The wave model of light is rejected by "particle like experiments" AND by the transparent mask, interference experiment.

Interference Experiment with a Transparent

Mask Rejects Wave Models of Light

Optics and Photonics Journal, 9, 75-80.

https://www.scirp.org/pdf/OPJ_2019061714522317.pdf

Additionally, single photons are detectable nowadays, e.g. by a single-photon avalanche diode:

Conference Paper Fabrication of InGaAs/InP single-photon avalanche diodes for...

John-Erik Persson >"Is light quantisation an illusion?"

Unfortunately, it is you (probably alone) are having this illusion about the photo-electric effect. The photoelectric effect is the only thing that Einstein was right about! The rest of Einstein’s physics, like yours is nothing but illusion. Like Don Quixote, Einstein fought the “Evil quanta” all his life and like Emmanuel Kant, Found it necessary to deny knowledge, to make room for faith”!

But Einstein showed his greatness by admitting his folly about the “Evil Quanta” (his own created Frankenstein-Monster), near the end of his life (1955), when in a letter (1954) to his life-long friend, Michelle Besso, Einstein wrote, “All these fifty years of conscious brooding have brought me no nearer to the answer to the question, 'What are light quanta?' Nowadays every Tom, Dick and Harry thinks he knows it, but he is mistaken... I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based on the field concept, i.e., on continuous structures. In that case, nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation theory included, [and of] the rest of modern physics.” Albert Einstein, quoted in A Pais, Subtle is the Lord …” The Science and the Life of Albert Einstein”, Oxford University Press, (1982) 467

You, Sir, like Einstein and most other field-based theoretical physicists, are terribly wrong about the “Evil Quanta”. Please see:

New Physics II – Quantum-Dialectical Derivation of New Mass-Energy Relation Invalidates Einstein’s Famous Equation E = mc2 : https://rajpub.com/index.php/jap/article/view/9642

New Physics – The Negation of Einstein’s Theories of Relativity. JOURNAL OF ADVANCES IN PHYSICS, 22, 54–61. https://doi.org/10.24297/jap.v22i.9594

“The Mystery of the Lorentz Transform: A Reconstruction and Its Implications for Einstein's Theories of Relativity and cosmology” : INSPIRE>HEP: https://inspirehep.net/literature/2158754

John Hodge

You are using very large masks. One is 1000 times the wavelength and the other is 3000 times the wave length. In relation to very large objects waves get a behaviour more like particles. So, the test proves nothing.

John-Erik

Abdul Malek

A light particle moving towards a surface cannot deliver momentum of opposite sign to what is contained on the particle and therefore cannot cause an electron to move away from the surface at aright angle. This mistake started quantum physics.

However, a light wave can make inference with a bound electron and cause the electron to escape. This process can also go in opposite direction and capturing a particle by an atom can generate a wave packet as demonstrated by how X-rays are generated by absorption of fast electrons.

Einstein got the Nobel Prize only for the equation describing the photoelectric effect and not for the (erratic) support for light quanta.

John-Erik

John-Erik Persson : I personally used X-Ray Photo-electron Spectroscopy (XPS) in Sweden (your country), a standard method of Electron Spectroscopy for Chemical Analysis (ESCA), also developed in Sweden itself; to determine the "!s electron orbital energy" of the N atom in dinitrogen complex molecules: "X-Ray Photoelectron Spectral (XPS) Studies of Molybdenum (0) and Tungsten (0) Dinitrogen Complexes": Article X-Ray Photoelectron Spectral (XPS) Studies of Molybdenum (0)...

This is how certain one can be about Photo-electrons! Cheers!

Abdul

Abdul Malek

Yes, I also said so:

However, a light wave can make inference with a bound electron and cause the electron to escape. This process can also go in opposite direction and capturing a particle by an atom can generate a wave packet as demonstrated by how X-rays are generated by absorption of fast electrons.

Einstein got the Nobel Prize only for the equation describing the photoelectric effect and not for the (erratic) support for light quanta.

You only repeat what I said; and why do you not comment on my other statement, namely that the photo-electric effect demonstrates light waves and not particles as Einstein said.

An light particle with momentum towards a surface cannot deliver momentum of opposite sign.

John-Erik

John-Erik Persson : You do not understand me, like most other formally trained or practising physicists, Sir! I am a dialectical materialist and not an ordinary (classical) materialist. I am talking of New Physics, namely Quantum-Dialectical physics - a particle-based physics, that has demolished causality, formal logic and mathematical idealism-based old Newtonian-Einsteinian physics and cosmology. Particulate matter is not a “myth” for New Physics, as it is with most theoretical physicists!

The now-recognized quantum phenomenon is a revolutionary aspect of objective reality (ontology) and needs a revolution in conventional epistemology and the rejection of the old causality-based one! The great Einstein realized it before everybody else, when he said, “Many physicists maintain - and there are weighty arguments in their favour – that in the face of these facts (quantum mechanical), not merely the differential law, but the law of causation itself - hitherto the ultimate basic postulate of all natural science – has collapsed”. A. Einstein, “Essays in Science”, p. 38-39 (1934).

The only sensible way to come out of the century-long confusion, endless and meaningless scholastic debates in modern theoretical physics and to get rid of all kinds of deceptions etc., please try New Quantum-Dialectical Physics, being developed in the following few representative publications, more to follow!

New Physics II – Quantum-Dialectical Derivation of New Mass-Energy Relation Invalidates Einstein’s Famous Equation E = mc2 : https://rajpub.com/index.php/jap/article/view/9642

New Physics – The Negation of Einstein’s Theories of Relativity. JOURNAL OF ADVANCES IN PHYSICS, 22, 54–61. https://doi.org/10.24297/jap.v22i.9594

“The Mystery of the Lorentz Transform: A Reconstruction and Its Implications for Einstein's Theories of Relativity and cosmology” : INSPIRE>HEP: https://inspirehep.net/literature/2158754

“Quō Vādis theoretical physics and cosmology? from Newton’s Metaphysics to Einstein’s Theology”: https://www.mathematicsgroup.us/abstracts/AMP-6-181

Abdul Malek

I ask a question in physics and you ask that question in a very peculiar way. You are preaching a home made philosophy. You abuse my question to talk about something very different.

John-Erik

John-Erik Persson : You just do not get it, Sir. I answered your question that light photons are point particles with tangible MASS and variable velocities and NOT mass-less wave (that you insist on) with an absolute and universally constant speed c (an absolute truth of Einstein!). I have demonstrated this scientifically, mathematically and philosophically and based on social/historical practice, observational and experimental evidence and published research, I have given references for! This demolishes all of LTs, "spacetime", gamma factor, SR, GR etc., ad nauseum of official and your type of physics. I am commenting with published references. What else you want me to do? To get involved in endless and meaningless scholastic debates; which you "physicist-priests” are engaged in for more than hundred years and still counting!

It is not only the absolute truth of Einstein; quantum-dialectics also busted the Newtonian absolute truth of the universal gravitational attraction, as well as Pushing Gravity of Louis Lesage (Fatio) et al; forever demolishing the Fairy Tales of "Big Bang" creation, dark/black cosmic monster etc.

I know that you lot and official science could not care less (for now) about New Physics, but time will work on you lot!! This New Physics has the backing of among others Kepler, Leibniz, Hegel, Engels of the pre-quantum physics and astrophysics, and of Halton (Chip) Arp, the Galileo of modern times!

You just have to take me seriously and not bark at, while the caravan moves on! I have challenged many Professors, scientists, mathematicians of RG, including a Nobel Laureate in theoretical physics, to prove me wrong in any of my published assertions on modern theoretical physics and cosmology; either to put up with me or shut up. If you see the various RG forums; you will see that I made most of them shut up!! Please try to see if you are an exception!

KEPLER -NEWTON -LEIBNIZ -HEGEL Portentous and Conflicting Legacies in Theoretical Physics, Cosmology and in Ruling Ideas

https://www.rajpub.com/index.php/jap/article/view/9106

“Quō Vādis theoretical physics and cosmology? from Newton’s Metaphysics to Einstein’s Theology”: https://www.mathematicsgroup.us/abstracts/AMP-6-181

Please note: I will not respond to any further comment from you, directed to me unless you can prove me wrong on (point) particle nature of photons. I give you some more references on that subject: "Real/Virtual Exchange of Quantum Particles as a Basis for the Resolution of Wave-Particle Duality and Other Anomalies of the Quantum Phenomena": Article Real/Virtual Exchange of Quantum Particles as a Basis for th...

John Hodge > "The wave model of light is rejected by "particle like experiments" AND by the transparent mask, interference experiment."

Your assertions are supported by many others. There is a fellow named Hui Peng, who has reported some incredible set of experiments with double or single slit experiments to demonstrate the particle nature of photons. Please see: Preprint Experiments Showing Incompleteness of Wave Theory of Light

Preprint Classical and Non-Classical Experiments of Physical Optics: ...

Abdul Malek

Thanks for the reference. I had seen Hui Peng's papers. I think his experiments do NOT reject wave models of light.

Abdul Malek

You are contradicting yourself. You say that you accept attracting gravity as well as pushing gravity. No force can exist between 2 material bodies.

I agree about Big Bang. I explain red shift by a radial ether wind. What is your explanation?

John-Erik

John Hodge : In my few recent publications, based on quantum-dialectics, I was able to demonstrate the ballistic nature of EM photons; where their mass (depending on energy) is inversely proportional to the cube of their velocity. This is supported by the fact that gamma ray photons from GRBs or even from supernova at cosmic distances, arrive (as long as) few minutes later than visible photons.

Through my publications, I have also shown that Lts, "spacetime", the gamma factor, SR, GR and most of modern (field-based) theoretical physics and cosmology, have no basis in objective reality! All of Official cosmology from Newton to Einstein is nothing but concocted myth and fairy tales. These myths are brain-cooked and (Kantian) subjective logical/mathematical categories, derived from Newton's axiomatic truth of "universal gravitational attraction", Einstein's axiomatic (geometrical) assumption that "the velocity of light is invariable and an absolute truth".

Hui Peng's experiments show that the wave/particle behaviour depends on the distance between the slit and the screen and that one form inter-converts to the other in the intermediate region or depending on the geometry of the set up. But the particle form predominates close to the slits. As I suggested to Hui Peng, the only way his experimental findings can be explained is by assuming that the photons are particles, propagated as wave through ultra-rapid exchanges with the virtual particles of the quantum vacuum. Please see: "Real/Virtual Exchange of Quantum Particles as a Basis for the Resolution of Wave-Particle Duality and Other Anomalies of the Quantum Phenomena". Article Real/Virtual Exchange of Quantum Particles as a Basis for th...

Abdul Malek

To me those discussions about abstract things such as "reality" are just useless exercises. IMO science should be useful to the survival of humanity. Its special province is determining how to cause nature outcomes. To cause one must first predict. So, humanity uses models/theories. At the outside of predictions are statistical observations such as QM. To reduce QM to prediction and causation requires a much better model of the small. This starts with light. A better model should be one that explains/predicts both particle-like observations and wave-like observations.

So, my effort has been on modeling experiments/observations of both the big and small.

I've chosen a particle (photon) model that explains both. The trick, then, is to explain (computer toy simulation) interference observations with photons.

So, Hui Peng suggests several experiments which he claims (falsely IMO) to support a photon model (he doesn't say what his photon model is) to the exclusion of a wave explanation. I maintain all his experiments can be explained by a wave model.

The essence of wave diffraction and interference models is that light goes thru a slit(s) and then spreads outward from the centerline and will interfere. All his experiments do this.

To demonstrate a contrast, One of my experiments placed an attenuating filter over half the width of a slit. The part of the diffraction pattern on the screen that was dimmer than the other half was on the side of the centerline OPPOSITE the side with the filter - light is not spreading but is crossing the centerline before spreading. The effect can be seen in Coulder and Ford's experiment with walking drops which also show a diffraction pattern after passing a slit.

The transparent mask experiment attacks another part of the wave explanation. First establish a diffraction pattern. Then add a glass plate and note the diffraction pattern passes thru the glass unchanged. Next place a slit in the glass, see an interference pattern (2 slit). fourth, place a nail to block the light going thru the glass slit, still see an interference pattern without light going thru the slit (thus - not a wave explanation). The last is to remove the slit (only a glass plate) and see the diffraction pattern - that is, interference REQUIRES the glass slit even though no light is going thru the slit. I'm not aware of any photon model (or wave model) other than mine that model this observation.

Again the walking drop experiment offers a possible model. The walker goes thru the slit THEN selects a direction after passing the slit wall. That is, the reflected wave in the oil bath caused by the drop off the wall and NOT off the slit part of the wall form the force on the drop to be directed.

John Hodge >"To me those discussions about abstract things such as "reality" are just useless exercises."

Yes, indeed! "Its special province is determining how to cause nature outcomes" - to cause the MOTHER of ALL "REALITY", i.e. "Scalar Theory of Everything (STOE)". Congratulations!

Preston

You are wrong. A particle with momentum towards a surface cannot deliver momentum in opposite direction.

John-Erik

John Hodge Abdul Malek Jürgen Weippert

Quantum physics started with Einstein's mistake regarding the photoelectric effect. Einstein did not see that a light particle with momentum towards a surface could not deliver momentum in opposite direction.

John-Erik

Publish that in Nature Physics. Go ahead.

How reality appears to us depends on the point of view. For physics, it means a way of observing - an experiment. Also, the problem of time is tied to experiment, so time is a relative quantity. Because in human perception there is a clear difference in quality whether a particle is a quantum or a wave. However, this uniqueness does not apply in the microworld. Hence the controversy surrounding the wave corpuscular nature of the microworld and their particles is unnecessary.

Explanation:

We call wave-corpuscular (wave-particle) dualism that feature of our view of the universe that causes us to explain some phenomena in the same microworld objects better if we view these objects as waves or more like particles.

Dualism means that an object has both properties at the same time, and these are revealed to us according to the measurements we expose it to. Depending on the measurement (the type of interaction with the environment), microworld objects are better described as particles or waves. Historically, the corpuscular nature of electromagnetic waves was first described, and later the wave nature of elementary particles was also described.

There is no wave-particle dualism. The wave model can explain all. The reason is that we have very bad understanding of the wave, but particles are better understood.

Yes, the wave model can explain it all. The particle model can also explain it all. You can use either since they have been proven to be mathematically equivalent.

I see no error in Einstein's paper on the photo-electric effect. But I do see him raising a point that is often overlooked: If a single photon of light is a wave spread out over space, how does the energy in that wave that is spread out come back to one point in space when a photon hits a screen?

This question favors the particle model, but it, too, can be explained by the wave model, as Einstein pointed out, as long as the wave carries no energy. If it carries energy, then how does a wave spread out over space bring that energy back to one point?

As Einstein points out, it is natural to think of energy spreading out in the form of a wave as it travels through space, but what forces could cause all that energy to come back to one point? There is no good way to explain this.

I think Einstein's point shows that this isn't an simple as it looks. But there still is a way to explain it using either the wave model or the particle model.

Doug Marman

since they have been proven to be mathematically equivalent.

No, they are not equivalent in my opinion

John-Erik

John-Erik Persson

The question of whether light quantization is an illusion is indeed intriguing and has sparked considerable debate over the years. While the photoelectric effect is often cited as evidence for the particle nature of light, there are arguments for wave-centric models as well. In my paper, "Article Origin of Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle

Complex Numbers and Quantum Mechanics: In quantum mechanics, complex numbers are fundamental in describing wave functions. These wave functions encapsulate the probabilities of different outcomes, with the real part representing measurable quantities and the imaginary part accounting for internal dynamics. This dual representation aligns with the wave-particle duality observed in light and other quantum entities.

Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle: My paper delves into the origin of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle by considering complementary variables (such as position and momentum) as complex numbers. This approach reveals that the uncertainties are not mere measurement artifacts but reflect deeper properties of particles and their interactions in a complex vector space. The complex plane provides a framework where the uncertainties emerge naturally due to the vibrations and internal states of particles.

Wave-Particle Duality: The wave-particle duality of light is a cornerstone of quantum mechanics. While the photoelectric effect supports the particle nature of light, phenomena like diffraction and interference underscore its wave characteristics. My research suggests that this duality can be understood through the complex representation of physical quantities. The imaginary component of complex numbers can be associated with the wave aspect, while the real component aligns with the particle behavior.

Energy and Time Uncertainty: In the paper, I also explore the energy-time uncertainty relationship within the complex plane. By considering energy and time as complex variables, we gain a more comprehensive understanding of their interplay. This approach can explain how light, even when described as waves, exhibits quantized energy levels. The complex vector space allows for the coexistence of continuous wave-like behavior and discrete particle-like interactions.

Conclusion: In summary, while the photoelectric effect is a strong argument for the quantization of light, it does not necessarily negate the wave nature of light. Instead, both aspects can be reconciled through a deeper understanding of complex numbers in quantum mechanics. My work provides a theoretical foundation that supports the dual nature of light, integrating wave and particle descriptions into a cohesive framework. This perspective suggests that light quantization is not an illusion but a manifestation of the underlying complex nature of quantum phenomena.

I encourage you to read my paper, "Article Origin of Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle

Dear Doug Marman ,

"...how does the energy in that wave that is spread out come back to one point in space when a photon hits a screen?"

I cannot follow: what do you mean with "come back to one point in space"?

What kind of experiment do you have in mind here?

Bhushan Bhoja Poojary

the photoelectric effect is a strong argument for the quantization of light,

I do not think so. A light particle moving towards a surface cannot force an electron to move away from the surface.

John-Erik

Bhushan Bhoja Poojary

A light particle moving towards a surface cannot force an electron to move in opposite direction.

Johannes Nokkala

You may publish instead of me, since I am 89 years of age.

John-Erik

Abdul Malek Bhushan Bhoja Poojary

Abdul Malek

No, light waves do not need to have mass, since they cause a force by the interaction with the ether.

John-Erik

Andreas Schwarz,

You quoted me:

"...how does the energy in that wave that is spread out come back to one point in space when a photon hits a screen?"

You said this: "I cannot follow: what do you mean with "come back to one point in space"?"

Then you asked: "What kind of experiment do you have in mind here?"

Einstein made this comment in his 1905 paper on the photoelectric effect. So, that is a perfectly good example of an experiment where this becomes an issue.

However, any experiment where a photon is absorbed and this creates a measurable response, also applies. I think the best case to see this is when a single photon hits a screen after passing through the slits in a double-slit experiment.

One of the things that bothered Einstein was that light had been considered a wave. If we are talking about one photon, and we picture this photon as an actual wave, or like a ripple on a wave-front, then it will spread out over space as it travels. This is how quantum field theory describes this as well. We see the wave as carrying statistical information that is spread out over space on where the photon might land.

This is considered a superposition state, where the photon is in all possible locations, with varying statistics as to the probabilities, all at the same time. If this wave function carries real energy, then that energy is, in effect, spread out over space.

But when that single photon hits a screen, or the surface of a vane in the photoelectric experiment, the transfer of energy happens only at one point in space.

Thus, the question: How does 100% of the energy of that photon that is spread out over space end up being absorbed by one atom at one point in space? Einstein had run experiments showing that 100% of the energy was absorbed.

This is a problem if the energy is carried by the whole wave and the wave has spread out over space. This directly applies to any experiment where one photon is used at a time, such as double-slit experiments.

One solution to this that comes from the Relativistic Transactional Interpretation of quantum mechanics, which says that the wave does not carry energy. The wave represents possibilities not actualities. The transfer of energy happens later, and that transfer happens directly from the emitter to the absorber. The energy is transferred by a photon.

This version makes it easier to picture the photon as a particle. However, you can also use field theory to arrive at the same solution. In either case, the energy does not spread out over space, but is carried from one point in space, where the emitter is, to another point in space, where the absorber is.

Wheeler and Feynman called this direct action.

John-Erik Persson No. Your work, you publish. Roll up those sleeves.

Dear Doug Marman ,

thank you very much for this exhaustive explanation.

You wrote:

"The transfer of energy happens later ... by a photon"

This sounds as if there were a two phase mechanism:

first the/a (which kind of?) wave to find the path (like with lightnings),

then along the established path the "real" energy is flowing.

Are there any experiments, which tells something about an additional delay, i.e. 2x or even 3x the time needed for a wave in vacuum between emitting the light/photon and the reaction on the target?

If there is no delay at all, this model is out of order (to my opinion)...

Andreas Schwarz,

You wrote:

"This sounds as if there were a two phase mechanism:

first the/a (which kind of?) wave to find the path (like with lightnings), then along the established path the "real" energy is flowing.

"Are there any experiments, which tells something about an additional delay, i.e. 2x or even 3x the time needed for a wave in vacuum between emitting the light/photon and the reaction on the target?

"If there is no delay at all, this model is out of order (to my opinion)..."

Good questions. Yes, there is two phases to this mechanism. As a result, we need to see some order in what happens first, then what happens next, and how does one lead to the next.

And yes, there are lots of experiments that show this interpretation is valid. However, there is actually no delay, but there is a good reason why there is no delay.

The first phase is the traditional "pure quantum state," also known as the superposition state. According to the RTI interpretation I mentioned earlier, this phase happens outside of spacetime. This is consistent with how superposition states are treated mathematically: They take place in the n-dimensional vector space called Hilbert space.

When the Transactional Interpretation was first proposed, these wave functions were treated as if they travel through spacetime. There were two types of wave functions: one set of wave travels forwards in time from the emitter to all of the possible absorbers. The second set of waves travel from all the possible absorbers backwards in time to the emitter.

Wheeler and Feynman showed that all of these waves cancel each other out, except for the two waves that travels directly between the emitter to the absorber. There are two waves, one from the emitter and one from the absorber, and in this case the two waves add together because their wave functions match. The explains why Born's Law tells us that we need to square the wave amplitude to determine the probabilities. We need to square it because there are two matching waves.

As you can see, there is no delay, but what you have instead is wave functions traveling backwards in time. However, Wheeler and Feynman's solution was not a full quantum model. Once the interpretation was made fully relativistic, with RTI, then the whole traveling backwards through time part disappeared. Instead, this first phase happens outside of spacetime. Thus, no delay.

So, yes, you are right, during this first phase, the path is found, which is what happens every time there is a lightning strike, or any form of electromagnetic radiation.

TI and RTI, say that this first phase is a pure quantum exchange, no energy is carried through spacetime. After a match is made between the emitter and absorber, which TI calls a "handshake," then a real photon is emitted that is absorbed.

This second phase is the wave functional collapse state. In fact, this interpretation explains exactly what happens during a wave collapse, explaining the biggest mysteries with the measurement problem.

It is also easiest to understand this interpretation by using a particle model, which was got Feynman interested in the first place. However, it has been shown to be mathematically equivalent to quantum field theory.

OK, this sounds like the Pilot-Wave model (Bohm), which then seems to be correct.

Also my idea expects that all oscillators are a bit in "contact" with each other through the medium's "sea" of PLANCK-waves, at least all those, which already exist for at least the related time...

Agree to no dualism (wave-particle duality). But light is particles, e.g., quantized, directed by waves in an etherlike substance. But unlike Bohm (that doesn't identify the source of the wave), the STOE suggests the light particle produces the wave in the ether.

Light wave rejected by an interference experiment:

Interference Experiment with a Transparent Mask Rejects Wave Models of Light

https://scirp.org/journal/paperinformation?paperid=93056

Optics and Photonics Journal > Vol.9 No.6, June 2019

Andreas, your description sounds quite close. Thanks for the dialogue.