From: ericf@central.co.nz (Eric Flesch) Subject: Wave-Particle Duality -- Solution using SR, GR, and Time Quantization Date: 1996/07/11 Message-ID: <31e4a4a7.38545880@news.nn.iconz.co.nz> organization: Internet Company of New Zealand newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.electromag This article ties together my recent postings on this topic. Wave-Particle Duality (WPD) has been called the "Great Mystery of the 20th Century". Well, it's 1996 now and high time to solve this problem so we can get on with 21st century issues. All the necessary artifacts are in place, but today's Physics community has a blind spot which is preventing it from seeing the solution. I will describe the blind spot and show how it is addressed by Time Quantization (TQ). The concept of wave-particle duality (WPD) has come about because light (and electrons, etc) behaves like particles in some ways and like waves in other ways. The problem is that *individual* photons have this duality, so that a statistical explanation is ruled out. QED has indeed shown that an individual photon appears to take a summation of all possible paths to reach its destination. It is fashionable nowadays amongst the Physics/Optics community to account for this by positing that light travels as wave-packets, and that this confers wave-like qualities which allow light its I-am-everywhere-at-once behavior. The following account will show that this perspective is unnecessary, and that, as Richard Feynman said, light is simply made up of photon particles. SR and TQ together solve the WPD mystery, and give a physical description of how the photon's impingement pattern diffracts. This solution is shown to be consistent with GR, but entails a re-interpretation in one area which remains consistent with observation. The blind spot causing our problem is the idea that if an object moves from A to B, it must therefore perforce occupy all intermediate positions in turn. This may seem a sensible view to hold. However, this premise is directly addressed by Time Quantization, which holds that time is reducable (in principle) to discrete time quanta (one Planck time quantum = 5.9*10^-45 sec). We can use the word "manifestation" to mean one such time quantum. Betwixt two contiguous manifestations there is no in-between, but in principle there are boundary conditions. Of course, we cannot discern these time quanta, but it gets interesting when we combine TQ with SR's time dilation. A particle moving at relativistic speeds travels a calculable distance between manifestations. What does it mean, to manifest at point A, and then to manifest at point B, with no manifestation in between? And if the particle is at point A, how does it know exactly where point B is to be? It's a bit of a guess -- a probability game. Ah. Let us return to the photon. The photon, travelling *at* the speed of C, "exists" in a state of 100% time dilation. This means that no time passes for the photon. As seen by itself, it is emitted, and immediately absorbed. There is nothing between (i.e., there is no time quantum in between the photon's emission and absorption). Now. the standard model of light holds that the photon cruises the cosmos whilst interacting gravitationally with its environment. Such a scenario demands that the photon "do" things in its flight. However, the above discussion of the photon's available-time shows that no such interactions can happen in the photon's inertial frame, as it has no time in which to do them. This contradicts a fundamental principle of SR that an event which occurs in one inertial frame must occur in all frames. Therefore, the photon CANNOT perform these interactions. The logical extension of this is that the photon does not even inhabit its own flight path, as simple existence constitutes an event as defined by SR. For us to say that the photon is e.g. 2 AU from the sun is to say that a sun-photon configuration exists which does not exist in the photon's frame. Again, this must be wrong. Only those events which occur in the photon's frame can be ascribed to the photon. And those events are only 1) its emission 2) its absorption. There is nothing in between. The premise that the photon moves from A to B without existing at the intermediate points is immediately justifiable by using the photons frame. Moving *at* the speed of C obviates time and space -- the photon, to itself, is a simple instantaneous transfer of energy between two coexisting bodies. There are no points-in-between for the photon in its frame. The photon simply does not exist in our 4D-manifold, and indeed experiences a zero-dimensional universe. Thus, what is physically sensible in the photon's frame is simply mapped into our own space-time frame (which is defined by our maximum speed C). This mapping is what we call the photon's path. It is this path which follows the null geodesics which bend as per GR's prescription. The photon itself is never present. To summarize, light (the photon) experiences no time between its emission and absorption. Thus it has no existence between its emission and absorption. Thus, the photon's PATH follows null geodesics, but there is no photon there -- the path is only a mapping from the photon's 0-D metric into our 4-D metric. No photon = no gravitation or momentum. Even in GR. Note that this solution is falsifiable in a simple way: the photon is held to experience no events between its emission and absorption. Therefore the photon cannot be detected non-destructively. Indeed, the only way which we have ever detected a photon is by absorbing it. If someday a device is built which detects a photon while leaving it intact, then this solution is false. But it will never happen. And GR-textbook's visions of photons interacting gravitationally with massive bodies are simply the fantasies of authors using invalid examples to illustrate the valid tenets of GR. The examples are mistaken, not GR, as GR is not a theory of the nature of light. In GR, light paths follow null geodesics on the gravity-influenced 4-D manifold. Standard analysis in GR is that momentum is conserved between bodies using gravitation. Given the concept here is that the photon path contains no actual photon, this means no momentum needs to be exhanged. However, the final momentum of the impacting photon has been affected, as the photon's vector points differently. Does this violate conservation of momentum? The answer is no, if we slightly modify our interpretation of GR. The key is to fully understand how GR treats space-time and massive bodies. The massive bodies warp space-time, causing the 4-D space-time manifold to undulate according to the positions of the massive bodies. As the photon's path crosses this terrain, its null geodesic goes ever straight according to the terrain's contours -- even though it may look curved to our eyes. Current practice is to enforce conservation-of-momentum in our own 3-D geometry, in other words to un-GR the tensors back to our own geometry for the final bottom-line reconciliation. If instead the *GR 4-D manifold* is used for the momentum calculations so that conservation-of-momentum is reconciled on that terrain, then the above scenario does not violate this dictum. Timelike geodesics will also be recalculated, with minute changes in results -- e.g. calculations of Mercury's precession would yield an imperceptible increase. Perhaps Einstein thought about doing the calculations this way but shrunk back, just as he shrunk back from letting GR annoint the idea of an expanding universe (by introducing the universal constant). Einstein had to sell the GR idea to others, after all. Thus, momentum direction is preserved *on the GR space-time map*, although perhaps not according to our 3-D metric. As an aside, Bryan Beatty came up with a beattiful thought experiment showing that, given the above, an internally-powered craft can in theory be built if it includes a mass great enough to bend light paths 180 degrees. I don't think it would be a popular design, though. :-) Let's shift our view to the electron, continuing to bear in mind the principle of TQ that there is one "manifestation" per time quantum. Again, the photon, being 100%-time-dilated, gets zero manifestations. By comparison, a relativistically-moving electron might travel some pathetically small distance between its manifestations, maybe 10^-20 m. Past a certain threshold speed (i.e. above a certain energy level) its distance-travelled while in a non-manifested state will be long enough that the positional uncertainty allows it to diffract. Subsequent manifestations are oriented accordingly. So, how has this solved the problem of wave-particle duality? The solution is that if a particle uses a single time quantum to go from point A to point B, with a measurable space in between (preferably longer than the particle's radius), then the exact location of B becomes unclear, and maps into a diffuse path. In the case of the photon, it travels all the way from its source to its destination in the space of a single time quantum. The photon's path diffuses broadly and the end result is that we cannot say exactly where it will hit, unless we cheat by pre-determining its position (a la double-slit experiment). The final impact-point of the photon is reduced to probabilities and interference patterns. But when the photon hits -- splash, it's the particle which strikes, one time-quantum after it was emitted. And where does the photon hit? The mapped path decides, but it does not follow Newtonian rules, as no physical object is involved. The path diffuses and the precise point of impact becomes a probability game. Diffraction et all. You know the rest. Once we remove the idea of photons in flight, diffraction of the impact pattern of the light particles is immediate. Wave-particle duality is solved, with the simplest of solutions. Simple. As, of course, it must be. Eric Flesch Nelson, New Zealand 7 July 1996 ADDENDUM: On Quantum Field Theory: This is 20th century Ptolemaic epicycles. An attempt to formulate a complete mathematical description, but the underlying principle is wrong. On the idea that a travelling photon can be located in space-time: The double-slit experiment (which shows that a single photon goes thru both slits) can confidently be extrapolated to a double-slit apparatus light-years across. The photon coming from a distant source will still go through both slits, even though those slits are light-years apart. Therefore the photon is spread over an unbounded area. Therefore the photon is not discernable from the background vacuum. Therefore the photon does not exist. (Note that no time-analysis is needed in this identical conclusion)