answer but for the wrong reasons,  which is consistent with the above quote.  Based on our work,  the reason for the diffraction pattern  (calculated by Huygens' principle)  is the interference between the real aperture and individual oscillating photons,  not the reason given by Huygens and Fresnel,  which is self interference of a wave as described earlier.  See Figure 1 in the attachment for a view and description of the photon.  It is an oscillating fiber that oscillates perpendicular to its translation direction;  such a photon,  while translating,  traces a waveform but is not a wave.

Research Derivation of the Electron (Post #2 Updated)

DAn

why copy the full text of Wikipedia for us here? we can all read

In think it is (rather) a disgrace

Dan, you can't reproduce the disappearence of the interference pattern when one of the two slit is closed, or when a detector is put there.

Anyway, that's not the issue.  The Huygens principle describes the propagation of a wave.  If there is no wave, the Huygens principle doesn't have wrong reasons, it has no reasons at all since it doesn't apply.

Be careful to use the vocabulary and the concepts correctly and precisely, you make people lose much time.

It appears from a lot of comments on this site:

that waves are not real  waves.

particles and waves follow every path possible. 

gravitational redshift is not gravitational but accelerated doppler

SR has been translated into some form of  awkward 4D manifold

Singularities   are not really singularties

- and there are fairies at the the bottom of the garden- and trolls at the bottom of this comment.

Claude,   Don’t feel obligated to participate if this is taking too much of your time.  Of course the double slit’s interference pattern disappears when one slit is covered,  but what emerges is a different,  less pronounced,  interference pattern that is associated with a single slit experiment.  Use of the Huygens-Fresnel principle allows the calculation of such pattern in the single slit experiment.  Here,  in italics,  is a more inclusive quote on the subject.

Melvin Schwartz wrote that to consider each point on a wavefront as a new source of radiation, and to add the radiation from all the new sources together, “makes no sense at all”, since  “light does not emit light; only accelerating charges emit light”. He concludes that Huygens’ principle “actually does give the right answer” but “for the wrong reasons”.

We agree that  “light cannot emit light” ;  therefore there must be another mechanism at work  (besides self-interference of a wave-front)  that causes the interference pattern in the single slit experiment.  Please keep in mind that Feynman also stressed that his formulation is merely a mathematical description,  not an attempt to describe a real process that we can measure.

Claude,  we are not trying to undermine your views on waves;  instead we are just proposing a plausible alternative to the idea that light and matter consist of real waves.

I was correct there are trolls at the bottom of the comments

No worries it just proves the point - and may be grounds for removing them

Dan, a priori it was a fair discussion, and I am always ready to help people.  So please, a minimum of respect.  You earned 5 points in the crackpot index, number 5:

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html

I shall then petition for negative trolls to be removed, it is both undesirable and illegal to troll. And there are a lot of people on this site who would agree.

Andrew, sorry but you are the troll.

DNFTT

Andrew and Claude,   Rather than making personal comments,  both of you could be more helpful by explaining how a light wave can interfere with itself,  which is at the crux of this discussion.

Claude,   Of course you have my respect,  but it works both ways.  Although you may not agree, what we are proposing is consistent with the observations in the slit experiments.  So,  it is not a priori.

Lecture about the Huygens principle

Let a linear wave equation in any space. Since the superposition principle holds, at any time the wave function can be decomposed into a sum of delta functions, which we let evolve independently during a time step and then add up again. Each delta function evolves by propagating in every direction, since the initial condition is isotropic, forming a circular wavelet.

That is the mathematical Hyugens principle, which is valid for any linear wave equation in any dimension.  There is a graphical Hyugens principle that is a rule of thumb along the line of the mathematical one, and that doesn't always works.

Now consider the delta functions. It is as if a particle arrived at the considered point from a random direction, and then went off in another random direction. Superposing all these processes, we have the sum over all possible trajectories, or more conventionally, the paths integral.

What does mean the action in this paths integral?  That is to understand by the quantization of the motion of a point particle. In the original one, Schrödinger identified the S function in the Hamilton-Jacobi equation, that is the action, with the phase of the wave function, and so got his equation.

The variation of the phase during a time step is proportional to the classical action along the corresponding trajectory, and it is easy to see that in the formulation of the paths integral, the action takes the place of the phase.

@Pierre Claude Massé : "Each delta function evolves by propagating in every direction, since the initial condition is isotropic, forming a circular wavelet".

No, it is impossible to emit ONE electromagnetic wave in a spherical geometry. Just because no electromagnetic emitter allows that. Polarisations still exist. And remember of the hedge-hogs theorem...

And if it is an individual electromagnetic wave, it is perfectly directional, because its absorber is not every place, but at a defined location.

For obtaining a spherical symmetry, as in the Lambert's law, you must have many uncoordinated emitters, emitting to many many absorbers amongst many many many many many many potential absorbers.

@Massé: "That is the mathematical Hyugens principle, which is valid for any linear wave equation in any dimension."

I don't think that is quite right. What you described is the superposition principle, which is of course true in any dimension in space for any linear wave equation -- because it is a property of linear equations.

The mathematical Huygens principle is a different thing (it is also different from its standard use in physics). It refers to the existence of a rear wave front in partial differential equations of wave type. It does not hold in 2D, for example, because a delta function impulse will not give a signal of finite duration at a distance from the source. Instead, there will be no rear wave front, i.e. a signal will arrive from the emitter at all times after the wave has first hit the receiver. (This can be easily visualized by a model. A point source in 2D is equivalent to a line source in 3D, and because the line source contains emitting points at arbitrary distance from the receiver there will be a signal forever after the arrival of its leading front, even if the signal was triggered at a fixed instant in time along the line and then stopped.)

A practical consideration regarding the Huygens-Fresnel principle:    If we assume that a light wave can interfere with itself,  then we should be able to see an interference pattern of photon hits on the detection screen without the presence of the intermediate plate that contains the single or double slit(s) used in single or double slit experiments.  But, we know this doesn’t happen;  for example, slit(s) are required in order to get a diffraction pattern of interference bands on the detection screen.  Thus,  if a light wave cannot interfere with itself, such diffraction patterns in slit experiments are due to a light form other than the light form that consists of waves.

Dan, you consider a plane wave which is not physical.  Anytime light bumps into obstacles, there is always an interference pattern, even if it is not observable at some definition because the wave length is too short.  Interference also explains why there is no interference pattern.  That's standard textbook physics, take some time to study it.

@Correnti: That photons, electrons or neutrons interfere with themselves in a double slit experiment can be easily seen by reducing the intensity of the source so that there is never more than one particle in the two-slit apparatus at a time. The standard interference pattern builds up nonetheless, though that may take some time. (With neutrons, the experiment has in fact been done in the two-slit arrangement, with an intensity sufficiently low so there was just one neutron in the detector on average all the time. For electrons, one rather uses Bragg reflection, so effectively more than two slits.) In fact, one might interpret this as suggesting that photons, etc. interfere only with themselves and not with the other photons, etc. (Of course, they will interfere with others, if you have several in the same state.)

Your idea that we should be able to see the interference pattern of a single photon hittiing the screen misses the essential point of particle-wave duality: if your detector measures photon positions, you will sse the photons as particles, not as waves. (The interference pattern will then appear in the statistics of events on the screen.) If your detector measures wave properties such as the wave vector of the photon (which the double-slit arrangement does in a rudimentary way), then you will see wave properties. Photon absorbing detectors at the optical level always measure particle properties. But at the microwave level, an antenna is a photon detector that does not measure particle properties - therefore you never detect a single photon with an antenna, but you see their phase properties in its oscillatory response.

K Kassner,   You mentioned:   “Your idea that we should be able to see the interference pattern of a single photon hitting the screen misses the essential point of particle-wave duality”

In our previous post,  it mentioned multiple photon hits on the screen,  and from such “hits”,  an interference pattern develops.  It is probably better to narrow the discussion down to a single slit experiment,  since it too gives a diffraction with interference bands,  although they are not as pronounced as they are in the double slit experiment. 

If photon particles are real waves before they are detected,  then in order for such real waves to collapse into photon particle hits on the detection screen that result in an diffracted interference pattern in the single slit experiment,  such real waves would have to interfere with themselves prior to their detection as photon particles on the detection screen.

Based on previous arguments on this thread,  light or matter waves cannot interfere with themselves as described in the Huygens-Fresnel principle.  Therefore,  as proposed in our work,  photons are oscillating fibers,  which oscillate perpendicular to their translation direction.  Due to these motions,  photons trace a waveform as they translate,  but they are not waves before their detection on the detection screen.  At the detection screen,  the oscillating photon fibers collapse to their origins,  which is at the mid-lengths of their oscillation ranges.  See Figure 1 in the link for the photon.

The cause for the diffracted interference pattern in the single slit experiment is the interference between the oscillating photon fibers and the slit,  and also interference between themselves if the experiment is not performed in a one-by-one sequence,  as you had mentioned. 

As you mentioned,  one never detects a single photon with an antenna, but only their phase properties in its oscillatory response.  Such phase/frequency properties are due to the oscillation that each photon fiber undergoes as it translates.  For example,  shorter oscillation strokes yield higher frequencies,  and per Planck’s equation would yield greater energy.  Photon fibers have different oscillation ranges that give the variable frequencies and phases detected by antennas.  Instead of waves,  it is a continuous stream of in-phase individual photons that the antenna receives.

Research Derivation of the Electron (Post #2 Updated)

 @K. Kassner : "particle-wave duality", "if your detector measures photon positions, you will see the photons as particles", "measure particle properties"...

It seems that all the years you spended in learning these fairy tales of "duality" and "corpuscular aspects" have burned your eyes and your ears... None of these corpuscularists have ever shown the physics of the magical transmutations involved. You have never shown how a photon could transmute into "a particle", meaned as a corpuscle.

Simply the reaction at the screen is of small diameter. That is the corpuscularists shout as "You see ! It is corpuscle !". In the real world, no photon is without a destination : an absorber. Hate it or like it. So no more need of these fairy tales of "particle-wave duality", "if your detector measures photon positions, you will see the photons as particles", "measure particle properties".

@Lavau: "You have never shown how a photon could transmute into "a particle", meaned as a corpuscle."

Not personally, no. But there are effects called Compton effect or photoelectric effect that clearly demonstrate that photons are particles. A particle need not have zero diameter. For something to be called particle, a certain localization of its reactions may be required (clearly given for a photon on the screen) and a certain quantization of its properties (also clearly observed in single-photon reactions -- energy is transferred in packets, never continuously).

@K. Kassner. Again : NO. The Compton scattering only demonstrates that for such electromagnetic interactions, the intrinsic electronic frequency involved is the Dirac-Schrödinger one : 2mc²/h. This paper gives the spatial frequency :

https://www.academia.edu/14484541/Zitterbewegung_Bragg_Compton

However, Erwin Schrödinger had already proved this result in 1932, but only P.A.M. Dirac was enough independant to dare to notice that. Read his Nobel Lecture, 1933 ! Just notice the sentence with the word "Compton".

Jacques,       If you dispute what K. Kassner had stated earlier:   [For something to be called particle, … a certain quantization of its properties (also clearly observed in single-photon reactions -- energy is transferred in packets, never continuously)] ,   then you are denying the work of Planck and Einstein.  Both had established that light or radiation consists of quanta. 

I think it is important to review the concept that light or radiation consists of waves.  The solutions of Maxwell’s differential wave equations show that elements of light have “B” and “E” properties,  and that the magnitudes of such ‘properties’ vary in accordance with the shape of a wave and at a rate equal to “c”.  These properties are orthogonal to each other and to the direction of the unfolding orthogonal waves that describe how the magnitudes of the “E” and “B” properties vary.  The orthogonal waves unfold at a rate of “c”.

In more plain language,  the orthogonal waves that describe the magnitudes of “E” and “B” are not real waves;  they just show how the magnitudes of “E” and “B” vary at a rate of ”c”.  “E” and “B” are just properties of an element of light.  The solutions of Maxwell’s differential wave equations describe the measurement of “E” or “B” of a light element,  not the light element itself.  If the measurement of “E” or “B” is unfolding at the rate of “c”,  then the element of light must be translating at the rate of “c’,  since “E” and “B” are properties of the light element. 

Thus,  an element of light shouldn’t be thought of as a wave,  but instead,  it is an object that has “E” and “B” properties that vary in accordance with a wave that unfolds at a rate of “c”.  An element of light is one of the quanta that Planck and Einstein discovered and called a photon.

 Quanta do NOT deny waves. Quanta do NOT imply anything corpuscular, but imply definite frequencies, in the relativistic frame.

You persist to forget that any individual wave has an individual destination. And both the emitter and the absorber are held by (quantic) conditions of stationarity.

Compton effect can be explained purely as a wave phenomenon.  Electromagnetism only displays "particle" like  behaviour when the "photons" are created or destroyed, and this is tied up with the need fro that interaction to be detectable.  Which it is only in unites of angular momentum hbar.  The atoms which "detect" the photon are quantised themselves, in units of hbar, there is no need to quantise both EM and the atoms.

 @Dan S. Correnti : "the orthogonal waves that describe the magnitude of “E” and “B”".

In your naiveness, you believe anything that was taught. They taught you that the field B is of vectorial nature, and you believe so... Though it has none of the charateristic symmetries of a vector, but quite the opposite.

No luck over no luck, only in 1921 (1st lecture at Princeton) Albert Einstein gave the nine coordinates of the antisymetrical tensor B.

Only in circular polarization, the vector A is perpendicular to the vector E, and they propagate as a helix. But in plane polarization, A and E and the gyror B remain in the same plane all the time in vacuum, without external magnetic field. A is always a quarter wave in advance on E, whichever is the polarization.

The handbook is there : http://deontologic.org/geom_syntax_gyr/

And it is used in the popularization booklet :

http://jacques.lavau.perso.sfr.fr/Physique/Microphysique_contee.pdf

Jacques,   If you dispute that “B” does not act orthogonal to “E” in a manner as described previously, then you are denying the work of Maxwell.

 False again, Dan ! Just open his Treatise, ed 1873 or posthumus edition. § 15 he explains that the math tool he had then at hand is not appropriate, and betrays the symmetries of the gyrors, field B for instance. The first physicist to notice the right tool, made since by Gregorio Ricci Curbastro, was Woldemar Voigt. Voigt used it for the elasticity of crystals.

What is contested is only the "mathematisation" by Oliver Heaviside, 1888, that breaks both the mathematical coherence and the physical coherence with his ""vector product" giving again a vector, or "cross product".

http://deontologic.org/geom_syntax_gyr

Raman,   Although the solutions to Maxwell’s differential wave equations indicate the magnitudes of the “E” and “B” properties of light each vary in accordance with a wave function at the rate of “c”,  one shouldn’t infer from this that light itself are waves.  Instead,  light likely consists of continuous streams of photon particles that have “E” and “B” properties,  and each property varies in magnitude in accordance with a wave.

Thus,  a photon particle shouldn’t be considered an inert particle.  Instead,  a photon particle must have a dynamic structure as given in our work,  from which,  its “E” and “B” properties are created and have varying magnitudes in accordance with the solutions to Maxwell’s differential wave equations for radiation.

The dynamic structure of photon particles would thus,  appear to be responsible for the diffracted interference patterns realized in slit experiments.  Although,  the wave-particle duality of light can be thought of differently,  Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle for charged particles that requires the quantization of light is still maintained,  since light only consists of photon particles, as proposed here.  Fermions,  which consist of photons in our work,  are thus,  dynamic structures also;  and due to this,  interference patterns,  similar to photons,  are realized for fermions in slit experiments.

 Only when you silently add the weird hypothesis "There are no absorbers", then you become dissatisfied with the Maxwell's equations for the photon, and the Dirac's equation for the electron. These wave equations do all the job, provided you drop out the bullshit of "There are no absorbers". They are the best description of the physical reality.

Jacques, Our earlier proposal shows how the wave nature of light (per Maxwell) and the particle nature of light (per Planck and Einstein) are one-and-the-same phenomenon and need not be thought of separately; and from this concept, it is possible to derive the dynamic structure of the electron that is consistent with Maxwell’s work. You have every right to disagree with this, but it isn’t helpful to do so as you do. If you are interested, please see the link that shows this work.

Research Derivation of the Electron (Post #2 Updated)

 "particle nature" is a concept tied to our macroscopic world. No extrapolation to microphysics is valid, nor has ever been validated by experiments. What experiments have confirmed is only that was discovered by Max Planck in 1900 : you can buy or sell electromagnetic interaction only by entire quanta of looping h. It is a syntax, brought by the fact that any spectral line either by emission or by absorption is due to a transition between two stationnary states of the atom or the molecule.

The Compton scattering by an electron is not "quantic" in one meaning : not any quantum of looping h changes of owner (the emitter and the absorber of the photon are elsewhere). And it is "quantic" in the other meaning : the Dirac-Schrödinger frequency of the electron 2m²/h plays the main role. So is true also about the Bremsstrahlung.

http://www.regels.org/Bragg-Compton.htm is in english.

Regarding Compton’s work,  a quote is given below from this site:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compton_scattering

“Compton's experiment convinced physicists that light can behave as a stream of particle-like objects (quanta), whose energy is proportional to the light wave's frequency.”

This view is consistent with our previous proposals on this thread that light is a continuous stream of photon particles;  but instead of their energies being proportional to a corresponding light wave’s frequency as given in the quote,  the photon energies are proportional to their own oscillation frequencies.  These frequencies are the measured frequencies in experiments.  Thus,  light need not be thought of separately as either a wave or a particle,  but can be viewed as one-and-the-same object.

For example,  the following is reproduced from an earlier post:   “Therefore,  as proposed in our work,  photons are oscillating fibers,  which oscillate perpendicular to their translation direction.  Due to these motions,  photons trace a waveform as they translate,  but they are not waves… See Figure 1 in the link for the photon…  One never detects a single photon with an antenna, but only their phase properties in its oscillatory response.  Such phase/frequency properties are due to the oscillation that each photon fiber undergoes as it translates.  For example,  shorter strokes yield higher frequencies,  and per Planck’s equation would yield greater energy.  Photon fibers have different oscillation ranges that give the variable frequencies and phases detected by antennas.  Instead of waves,  it is a continuous stream of in-phase individual photons that the antenna receives.”

The photon, should physicists have it right

Are elementary bits of light

But only if we close our eyes

On other models we could devise

A Quantum Jump! Spare me the pain

Of trying to understand that again.

The field of E and B must be

The answer to exactly what we see.

Excited ataom without abate

Will modify their quantum state

And if those state are not triplets

Make wave, in opposiiung ripplets

Uncertainty, the key we have

To understand how atoms behave.

Angular momentum in bits called hbar

Will reach detectors fromafar

And change their state, oppositely directed,

And then a photon is detected.

And this is how an atom works

Despite the mathematical quirks.

But finally, we all agree

That waves are best seen at sea.

Generally,  in the Compton experiment,  the wavelength shift is zero when the scattered photon’s angle of departure (from the electron) relative to the direction of the incoming photon is zero degrees;  and the wavelength shift is maximum when the scattered photon’s angle of departure relative to the direction of the incoming photon is 180 degrees.  In between zero and 180 degrees,  the wavelength shift gradually increases as the angle of departure of the scattered photon gradually increases,  from zero to 180 degrees,  relative to the direction of the incoming photon.

We are all aware that an electron carries a cylindrical B-field as it translates.  For purposes of this post,  such bound B-field can be considered the electron itself,  since the electron is similarly constructed in our work;  for example, see Fig. 2 in the link.  Such cylindrical B-field consists of oscillating photon fibers that rotate about their origins per Fig. 1 and 2.  The previous post also describes the photon.

A photon that enters the bound cylindrical B-field of the electron,  will interact with one or more of the photon fibers that make up such B-field per Maxwell’s calculus.  A spatial rate of change of “B” within the cylindrical B-field is increased due to the presence of the incoming photon fiber.  This,  in turn,  creates a radial inward-pulling force on the cylindrical B-field,  and a radial outward-pulling force on the incoming circularly twirling photon fiber.  Thus, one (or more) of the circularly rotating photon fibers of the cylindrical B-field undergoes a decrease in its diameter,  while the diameter of the incoming circularly rotating photon fiber increases before it departs the electron.  As a result,  one or more of the circularly rotating photon fibers,  that make up the cylindrical B-field,  have shorter oscillation strokes,  and the incoming circularly rotating photon fiber has a longer oscillation stroke as it departs the electron.  Due to this,  the frequencies of the oscillations of the photon fibers increase and decrease, respectively;  as such,  the wavelength of the scattered photon is greater than it was when it entered the electron’s cylindrical B-field.

Per Compton’s work,  the wavelength shift is zero when the scattered photon’s angle of departure (from the electron) relative to the direction of the incoming photon is zero degrees.  If there is no wavelength shift,  then the incoming photon must have entered the electron’s cylindrical B-field at 90 degrees to the longitudinal axis of the cylindrical B-field,  since this is the only orientation where the incoming photon doesn’t interact with the photon fibers of the cylindrical B-field.

Per Compton’s work,  the wavelength shift is maximum when the scattered photon’s angle of departure (from the electron) relative to the direction of the incoming photon is 180 degrees. This implies the incoming photon must have entered the electron’s cylindrical B-field in-line with (at zero degrees to) the longitudinal axis of the cylindrical B-field,  since this is the only orientation where the incoming photon will undergo maximum strength of interaction with one or more of the photon fibers of the cylindrical B-field.  This means the diameter of the circularly rotating incoming photon fiber increases the greatest in this orientation,  thereby resulting in smaller frequency and greater wavelength of the scattered photon.

In between the above extremes of scattered angles from zero to 180 degrees,  the wavelength shift gradually increases as the angle of departure of the scattered photon gradually increases,  from zero to 180 degrees,  relative to the direction of the incoming photon.  The angle of departure of the scattered photon is dependent on the angle of the incoming photon relative to the longitudinal axis of the bound cylindrical B-field of the electron, as implied in Compton’s work.  The strength of interaction between the incoming photon and the cylindrical B-field varies correspondingly with such angle, as well.

Research Derivation of the Electron (Post #2 Updated)

Compton’s work can be built upon to provide insight as to how diffracted interference patterns of light develop in the slit experiments.  Although,  Compton did scatter x-ray photons off a free or loosely bound electron,  there are similarities in the mechanism responsible for the Compton Effect and the mechanism that gives the interference patterns of light in slit experiments.

In the previous post regarding the Compton Effect,  it was mentioned that the angle of the direction of the scattered photon (from the electron) is dependent on the angle between the direction of the incident photon (into the electron) and the longitudinal axis of the bound cylindrical B-field that constitutes such electron.  This is implied in Compton’s work as was shown.

The primary difference,  between the two experiments,  is the electron is free in Compton’s work and the electron’s cylindrical B-field can have any possible orientation relative to an incident x-ray photon;  whereas in the slit experiment,  the orientations of the cylindrical B-fields of the electrons,  within the material along the edges of the slit,  have fixed orientations relative to the direction of the light photons that enter the slit.  Due to this difference,  the scattered photon in Compton’s experiment may depart at any angle from the electron;  whereas in the slit experiment,  the passing photon can only diffract at certain unique angles. 

 As a result,  light diffraction with interference bands develops on the detection screen in single or double slit experiments.  Electrons fired through slits will also create diffracted interference bands similar to light photons since electrons consist of photons, as proposed.

Dan, in your ideas, how many photons make up an electron? How comes photons have no rest mass while electrons do? How do oscillatory objects come up with a net charge which electrons have? And what is the evidence or what experiment do you propose to falsify your theory (I put the last question this way since verification in the proper sense is not possible, not to offfend you).

Kai,    In response to your comments,  multiple photon fibers strongly combine into a group due to their electric properties  (not “charge” because the electric property of a photon results from the movement of its B-elements,  per Maxwell’s calculus),  forming a cylindrical B-field,  which results from the oscillation and twirling of such photon fibers about the longitudinal axis of the cylindrical field.  (See Fig. 1 and 2 in the 1st  link for the photon and the electron,  respectively.)  Therefore,  when the half B-fields of two particles overlap,  each particle “feels” a spatial change in “B”,  which mobilizes the electric force between the particles per Maxwell’s calculus.  Thus, the mediation of the electric force is due to the interactions of multiple photon fibers of one particle with those of another particle.  Interchanging of photon fibers between particles is also possible,  making it similar to the mechanism used in QED.  The 2nd link shows an example of the mechanism that mediates the electric force between two particles.

The proposed cylindrical B-field that constitutes the electron must contain a spectrum of EM radiation photons from the radio photon to the x-ray photon,  since it emits such photons.  The radio photons occur at each tail end of the cylindrical B-field,  and the x-ray photons occur adjacent to each side of the center (mid-length) of the cylindrical B-field.  All other photons occur in between in accordance with their energy levels.  This arrangement is due to Maxwell’s calculus.

Our work shows that the mass of an electron doesn’t have a physical presence,  but is only the constant “m” that represents and varies with the level of energy of the bound cylindrical B-field that comprises the electron.  The energy of such B-field does have a physical presence;   this is the sum of the energies of its photon constituents.  Individually, photons have a zero mass constant;  however,  in a group,  such as the electron’s cylindrical B-field,  the photon fibers are interacting with each other.  Due to this,  a measurable force is required to accelerate the group of photons or “bundle of energy”,  whereas for a single photon,  such a force is not required.  The required force to cause a given acceleration of a group of photons is proportional to the sum of the energies of the photon fibers in the group.  The proportionality constant “m” results from this.

A basic argument in italics is given regarding the nature of radiation and matter:   As you know, Maxwell’s differential wave equations were derived from his differential calculus equations. Therefore, these two sets of equations have to be closely related – in other words,  one cannot understand the makeup of particles without understanding the makeup of EM radiation.  If this is the case,  then it becomes intuitive to think that a particle (physical theory) can be understood in terms of it being a bound field,  from which EM radiation is emitted.

Hence, if the makeup of EM radiation is determined,  then one can determine the makeup of a particle or vice-versa.  In our work,  Maxwell’s differential calculus is utilized to derive the bound cylindrical B-field that comprises the electron and gives its properties.  Based on the argument above,  the elements of the bound field of the electron must then be the same elements that together constitute EM radiation.

During the derivation of the bound electron field,  its elements were found to be oscillating fibers;  thus, these fibers must also be the elements of EM radiation,  per the reasoning above.  It was later realized that such fibers trace a waveform when they translate because they oscillate perpendicular to their translation.  As we know, radiation propagates in a waveform.  Therefore, the oscillating fibers must not only be the elements that together constitute EM radiation,  they must also be the photons (discrete entities) that were proposed by Einstein. 

From this,  it can be seen that the photon must be the common element,  by which,  a close relationship exists between Maxwell’s differential calculus equations  (which works with particles that are local bound fields)  and his differential wave equations  (which works with EM radiation),  since photons are the constituents of both particles and radiation.

Research Derivation of the Electron (Post #2 Updated)

Article What is the Electron Charge and How Does It Work (Post #3)

Kai,   Regarding your last comment in your previous post,  it has been shown on this thread how light can be viewed as a stream of individual entities that display both particle and wave characteristics without such entity actually being a wave or a particle.  For example,  such entity is consistent with the particle nature of light given by Planck, Einstein, and Compton;  and is consistent with Maxwell’s wave equations.  Meaningful explanations of the experimental results of slit experiments, and Compton’s work and mathematics, were addressed on the thread using the proposed models of light and the electron.

Part of a very early post on this thread is reproduced in italics:  “…it is possible to show how unusual phenomena,  understood in QM,  can also be understood classically if the makeup and dynamic structures of fermions and photons are understood.  These include entanglement,  double slit phenomenon,  particles occurring in two states at the same time,  why bulk matter doesn’t collapse under the electric force alone,  wave characteristics of particles,  the violation of the Bell inequality equation, tunneling, etc.”

 You mentioned:   “…what experiment do you propose to falsify your theory…”

In this regard,  the most notable of many experiments,  which have already been performed,  would be Bell’s inequality experiment.  The proposed models of the electron and the photon have axes along which,  their dynamic elements translate and/or oscillate.  Thus,  measurements and/or affects on the properties of either the electron or photon would vary in accordance with the cosine of the angle between the axis of measurement and the axis of either the electron or photon.  In accordance with Bell’s work,  the correlation/angle relationship is not linear,  but instead is related to the cosine function as reproduced in experiments and does not need to be attributed to QM.   In all cases, the Bell inequality equation for related experiments with electrons and photons is violated.

@Andrew Worsley. Raised in a tribe of corpuscularists, R. Feynman thought that the waves were only a intermediate and useful fiction, just good to calculate corpuscles. So he did not pay any attention to the temporal nor the spatial frequencies of these waves. With the calamitous consequences such an ignorance implies.