After listening to the episode about particle wave dualities, I spent a morning contemplating the issue while cleaning my shop. I had a thought that would seem to eliminate the issue of the particle wave duality, if it were true. This seems simple enough to me, but then again I don't have the physics background necessary to properly dissect my idea. Consequently I thought I'd post it here and see what sort of feedback I receive.

My idea is very simple. There is no particle wave duality because there is no particle. Never was.

My premise is that the universe carries energy in non-quantized packets of waves that we call light. The more energy in a packet the higher it's frequency. Nothing new so far. I'm using the term photon to describe this packet, though that word may not be entirely correct as a photon is considered to be a particle. But it's the best term I have for now.

Where my idea goes is that when the packet of energy encounters some matter there is a possibility of an interaction. When this interaction occurs it consists of the waveform collapsing and trying to transfer all of it's energy in to the matter (atom) that it is interacting with.

The bottom line is that when we we think that we see a photon as a particle that is not what we are seeing at all. We are instead seeing a photon collapse it's wave form, transferring it's energy into an existing particle. The particle is not the photon, it is the atom that it is interacting with.

What happens next depends on the energy state of the atom that the photon interacts with. In most cases the atom is unable to absorb the energy and so it sheds it as another photon. If the atom is able to absorb some energy it may shed a photon with a different frequency. This process takes time which is why light appears to slow down as it passes through different media.

There are some things that I don't have answers for. One of the most specific is why would a photon that is absorbed and re-emitted continue in the same direction of motion as it had been absorbed? This may be a deal breaker.

Anyhow, this idea would eliminate the need for a particle wave duality because there is no particle (there is no spoon!). It would raise questions as to what are the factors that control the probability that a wave might collapse when interacting with a particular atom.

Comments anyone?

That part is demonstrably false.

Nick

__________________
Nick Theodorakis

That's something that I was wondering about. Like I said, I don't have a physics background so I'm approaching this from a layman perspective. I didn't know if light frequencies are quantized or not. I don't think that affects the rest of my idea though.

I think what he meant was that you can the amount of energy of energy in a continuum--but the frequency changes. Amounts of energy at the same frequency would be quantized.

The following responds to the entries that asked questions that I can answer:

eric marsh: My idea is very simple. There is no particle wave duality because there is no particle. Never was.
dcl: Particle-wave duality is real. The same entity under appropriate conditions can be manifested as either a wave or a particle, but not both simultaneously. It's the circumstances that detemine whether the enteity is manifested as a wave packet or as a particle. We have no way of knowing what the entity really is. When light passes through an optical instrument, it behaves like a wave. When the same light falls on a photoelectric cell, it behaves like a stream of particles.

Can you provide me with an example of when a photon can be observed as a particle when it is not interacting with another particle?

An electron acts like a particle when it impinges on any photoactive surface. Such surfaces include photographic film, light-sensitive surfaces in electronic cameras, television pickup tubes, photoelectric cells, and charge-coupled devices (ccd's) used in astronomical telescopes these days instead of the photographic plates that they used to use.

In all of those cases the electron or a photon is interacting with a particle. Can a photon be observed to be a particle without interacting with another particle?

erich marsh, the answer to your question, "Can a photon be observed to be a particle without interacting with another particle?" appears to be, "No." As far as I am aware, it's only during interactions with masses ranging from nucleons to solids that photons can behave like particles. Someone more conversant with quantum mechanics may be able to cite situations in which isolated photons can behave like particles.

Eric, is this different than the Copenhagen Interpretation, and how so?

Nick

__________________
Nick Theodorakis

I do not profess to be knowledgeable on quantum mechanics, but it is my understanding that the Copenhagen interpretation asserts that a measurement MUST be taken in order to learn anything about the state of a quantum system and that the very act of taking the measurement inevitably changes the state of the system. This is the basis of the assertion that is impossible to measure simultaneously both the position and the momentum of any component of a quantum system.

The Copenhagen Interpretation asserts the existence of a particle after the waveform collapse. I'm questioning if there really is a particle. Yes, we see the waveform collapse at a specific location but did the waveform collapse to a particle or did it simply transfer the energy contained in the waveform to an existing particle?

I don't know the answer to this which is why I posted the question. If we can't observe a waveform collapsing without the collapse being caused by an interaction with a particle how do we know that the photon is a particle and not just a packet of energy carried as a waveform?

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_interpretation

The Copenhagen interpretation asserts that the existence of a wave function throughout a region is a measure of the probability that the corresponding particle exists at each point in that region. A measurement of the position of the particle causes the wave function to collapse to zero at every point except the determined position of the particle. The same action causes the motion of the particle to become completely unknown, It's a case of being able to have your cake or eat it but not both!